In hopes of securing FY 2004 funding, the American Institute of Biological Sciences released a white paper March 25 intended to strengthen arguments for a long-sought nationwide network of ecological observatories. First proposed more than four years ago, the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) project has faced an uphill battle, having been passed over by appropriators who complained of a lack of detail in the plan that envisions at least 17 sites able to conduct coordinated ecological experiments across broad geographical and temporal scales.

Based on several workshops held in recent months, the white paper, titled "Rationale, Blueprint, and Expectations for the National Ecological Observatory Network," was created to further explain the project to the scientific community and fill-in missing details to help convince Congress to fund the project via the National Science Foundation, according to Adrienne Froelich, director of AIBS public policy. An NSF-funded AIBS working group, Infrastructure for Biology at Regional to Continental Scales (IBRCS), composed the white paper.

According to Kent Holsinger, a professor of biology at the University of Connecticut and member of the AIBS board of directors, the paper improves on past NSF reports by including a "scientific rationale" section. Among the scientific objectives: determining how ecosystems function today, determining how historical influences, patterns and past land use affect those contemporary ecosystem dynamics, and determining how US ecosystems will change in the next century. Ideally, NEON will achieve simultaneous measures across the whole US spanning a range of ecosystems.

The white paper also provides a more detailed layout of management principles describing a "policy setting" function, not just a "staff implementation" function.

AIBS presented the white paper on Tuesday to an audience of scientists and journalists at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. At least one audience member suggested that the plan, despite its lofty aims, still lacks details. Whether the new, beefed-up NEON proposal will win funding for the project remains to be seen in coming months as the AIBS and NSF take it to Congress. In the meanwhile, several speakers highlighted possible applications of the network.

Cynthia Kolar of the US Geological Survey described her work with invasive fish species in the Great Lakes region. Based on several criteria, she investigated which of dozens of possible fish species would most likely invade and establish themselves in the Great Lakes; she came up with five. By knowing the high-risk species, Kolar, who was also representing the Ecological Society of America, hoped to put preventive measures in place. She claimed that a study like hers, however, could only be done in the few areas, such as the Great Lakes, Hudson River or parts of Florida, where there's lots of data available. Even then, comparing models would be difficult, she said, but NEON would theoretically solve the data dearth and compatibility problems.

Speaker O.J. Reichman, of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, Calif., emphasized that field stations throughout the country, which already have some degree of networking within and between sites, are poised to take advantage of the boost in computing, networking, and infrastructure resources to be offered by NEON. Though ecology has historically focused on natural history —"Let's go see the animals," as he put it — complex problems like global climate change and invasive species require a "new way of doing science." He cited as one example the recently reported monitoring of how climate change, particularly higher precipitation as a result of El Niño, has affected the emergence of hantavirus via rodents (BioScience, 52:989-998, 2002).

John D. Aber of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire suggested that the large-scale measurement of carbon and nitrogen fluxes across ecosystems, which are important, policy-relevant indicators of the link between forest dynamics and climate change, require more well-designed, long-term networks. Research is not limited by a "lack of good questions," said Aber, but by a lack of good, integrated networks.