0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessAbstract. Long-term environmental research networks are one approach to advancing local, regional, and global environmental science and education. A remarkable number and wide variety of environmental research networks operate around the world today. These are diverse in funding, infrastructure, motivating questions, scientific strengths, and the sciences that birthed and maintain the networks. Some networks have individual sites that were selected because they had produced invaluable long-term data, while other networks have new sites selected to span ecological gradients. However, all long-term environmental networks share two challenges. Networks must keep pace with scientific advances and interact with both the scientific community and society at large. If networks fall short of successfully addressing these challenges, they risk becoming irrelevant. The objective of this paper is to assert that the biogeosciences offer environmental research networks a number of opportunities to expand scientific impact and public engagement. We explore some of these opportunities with four networks: the International Long-Term Ecological Research Network programs (ILTERs), critical zone observatories (CZOs), Earth and ecological observatory networks (EONs), and the FLUXNET program of eddy flux sites. While these networks were founded and expanded by interdisciplinary scientists, the preponderance of expertise and funding has gravitated activities of ILTERs and EONs toward ecology and biology, CZOs toward the Earth sciences and geology, and FLUXNET toward ecophysiology and micrometeorology. Our point is not to homogenize networks, nor to diminish disciplinary science. Rather, we argue that by more fully incorporating the integration of biology and geology in long-term environmental research networks, scientists can better leverage network assets, keep pace with the ever-changing science of the environment, and engage with larger scientific and public audiences.
Daniel D. Richter, Sharon Billings, Peter M. Groffman, Eugene F. Kelly, Kathleen A. Lohse, William H. McDowell, Timothy S. White, Suzanne P. Anderson, Dennis Baldocchi, Steven A. Banwart, Susan L. Brantley, Jean‐Jacques Braun, Zachary Brecheisen, Charles W. Cook, Hilairy E. Hartnett, Sarah E. Hobbie, Jérôme Gaillardet, Estéban G. Jobbágy, Hermann F. Jungkunst, Clare E. Kazanski, Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Daniel Markewitz, Katherine O’Neill, C. S. Riebe, Paul A. Schroeder, Christina Siebe, Whendee L. Silver, Aaron Thompson, Anne Verhoef, Gan‐Lin Zhang (2018). Ideas and perspectives: Strengthening the biogeosciences in environmental research networks. , 15(15), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4815-2018.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2018
Authors
30
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
en
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4815-2018
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access