Search Results

This chapter summarizes what the authors consider to be the key and general organizing principles of kelp forests and coral reefs along gradients of oceanography, latitude, and effects of fishing and resource use on these ecosystems. The general structure of these food webs is described as well as the effects of top-down versus bottom-up controls and the prevalence of trophic cascades. Human effects and recommendations for management are presented.

The impact of climate on fisheries is highly variable, indirect, and complex. Several dominant themes related to climate change and fisheries are considered in some of the chapters in this volume (Chapters 2, 3, and 6), including: complex interactions, formation of patterns over large-scales, high variability over small-scales, and the desirability of forecasting tools. This chapter discusses how these themes are focal issues in many of the world's seas, including the northeast Pacific Ocean. The chapter identifies how established climate-fish links often deteriorate with time, and underscore the role of regime shifts and switches of climatic controlling factors.

This chapter examines specimens picked from the Isaacs–Kidd midwater trawl (IKMT) samples selected from the collections available at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). It notes that additional specimens were obtained from the IKMT, plankton net, and the MOCNESS (Multiple Opening/Closing Net and Environmental Sensing System) samples available at the National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Institution (USNM), the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and the University of Rhode Island (URI). It examines a total of 148 samples (one plankton net, 126 IKMT and 21 MOCNESS samples) collected throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. It accounts the sources, the areas they represent, the number of examples examined and the extent of geographic coverage for each ocean. It notes that citation of type material includes the number of specimens, collecting gear, sampling depth, source, expedition, cruise number, station number, latitude and longitude, area, and date of collection.

The period between 1880 and 1930 laid the foundations for modern oceanography. It was a time of great expeditions and great expansion of sophisticated instrumentation. A shift to acoustics and marine physics also emerged, and along with this expansion came great advances in ocean engineering, which in turn benefitted studies in marine biology, including nutrient chemistry. In the 1960s and 1970s, large scale-cooperative investigations became dominant features. This concluding chapter presents a brief history of oceanography and some of the important contributions of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. It pays special attention to the human impact on the oceans and the life within it. The chapter also presents recommendations for future research and approaches for managing sustainability and life-support systems in the ocean.

This book explores the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the ocean. It discusses the history of oceanography and exploration, and pays special attention to the developments of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the largest and oldest oceanographic institute in the United States. The chapter also examines the workings of the ocean as a life-support system and highlights the consequences of human impact on the ocean environment.

This chapter discusses the impact of human activities on the ocean and provides a brief history of the expansion of ocean research. It begins by discussing the major causes of fishery decline in the North Atlantic. This is followed by a discussion on the history of early oceanography and the contributions of the Challenger Expedition and other expeditions that led to the progress of oceanographic science. The chapter then describes the history of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a research center concerned with the study of nearshore and deep-sea organisms, as well as the geophysics of the seafloor and life-support systems of the planet.

When the Arctic (ARC) Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) project began, I was an aquatic ecologist with experience in managing large projects in freshwaters and estuaries and a specialization in microbes. This project, which studies lakes, streams, and tundras, has greatly increased my breadth as an ecologist and allowed me to take part in terrestrial modeling, microbial studies in streams, and the role of soil mycorrhizal fungi in providing nutrients to many species of plants. As a mentor to several postdoctoral fellows, my LTER research has enabled me to learn about other fields such as the application of molecular biology to microbial ecology. The Arctic LTER project data, the long-term field experiments, and the facilities available at the University of Alaska field station brought me in contact with ecologists from many countries. One result of this association with experts was my coauthorship of a book on Arctic natural history aimed at communicating scientific knowledge to scientists and the general public unfamiliar with the Arctic (Huryn and Hobbie 2012). I have always collaborated extensively with many scientists and encouraged collaboration as the best way to carry out ecosystem research. The Arctic LTER project brought many opportunities to broaden the scope of my collaboration to include terrestrial ecologists and microbiologists. My PhD research was about year-round primary productivity of an Arctic lake but while on a postdoctoral fellowship at Uppsala University, Sweden, I switched to an emphasis on bacterial uptake kinetics in lakes. The techniques I helped develop in freshwater worked in the ocean and estuaries too (Hobbie and Williams 1984). In addition we developed the epifluorescence method for quantifying the abundance of planktonic bacteria. Our paper (Hobbie, Daley, and Jasper 1977) finally convinced oceanographers that bacteria are abundant (at 10⁹ per liter) and important. Recently, I have used my understanding of kinetics of uptake to analyze microbial activity in the soil. My Arctic expertise led to leadership of the aquatic part of the International Biological Program (IBP) at Barrow, Alaska, beginning in 1970. We (28 scientists, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows) studied shallow ponds to quantify the carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles.

My college education as a fish and fishery ecologist provided a solid base for my evolution to a scientist absorbed by the long-term ecology of lakes in the landscape. Graduate students in the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program and in my course lectures came to represent more disciplines and became more interdisciplinary, often addressing major ecological questions using long-term data. Viewing the dynamics of a time series and spatial maps became strong approaches in the LTER program for communicating with colleagues and the broader community. The LTER program would have failed without the realization and the broad application of collaboration. That is true, of course, for much of what we do. The LTER program is a great way to participate in and learn from a life of science teaching, research, application, and outreach. My association with the LTER program began in the late 1970s when I was a 41- year-old associate professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. It continued through the remainder of my professional life to the present; I am now an 80-year-old emeritus professor at the Center for Limnology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. I had been the program director for Ecology in the Division of Environmental Biology at the National Science Foundation (NSF) for 1 year (1975–1976) and saw the first movements toward such a program. I participated in all three NSF workshops in the late 1970s to consider and plan an LTER program. At the workshops, I represented the perspectives of limnology and our field site at the Trout Lake Station in northern Wisconsin. Ideas being discussed and planned were of great interest to me. I believed that research opportunities at field stations with this long- term approach were important to the ecological sciences and to biological field stations across the country. My colleagues and I at the University of Wisconsin–Madison responded to NSF’s initial call for proposals; we were one of the first six sites to be funded for a proposal entitled “Long-Term Ecological Research on Lake Ecosystems.”

The temporal perspective provided by the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program places individual, limited, short-term observations and experiments in a valuable context. Proper interpretation of short-term results may be incomplete without a longer-term perspective. This often makes me skeptical of individual studies. The remote location and harsh environment of Antarctica place special demands and constraints on research, collaboration, and education. Meeting these challenges is one of the most exhilarating aspects of our LTER project. Keeping the proper balance between maintaining continuity of observations and keeping the research program new and innovative is another key challenge for research in the LTER program. But rather than constraining them, the ongoing nature of the LTER program facilitates and enhances creative observations and innovation. In 2001, I joined the LTER network as lead principal investigator for the Palmer LTER project (PAL), one of two pelagic marine sites in the LTER network. That was my first formal exposure to the LTER program, about midway through my scientific career. After majoring in the history of science in college, I received my PhD in environmental engineering from Harvard in 1977. I was originally trained as an environmental microbiologist and gradually evolved into a biological oceanographer and ocean biogeochemist. Prior to joining PAL, I worked in other large, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary ocean science programs. In addition to leading PAL, I study the roles of ocean microbes in the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and other elements in the ice-influenced ocean surrounding Antarctica. As a principal investigator, I participate in planning and guiding the LTER network. Network participation has significantly broadened my perspective on my own personal scientific work. This participation has been one of my more interesting and fulfilling experiences as a scientist. Over the past 20 years, research has shown that the western Antarctic Peninsula is one of the most rapidly warming regions on earth, and we are gradually beginning to understand how the ecosystem is responding to this unprecedented rate of change. Joining PAL changed my life. (Actually, going to Antarctica for the first time changed my life, but the LTER program gave me the opportunity to go there every year.)

The Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has shaped almost every aspect of my scientific career. It has enabled me to pursue ecoinformatics, a new and growing field, while allowing me to build on my training as an environmental scientist within the context of an intelligent, vibrant, and dedicated team of researchers and collaborators. Skills that I learned initially as part of workshops sponsored by the LTER program—on Geographical Information Systems (GIS), ecological information management, and wireless sensor networks—are now the skills I teach to others in a variety of formal and informal educational settings, including graduate and undergraduate classes. As a leader in sharing scientific data, the LTER program provides a strong positive and dynamic example of how data can be shared to enable new scientific syntheses. I communicate widely within the LTER network and with the larger community regarding the ethics, techniques, and values of data sharing. Collaboration, with researchers and other information managers, is a critical aspect of successfully promoting the sharing of ecological data and the important new discoveries that arise from such sharing. I started my work with the Virginia Coast Reserve (VCR) project in the LTER program at its inception in 1987. I started work at VCR site immediately after completing graduate school, as a postdoctoral fellow (1988– 1991), then subsequently as a co–principal investigator and eventually as principal investigator. Although my primary contribution to the project has been as an information manager, I also engage in a variety of landscape, environmental sensing, and population-related research. Also, I briefly served as principal investigator (1997–1998), when the former and subsequent principal investigator (Bruce Hayden) did a rotation at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Within the LTER network, I have been very active in the Information Management (IM) committee and served on the LTER Executive Committee (1997–2002) and as a cochair of the Network Information System Advisory Committee. In addition, I served as a part-time program director in Biological Databases at NSF (1993–1994). Academically, I am a research associate professor at the University of Virginia, where in addition to my research, I teach courses on GIS.

The essays in this volume are analyzed to assess the degree to which they portray scientific and beyond-science interactions. The Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program represents a scientific or intellectual movement based on articulation of the program’s highly respected founders, resource allocation for individual and collective pursuits, use of LTER sites for recruitment, and commonly held themes or foci for research. Interdisciplinary scientific interactions within the LTER program have influenced researchers’ ideas, networks, and productivity but have also presented challenges, particularly for junior participants. Interactions beyond the scientific community focus on one-dimensional flows of information as well as on collaborative, multidirectional partnerships with a variety of stakeholders. This analytical chapter explores social interactions catalyzed by experiences of scientists associated with the LTER program. I analyze the essays by LTER scientists in this volume using a broad, three- tiered structure: (1) the degree to which insights from the essays suggest that the LTER program represents a scientific or intellectual movement within environmental sciences examining ecological dynamics; (2) the extent of interdisciplinary interactions with scientists across broader fields of study, including associated reactions and challenges; and (3) interactions with others beyond science. Findings are examined across different career stages of respondents. Direct quotations are used to illustrate findings and to provide evidence for conclusions based on the LTER scientists’ own words. The LTER program was initiated 34 years ago (Waide [Chapter 2]; Gholz, Marinelli, and Taylor [Chapter 3]). Given the growth of the LTER program, in terms of the number and geographic distribution of sites, as well as the contributions of engaged scientists and students, there is no doubt of the influence of the LTER program on the science of ecology and general understanding of ecosystems around the world (Robertson et al. 2012). In this chapter, I examine the social interactions of scientists in the LTER program through the lenses provided by their essays in this volume to explore three dimensions—interactions within the environmental sciences focused on ecological dynamics, broader interdisciplinary interactions, and interactions with stakeholders beyond science.

There are many precedents for long-term research in the history of science. Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program’s current identity reflects significant change—intended and accidental, both consensual and conflictual—from research concerns that were prevalent in the 1980s. LTER program has pioneered modes of research organization and professional norms that are increasingly prominent in many areas of research and that belong to a significant transformation in the social relations of scientific research. The essays in this volume explore the impact of the LTER program, a generation after its founding, on both the practice of ecological science and the careers of scientists. The authors have applied the agenda of long- term scrutiny to their own careers as LTER researchers. They have recognized the LTER program as distinct, even perhaps unique, both in the ways that it creates knowledge and in the ways that it shapes careers. They have reflected on how they have taught (and were taught) in LTER settings, on how they interact with one another and with the public, and on how research in the LTER program has affected them “as persons.” A rationale for this volume is LTER’s distinctiveness. In many of the chapters, and in other general treatments of the LTER program, beginning with Callahan (1984), one finds a tone of defensiveness. Sometimes the concerns are explicit: authors (e.g., Stafford, Knapp, Lugo, Morris; Chapters 5, 22, 25, 33, respectively) bemoan colleagues who dismiss LTER as mere monitoring instead of serious science or who resent LTER’s independent funding stream. But more broadly, there is concern that various groups, ranging from other bioscientists to the public at large, may not appreciate the importance of long-term, site-specific environmental research. Accordingly, my hope here is to put LTER into several broader contexts. I do so in three ways. First, to mainstream LTER within the history of science, I show that the LTER program is not a new and odd way of doing science but rather exemplifies research agendas that have been recognized at least since the seventeenth century in the biosciences and beyond.

One way to address big-scale problems and processes is to use small-scale data to construct and test mechanistic models of events at higher levels of organization and at larger spatial scales. Even though this general approach to understanding ocean ecosystems underpins much of biological oceanography, it has not been so commonly used in efforts to understand the population and community dynamics of marine mammals. This chapter uses demographic and bioenergetic tools to explore difficult-to-observe predator-prey interactions in marine mammal communities. It aims to understand better the interactions of mammal-feeding killer whales with their prey species in the North Pacific region, particularly in the vicinity of the Aleutian archipelago.

Did the removal of megatons of upper-trophic-level consumers significantly alter food-web dynamics by removing significant levels of predatory controls over prey populations, removing an important prey resource for predator populations, and changing the sensitivity of the ecosystem to physical forcing because of new predator-prey functional relationships? In order to address this question, it is necessary to understand where and when whales were harvested in the North Pacific Ocean, and how this ultimately affected whale distribution. Whales were not uniformly distributed across this broad region, and the roles they played were concentrated in relatively small areas. This chapter shows where great whales formerly were found in abundance in the North Pacific, relates those distributions to oceanography, and briefly explores some examples of the magnitude of change that might have resulted from the loss of great whales in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea.

In its first five years of existence, the Science Committee elaborated the three funding schemes that typified the science program for the following fifty years: fellowships to study abroad, the organization of meetings (or Advanced Study Institutes) and research grants for collaborative projects. Analysing the quantitative data available on these three strands, this chapters reveals that while in principle NATO agreed to fund studies in a variety of disciplines, in reality this sponsorship was slanted so as to accommodate defense ambitions. In particular the creation of three subgroups of the Science Committee recommending studies on oceanography, meteorology, and radio meteorology marked the effort to prioritize projects aligned to the alliance's surveillance operations.

In the early 1990s a group of American oceanographers sought to change their focus away from Cold War military concerns and toward environmental matters related to anthropogenic climate change. Drawing on insights and technologies developed in the Cold War, they proposed an experiment called ATOC—Acoustic Tomography of Ocean Climate—designed to provide definitive evidence of global warming. But the project was blocked when environmentalists and marine biologists raised concerns that it would harm marine mammals. In the ensuing public debate, the public judged the scientists more on their past activities than their present aspirations: many citizens distrusted the scientists’ new-found environmental passion and believed that global warming was a cover story hiding a secret military project. In the end, they judged scientists who had dedicated their lives to studying the ocean as a theatre of warfare not credible when they presented themselves as trustworthy guardians of the ocean as an abode of life. The failure of ATOC suggests that while Cold war military support led to numerous fundamental advances in understanding the ocean environment, it also created a community of scientists who were disrespectful not only of lay concerns but even of scientific evidence from other domains, unable to explain their work to diverse publics, and distrusted by significant segments of the American people. Forty years of military patronage were not just epistemically consequential, they were socially and culturally consequential as well.