VCR Report to the Risser Committee 1 REPORT TO THE RISSER COMMITTEE by the VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE March 1, 1993 Bruce P. Hayden Virginia Coast Reserve LTER Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Contributing PIs: Linda Blum, Mark Brinson, Bob Christian, Frank Day, Tanya Furman, James Galloway, Craig Kochel, Steve Macko, Aaron Mills, George Oertel, John Porter, Herman Shugart, David Smith, Patricia Wiberg, Donald Young, Joseph Zieman. Structure of this Report -- This report follows, in order, the numbered questions posed by the Risser Committee. The headings we use in our response are numbered in brackets corresponding to the numbered Risser questions. Several answers are followed by comments which record specific concerns of VCR PIs submitted for inclusion in our report. Have the LTER proposal review criteria and processes (as described in the attached OMB No. 3145-0058 been consistent with the stated program objectives and been fairly implemented? [1] None of the contributors to this report have served NSF in the capacity of LTER proposal reviewer. Our answers are based on two VCR proposal reviews (1987 & 1992), a mid-term review in 1990, and individual service on LTER mid-term review panels. Our viewpoint or perspective also has its basis in discussions with other LTER site PIs and from service on the LTER Network Coordinating Committee, the climate and data management committees. Does the NSF formal review proposal process reflect the stated objectives of the program? If not, how should the process be changed? [1a] The stated program objectives in OMB No. 3145-0058 are:1] excellence of proposed science, 2] quality of the site, 3] coverage of specified core topics, 4] participation in network-level coordination of research, and 5] project management and administration. We assess each objective below. Excellence of proposed science -- It is our experience that the quality of the proposed science is first priority on the part of peer reviewers. This ranking is proper and was implemented in the reviews of our program. Quality of the site -- The issue of site quality involves the tractability of the proposed science. The quality of the site was a major issue at the time of our 1987 proposal review, but was less significant in our 1992 renewal proposal. The most important factor is whether the special and unique attributes of the site are capitalized on in the proposed scientific agenda. In this regard, site quality is linked closely to scientific quality. Coverage of specified core topics -- In the review of our 1987 proposal, our approach to core research topics was not at issue. Our mid-term and renewal-proposal reviews focused sharply on our coverage of the core research areas. We have learned that core- topics research must take place within the fundamental research missions of the site. While this is not easy to do in all cases, it is a more workable solution than supporting an isolated core-topics research effort. Meeting core-area obligations requires a full spectrum of ecosystem and community-ecology expertise. The mandated research thus competes with specific PI research interests and needs. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the fauna and trophic-structure core area. In our case we cover marine, estuarine, and fresh waters and wetland to arid terrestrial habitats. We struggle with the faunal component of the core research topic requirements. Service on mid-term reviews for NSF leads us to believe that our problem is common to many LTER sites. Participation in network-level coordination of research -- This objective was not significant in the review our initiation proposal, nor was it a focus of our mid-term review or our renewal proposal. Given the considerable effort on the part of LTER sites to make the Network a success and the prominence of this objective in OMB No. 3145-0058, the modest attention paid to this objective in panel reviews needs serious attention. Excellence in meeting this objective requires reward. Project management and administration -- This objective has 13 parts. Most of the peer review focused on leadership & leadership stability, synthesis and publication, data management and research coordination. Our peer reviewers considered these at the time of both proposal review and mid-term review. Leadership and leadership stability were issues for our site. Advice on the part of the mid-term and renewal proposal reviewers has been helpful. Comment #1 The manner and criteria of evaluating the core research topics within the conceptual framework for the site needs clarification. The cost of meeting the large shopping list implied in the core topics listing is at issue and is of concern to us, as it requires involving additional PIs or staff. Comment #2 Long-term experiments have become a major focus of the renewal process although this objective is not part of OMB No. 3145-0058. This issue needs clarification. We were informed of the need to develop long-term experiments within our research framework at the time of our mid-term review and took appropriate steps in that direction. Comment #3 Work, on the part of the sites, to meet network goals is important and requires systematic review and evaluation. In the year prior to renewal-proposal submission, an evaluation by the network office would prove useful to the review panel. This document should be available to the renewal proposal review panel. Comment #4 We have leveraged our LTER funds to 1] acquire other funded program for the VCR site, 2] participate jointly with those programs in research and student support, and 3] participate in synthesis publications with scientists from other LTERs, NSF program managers, and international groups (IGBP, MAB, and IIASA). In our renewal proposal, we included publications in our list of PI publications that were not specific to the VCR site. It is our view that central to LTER objectives. We recommend that panels be briefed on this point in the program objectives and Network goals in OMB No. 3145-0058. Is the evaluation process thorough and timely? [1b] The mid-term review by NSF was more thorough than the renewal proposal. The renewal review did not comment on many of our site's responsibilities as stated in OMB No. 3145-0058. (See comments in our response to question 1b above.) Our site has been through 2 NSF proposal reviews. The salient information was returned on the stated schedule. Our second review (1992) had a delay in reporting the review results. It is our understanding that the delays resulted from NSF-wide administrative difficulties and pressing demands on NSF by the Congress and were not local to the LTER NSF staff. To what extent does the review process facilitate or constrain scientific innovation? [1c] The review process has a direct impact on scientific innovation. The proposal evolution, drafting and planning process is a collective activity of the PIs and involves renewal of thinking as well as renewal of funding. Without these checks and balances of consideration and reconsideration afforded by the NSF review process, both the scientific innovation and staff motivation might falter. Formal review is a guard against a tragedy of the commons in block-funding. PIs from other LTER sites make excellent reviewers as they know the requirements of the program and can weed through the details quickly. It is our view that LTER scientists are a most important force for scientific innovation on review panels as they can relate proposed site research to the research program at their own LTER site. What mechanisms have been used to attract additional investigators and projects to your site? Please indicate those that have become part of the LTER team and those who are on-site collaborators but not funded by the LTER project. [2] During the development of our initial LTER research proposal, we approached faculty at universities in the region to join the research team on a funded, sub-contract basis. In this way we met expertise needs for the start-up phase of our work. The scientists involved are George Oertel (marine geology, ODU), Frank Day (below-ground production, ODU), Richard Wetzel (marsh ecology, VIMS), Don Young (physiological ecology, VCU), Mark Brinson (wetlands ecology, ECU), Bob Christian (nutrient cycling, ECU) and Craig Kochel (geomorphology, Bucknell). We provide these researchers modest sub-contract resources and full PI rights and access to electronic networks, field sites, boats and laboratory facilities. Some non-UVa VCR PIs (e.g., Don Young, Frank Day) have received NSF awards, after they became PIs, to augment research at the VCR. We also provide logistical support (boats and vehicles), lodging and laboratory facilities at the site to researchers who wish to affiliate informally with the LTER. Scientists involved include Ruth Beck (William & Mary) and Kim McGehan (U. of Delaware). In addition, the NSF Ecosystems panel has recommended that certain successful proposals be implemented at the VCR. These include work by Iris Anderson (VIMS) and Deborah Waller (ODU); we provide the VCR umbrella resources for such projects. We encourage the participation of young faculty. Current faculty who have become part of our LTER by sharing the use of our research infrastructure are: Tanya Furman (mineralogist), Patricia Wiberg (marine geologist), David Smith (marine invertebrate ecologist), Steven Macko (isotope geochemist), James Galloway (precipitation chemist) and Keith Eshleman (hydrologist). There are direct funds transfers to the students of these collaborators. These contributors are now PIs on our roster. Finally, our host-landlord, the Nature Conservancy, is also a research partner in both funded and non-funded work at the Virginia Coast Reserve. Barry Truitt is the principal research participant from TNC. In consideration of the Network Office [3] Describe the functions of the Network Office that you believe to be essential and those that are useful but not essential. [3a] The essential functions of the Network Office are to 1] promote the integration of the research of the participating scientists into the existing network of projects, 2] provide for the scientific and organizational coordination of new projects with the ongoing research at the other sites, and 3] provide coordination of research questions, analytic methods, data management protocols. The Network office meets these requirements by means of quarterly and semi-annual meetings of the PIs of the various LTER sites, by occasional meetings of all LTER scientists at the "All Scientists Meeting," by development of workshops for intersite research, and by electronic communication between the Network Office and the various LTER sites. Each of these functions is essential. They are in OMB No. 3145-0058 and they return significant benefits to the sites. The activities of the network office serve to position the LTER system of research sites for excellence in the years ahead. The issue of Network Office functions that are useful but not essential is one of resources and priorities. We have not identified any useful but non-essential activities of the Network Office. Describe additional ways in which the Network office could augment the LTER program for individual sites and for the LTER network as a whole. [3b] Individual Sites -- Some resources used by most or all LTER sites could be negotiated for and acquired by the Network Office; e.g., network software licenses and discount prices for new technologies such as satellite imagery from federal agencies. Network as a Whole -- In order for the Network Office to move ecosystem science forward we encourage: 1) further communication (electronic and face-to-face) between LTER sites, 2) exchanges and/or "loans" of PIs between sites, 3) development of LTER Network fellowships for graduate student training through intersite exchange, and 4) advancement intersite research programs. Each of these recommendations aims at promoting of research synergisms that would have a multiplicative effect on LTER science production. Do you believe the current level of investment in the Network Office is appropriate to meet the existing LTER objectives? If not, what should be increased or decreased? [3c] LTER objectives are, almost by definition, open-ended and subject to growth over time (see 3a above). There is never enough money to make maximum progress toward open-ended objectives. Funds are adequate to marginal for support of the Network Office activities given current objectives and work statements. However, the Network Office could engage itself in other functions that would support the sites. Section 3b recommends new activities for the Network Office. These activities require funding and thus weigh for an increased Network Office budget. In addition, these efforts to build infrastructure require additional manpower and, particularly, leadership. Without that dedication the commons can fall apart. We have, without question, had such leadership at the Network Office. This kind of leadership exists at the LTER sites and is available on a sabbatical basis to the Network Office. How specifically has the organizational emphasis on computer networking among LTER scientists and projects contributed to the LTER research program? [4] Computer networking accelerates the information transfer between distant scientists and so facilitates each site, usually a consortium of universities, as well as the network which is a consortium of sites. Like journals and professional meetings, information transfers are well-springs of hypothesis generation, research synergism, scientific synthesis and science advancement. As a common expertise is not replicated across all LTERs, within the network exchanges spread needed expertise. This has been especially true for LTER instrumentation, modeling, data management, site standardization, common methodologies and core-research protocols. The VCR is a regular user and contributor to the LTER Network via LTER Network News. We generate two bulletin board newsletters for the Network: DATABITS, a data management communication, and and CED (Climate-Ecosystem Dynamics, a research and commentary newsletter distributed throughout the LTER Network and to national and international subscribers.) We contribute data sets to the network archives that can be down-loaded via FTP protocols. In addition to using e-mail for a wide array of communication functions, we operate a UNIX based research calendar. We distribute it daily to all PIs, graduate students and staff on e-mail. The calendar presents the daily and long-term availability of staff, boats, lodging and labs at the site. Travel to and from the site for all PIs, staff, students, and visitors is in the calendar as well. We use a second UNIX based electronic system to manage duties, scheduling and reporting for field site activities and regular obligations. This system automatically generates reports and mails them to the LTER office at the University. Our site operates VCRIS, a Gopher software based information system, to help with information distribution. VCRIS provides open access to most of our LTER administrative documents, functions, publication, data sets, within-site user group newsletters. The VCRIS is linked to the Network Office Gopher system and the local systems at Hubbard Brook and Cedar Creek LTERs. What synergisms and conflicts have developed at your LTER site between the acquisition of general baseline, long-term data sets and the conduct of specific research projects? [5] This dichotomy is THE area of fundamental conflict within the LTER concept, and requires resolution at each site. The LTER enterprise is a common activity that builds the infrastructure for all PIs to conduct individual research. However, each PI's primary intellectual dedication is to his/her own research rather than to meeting the program requirements. This dichotomy is exacerbated by the process of allocating funds from the core grant. We recognize this problem at the VCR site and are working to resolve the issues involved. We use a significant fraction of our budget to meet the site's "commons" responsibilities, recognizing that allocation of staff, equipment, logistical commitments and intellectual power to this goal reduces the resource pool available to individual researchers. We foster synergism and conflict reduction by: (1) conducting commons activities at the same field sites as long-term experiments, (2) establishing the commons activities as a fundamental part of our conceptual research framework, and (3) avoiding commons activities that do not return valuable information to individual investigators. In brief, the commons activities (e.g., the 5 core area requirements) must have direct returns on PI investment if we are to both minimize conflict and meet the larger goals of the LTER system. With respect to the international dimensions of the LTER program: [6] OMB No. 3145-0058 specifies network objectives but no international objectives for LTER sites. The core grant for the VCR LTER does not directly propose an international responsibility. Our international activities have come about as a result of the interest and initiative of our PIs. Briefly describe current international collaborative efforts, including the objectives of these collaborations and the involvement of foreign scientists (e.g., number, disciplines, professional status). [6a] International PI Collaborations with PIs Noted -- We engage in international ecosystem-science planning: IGBP Advisory Board; GCTE & Data Bases Commission members (Shugart), IGBP BAHC (Hayden), MAB (Zieman, Hayden, Porter, Brinson, Truitt), IPCC contributors (Hayden & Shugart); USMAB-UNESCO Committee on Ecotones. LEMA (Long-Term Ecological Modeling Activity) = International network of modeling centers with Shugart as the Secretariat [several LTER sites involved]. Christian has collaborated with Dr. Elisenda Fores of the University of Barcelona, Dept. of Ecology on comparisons of marshes in Spain and at the VCR. Educational Collaborations: Souhail Al-Abed (Iraq) Post Doctoral Study UVa. The Role of SO4 in soil genesis. Takahiro Asami (Japan) Post Doctoral Study UVa. Mitocondrial DNA as a genetic tracer in small mammal populations. Faustino Daria (Philippines) Doctoral Student UVa. Shrubland dynamics. Lenore Fahrig (Canada) Post Doctoral Study UVa. Modeling Ecosystems with a Focus on Disturbance Shao Guofan (China) Post Doctoral Study UVa. Ecosystem Modeling and GIS and working in a staff capacity on LTER and a NOAA grant. Luis Lagera (Philippines) Post Doctoral Study UVa. Nutrient Cycling in Barrier Island Lagoons. Bharatha Lakshmi (India) Post Doctoral Study ODU. Belowground productivity. Eva Novella (Spain) Doctoral Student ECU. Juncus marshes at the VCR. Anarada Patwari (India) Doctoral studies on below ground productivity. Marcio Santos (Brazil) Doctoral Student UVa. Ecosystems in Hypersaline Barrier Island Environments. J. D. Wong (China) Doctoral Study ODU. Sedimentation in Hog Island Bay for Holocene Reconstructions. H. J. Woo (Korea) Doctoral Study ODU. Estuarine Formanifers at the VCR Related to Paleoenvironments. Tatyana Glushko (Russia) Visiting Scientist UVa. Vegetation and Water Tables in Sand Systems. What specific and tangible results have been produced by these collaborations? [6b] Degrees Offered -- The most significant tangible result of international collaboration is the awarding of research degrees. The students listed in 6a have received graduate degrees or are currently enrolled in postgraduate programs. Workshops and Related Publications -- Scientists from the VCR have conducted two international ecological workshops that resulted in publication of books. 1) Shugart, H.H., R. Leemans and G. B. Bonan (1992). A Systems Analysis of the Global Boreal Forest. (Cambridge University Press). This publication, edited by two LTER scientists and a Dutch collaborator (Leemans) resulted from a workshop the involved LTER participants from the VCR, Bonanza Creek, Cedar Creek and Niwot Ridge sites. 2) Shugart, H.H. (in preparation). Functional Types for Large Scale Vegetation Modeling (Cambridge University Press). This publication results from a workshop involving participants from the VCR, CPR and Jornada LTER sites as well as international scientists. Do you plan new or additional international collaboration, and, if so, what do you seek to accomplish? [6c] Shugart (LTER PI) will run the Secretariat of LEMA (Long-Term Ecological Modeling Activity), a network of modeling centers to be housed at the University of Virginia. The Virginia Coast Reserve and other LTER sites will be active nodes (research centers) in this endeavor. The principal product of this activity is the planning of a coordinated international research network to monitor and understand the dynamics of the terrestrial surface. This activity will benefit the LTER network directly by putting LTER at the center of international modeling efforts. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT What significant research has been conducted at your site with LTER support that addresses the five core (see attached OMB No. 3145-0058) research topics? Please submit references to one or two most important papers from your site addressing each of the above core topical areas. Provide a brief paragraph for each research topic explaining the rationale for the selection. Also please submit a complete list of publications produced from your site. [7] The Pattern and Control of Primary Production -- Primary production at the VCR is controlled by landscape factors, and thus varies dramatically within the site. In lagoons, both primary production and respiration are controlled by the availability of light rather than nutrients (NH4, NO3, PO4 - individually or in combination). In the salt marshes, primary production varies as a function of sediment texture, hydraulic conductivity and flooding frequency (Blum 1993). On the islands, primary production again varies with soil texture, and with depth to and salinity of the local water-table. In this latter environment, productivity is limited by sub-optimal temperatures (<30oC; Young & Sande, 1992). We offer these papers to represent our work in this area as they document the landscape heterogeneity in terms of basic processes, and illustrate the importance of geophysical and geochemical controls on pattern and process. Spatial and Temporal Distributions of Populations and Trophic Structure -- The VCR is a diverse landscape, which results in great species and habitat diversity. Dueser (1990) is a synthesis symposium volume on the flora and fauna of the VCR which covers the flora, plant associations, vegetation dynamics, ice-age forest composition, small mammal biogeography, fox populations, grazing mammals, herptofauna, colonial nesting birds, peregrine falcons, phytoplankton, marine amoeba, and finfish. The most extensive of these studies are the two decades of surveys of small mammals and avifauna. In the 1930s, the site experienced the extinction of seagrass, Zoestra marina. Sediments subsequently went into suspension with tidal motions and lagoon waters changed from a clear to a highly turbid light limited system. With the demise of the seagrass meadows on the bay bottom, the largest bay-scallop industry and the best Brandt duck hunting in North America also disappeared (Hayden et al., 1990). We selected these two contributions to represent our work in this core area because they illustrated the problem and the opportunity of our the biotic diversity of our site and the role that a keystone species has in establishing pattern and process variation on the landscape. Pattern and Control of Organic Matter Accumulation -- Like primary production and respiration, organic matter content varies considerably across the VCR landscape (0.05% to 68% by weight). Marsh organic matter decomposition does not vary with depth, hydrologic regime or other edaphic factors; primary production is therefore the main variable in organic matter accumulation (Blum, 1993). On the islands the extent of below ground organic matter decomposition varies inversely with proximity to the water table (Conn and Day, 1992). These papers illustrate on the one hand the control on organic matter content by production and on the other by respiration. In addition, the significance of climate controlled variables like water-table elevation becomes obvious and has specific implications relative to climate change scenarios. Patterns and Movements of Inorganic Nutrients -- Nutrient input to the VCR is by groundwater and rainwater. Nutrient movement between landscape elements occurs by groundwater flow and lagoon circulation. We have established that there is a gradient in inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations from the nutrient poor island to the nutrient rich mainland (Mills et al., 1990). The islands are dependent on rainwater nutrients and nitrogen fixation by Myrica (Young, 1992) while the mainland side of the system gets its nutrients from groundwater flows from the agricultural mainland of the Delmarva Peninsula. These papers illustrate the nature of the large scale geochemical gradients. This is significant because the nutrient rich part of the system is light limited and the nutrient poor islands are limited by geophysical variations in water table elevations that control nutrient availability. Pattern and Frequency of Disturbance -- Disturbance at the VCR is almost the norm. Each year roughly 40 or so coastal storms redistribute the very fine sediments of the site. Landscape dynamics resulting from these sediment movements are extremely rapid and are exceeded, in North America, only by the fringing island of Mississippi Delta. We have developed records of the storm frequency and magnitude back to 1885 (Hayden, 1990). Storm frequency was at a minimum in the first decade of this century and at its maximum during the 1960s. The magnitude of the difference approximates difference between the stormy winters and calm summers of recent decades. For the period 1949-1990 we have established the relationship between storminess and vegetation disturbance and have generated spectra of species frequency across this disturbance gradient for 100 common species on the islands (Fahrig, et al., 1993). We are using these relationships to model island-vegetation-responses to changes in storm climates. We selected these papers as they put our vegetation-disturbance work into the perspective of landscape evolution, succession and climate change. What significant other research topics (i.e., in addition to the five core topics) have been conducted at your site with LTER financial support? List two or three most significant publications and give the rationale for deciding that these topics should be studied at the site. [8] Modeling Ecosystems and Landscape Dynamics -- We are making considerable progress on ecosystem modeling at the VCR. Rastetter (1991) constructed a Markov model of Hog Island which incorporated time dependent island topography, depth of saline and fresh water tables and includes sea-level rise and island transgression. Parameterization of Rastetter's model as a three- dimensional landscape model is in progress using historical aerial photography and GIS/ARCINFO technology. Fahrig (1990 a,b & 1991) determined Hog Island vegetation transition probabilities for use in the Rastetter Model. Significantly, Fahrig's transition probabilities are spatially dependent and are highly correlated with shoreline erosion rates. Accordingly, the model can be parameterized to have direct responses to storm climate and shoreline erosion rates. Paleoecological and Paleogeomorphologic Models and Analyses -- We constructed a boreal-forest, FORET model driven by late glacial climates estimated independently of pollen and then verified with pollen spectra from fossil peats (Bonan and Hayden, 1990 a,b & Hayden 1990). This was the first independent test of a boreal FORET model using paleoecological data and past climate data. Data from an extensive program of marsh coring at the VCR is used by Oertel et al., (1993) to formulate a major new synthesis model of barrier island and lagoon dynamics. Oertel proposes that the VCR lagoons are flooded Pleistocene landscapes with about a meter of Holocene sediments on top rather than extensive sediment filled basins believed to occur elsewhere. Global Climate Change Studies -- We constructed a ZELIG forest model for the Luquillo LTER tropical forest (an intersite modeling effort) and stressed the model with a wide range of hurricane intensities and magnitudes to simulate the spectrum of changes in forest structure and composition as a result of global warming (O'Brien et al., 1992). We have also developed a model for the changes in mainland, lagoon and barrier island salt-marshes that would occur as a result of global warming and accelerated sea-level rise. The expectation for the VCR is marsh encroachment on the mainland, loss of lagoon marshes in favor of open water, and new and extensive development of barrier island marshes (Hayden et al., 1991). Landscape Change Analysis -- One of the dominant features of the VCR is it's specific history over the last 5000 years. The islands of the VCR were offshore at that time but with sea-level rise and sand movement during coastal storms, they have transgressed landward to their current position. Studies by Kochel Wampler (1989) have recorded the current rate of this process of sand movement from ocean to lagoon and have mapped the deposition of these sand masses on the island vegetation. On longer time scales, the area landward of the barrier islands has been flooded by rising sea level. Unlike most barrier lagoons where sediment infilling is the dominant process, there is little infilling of the VCR lagoons. Instead, the lagoons are flooded-landscapes with a veneer of Holocene muds (Oertel et al., 1993). Synthesis -- VCR PIs engage in science synthesis in three areas: landscape history and dynamics (Oertel and Kraft, 1991; Hayden et al., 1990); ecosystem modeling (Shugart, 1988); and climate change and ecosystem dynamics ( Ray, et. al., 1992). In what ways has the LTER framework been important for your research? Address briefly the three following possible reasons and add any others that you feel have been crucial: (i) the existence of a network for comparative purposes; (ii) the possibility of conducting multidisciplinary, site specific research; and (iii) the insured six year financial support. Give specific examples to illustrate your points. [9] Importance to VCR -- Conducting research at the VCR is difficult because travel, accommodations, laboratory, computer, telecommunications and boats are substantial overhead on the research enterprise that mandates a support scale beyond the reach of individual researchers. Secondly, the spatial scales of the processes that control landscape dynamics and the time scale of these processes require landscape scale research which is beyond that an individual can easily accomplish. The LTER framework for research includes an umbrella of common research facilities shared by all. Large scale, long-term studies appropriate to the study of the landscapes of the VCR can be approached with the NSF supported commons facilities. Comparative Studies -- The LTER research framework permits and encourages intra- and inter-site comparative studies. At the VCR site we have replications of landscapes and ecosystems. For example, there are 14 barrier islands, associated lagoons and adjacent mainlands, island fringing marshes, mid-lagoon insular marshes and fringing mainland marshes. The sediment loading, production rates and nutrient supplies in these environments are fundamentally different and permit comparative studies in a common system. In addition, we have features on the island called pimples that are sand islands on saline marshes with their own groundwater supply. The dominant vegetation on the pimples is dependent on pimple size and ranges from mature forest, to parkland, to grassland to desert balds. Comparative study across this spectrum is equivalent to the range of biome environments between other LTER sites. We engage in comparative studies with other LTER sites in several areas: decomposition (intersite field experiments), application of stable isotopes in ecology (through LTER workshops), climate- ecosystem dynamics (through the climate committee), and modeling (e.g., application of the CPR CENTURY model). Linda Blum heads up the VCR contribution to LIDET. LIDET (Long- term Decomposition Experiment Team) Experiment (LTER Network decomposition experiment) It is a long-term decay experiment (10-yrs) investigating processes of refractroy soil organic matter formation. Blum is also taking the lead for the VCR in the NIN Root Dynamics Experiment which is examining the role of species and edaphic factors in organic matter accumulation in marshes. Multidisciplinary Studies -- The PIs at our site occupy the following disciplinary niches: microbial ecology, forest ecology, ecological modeling, hydrology, mineralology, geomorphology, invertebrate ecology, population and community ecology, avian ecology, physiological ecology, marsh ecology, nutrient cycling, climatology/meteorology, shallow water oceanography, belowground productivity, marine geology, and GIS "ecology." Our experience is that work by a collective of scientists from many disciplines contrasts favorably with gatherings of the like-minded. For example, our water draw-down experiment has 7 PIs from as many disciplines engaged in planning and implementation. This experiment will proceed for years with a draw-down regime equivalent to an increase in evapotranspiration of ~2 mm/day. We know from prior experience that the diversity of PIs involved will result in (1) a thorough understanding of the system at hand and (2) a range of disciplinary companion studies. All VCR graduate students trained at UVa conduct interdisciplinary research and must have thesis or dissertation committee representatives from several disciplines. Multidisciplinary study of this nature requires a substantial time investment to exchange and master jargon, methods and scientific approaches from many fields. The LTER framework supports such ventures in a way that individual grants rarely can. Insured Six-year Support -- As noted above, the assembly of multidisciplinary research teams and the process of learning to work together as equals in field studies are time dependent activities. Long-term support is of sufficient value to the investigators involved to make this investment: the opportunity to carry studies forward for many years is a tremendous intellectual opportunity. In many ecosystems, we study process rates and then infer long term consequences of the measured rates of change or their stochastic properties. Recording the ecological consequences these time integrations is a tremendous research opportunity that could not be accomplished using short term funding. Belowground organic matter dynamics is a particular case in point. In addition, the more modest the rates the longer the time integration needed to understand the dynamic consequences. While models project such time integrations, field studies to test the models are rare. The possibility of linking monitoring, experimentation and modeling in a realistic time domain is clearly of great value. Between 1987 and 1993 we averaged $1.21 for every $1.00 of LTER core grant funding. This kind of research synergism is rare from short-term, single hypothesis research funding approaches. Other -- Research infrastructure development is an integrative process. It takes years of effort and resources to produce a place that is outstanding for doing research. Building an LTER site is like building a supercolllider. Each LTER site is like a national ecosystems laboratory system. They should be considered as such and funded as facilities for research. Long-term records are just as much an essential part of this infrastructure for research as brick and mortar. Each year, the LTER research facility becomes more valuable and as part of a network of such facilities becomes a national research asset. While a supercollider type facility declines in utility with age, the LTER research facility becomes more valuable with time. In what ways have you designed a conceptual framework of research at the site, and what specific example can you give for documenting such integration activities? Please also provide any specific examples of across-LTER site integration and synthesis. [10] Examples & Documentation -- The extant records of the process of the design of the VCR conceptual framework are listed below in chronological: Proposal Concept Documents -- The research concept for the VCR LTER was initially developed by ecology faculty (Shugart, Odum, Dueser, Connor, Mills, Zieman) at the University of Virginia. The working theme of that first formulation of the VCR research program focused on ecosystem dynamics across a cospectrum of temporal and spatial scales. We proposed that this was a critical source of pattern and process in coastal ecosystems. Hard copy of these notes reside with the individual PIs and are not part of project archives. Forming an Interdisciplinary Team -- The second phase of program development brought physical and chemical environmental scientists into the venture as full collaborators. The following were added: Hayden (climatology/meteorology & ecology); Dolan (coastal geomorphology); Hornberger (hydrology) and from outside the University of Virginia Oertel (Holocene geology); and, Kochel (geology). The range of ecology expertise was increased with sub- contractors: Day (terrestrial ecology); Wetzel (estuarine ecology); Young (physiological ecology); Brinson (marsh ecology) and Christian (wetland nutrient ecology). Communications with these scientists as well as their sub-contract proposals are available in project files. Enabling NSF Proposal for the VCR LTER site -- The plan for the proposal construction evolved in a series of weekly meeting. Dueser, Odum, Shugart and Zieman wrote the first draft of the proposal. The writing team solicited material from the other principals to flesh out the proposal. Electronic copy of the final version of the proposal is available within VCRIS (our GOPHER electronic archives system). Addendum to the Enabling Proposal -- Following the review panel's assessment and their call for an addendum to the proposal, Dueser and Odum put together the response and submitted it to NSF. Electronic copy of the "Addendum to the Enabling Proposal" is available within VCRIS. Establishing Research Infrastructure -- We established a laboratory and housing facility, developed the staff, purchased boats and developed protocols for facilities use during the time between proposal and the initiation of research. In addition, we negotiated agreements on the specific research activities of each PI with The Nature Conservancy. Documentation for this phase of project development is contained within the project correspondence files (paper copies). Mid-term review panel report -- During the third year of the program, the NSF mid-term review panel visited the University of Virginia and the VCR research site. The panel's recommendations called for sharper focus on our central research theme, increased productivity from several PIs, development of long-term experiments, and improved management and administrative structure. Odum began the process of studying administrative structures of interdisciplinary research teams. Administrative structures were discussed extensively and a more distributed leadership with Odum as correspondent was developed following the departure of Dueser (the first correspondent). At the same time we began the process, with weekly meetings, to refine and sharpen our research themes. We published the results of this process in Hayden et al., 1990 in Bioscience and in the LTER blue book. The new research framework was the basis of our renewal proposal in winter of 1991/1992. The report of the mid-term panel review is available in hard copy form. Managerial study of the VCR by M. R. M. Lagera -- During the process of focus and retrenchment following the mid-term Panel review, we had the opportunity to participate in a study of our management structure. Researchers at the University of Maryland's University College Graduate School and specifically, M. R. M. Lagera conducted the study. She interviewed everyone involved in our LTER (students, staff, and PIs). The report, "Improving Sponsored Project Administration at the VCR-LTER Program," was a hard hitting, observant analysis of our administration of the project and its fiscal management. The Lagera Report is available in hard copy form. The Death of William Odum -- The untimely death of Bill Odum was a key point in history of the VCR LTER. Following his death, Shugart, Hayden and Blum took over leadership and management on an interim basis. We formed a distributed management structure of the VCR. Documents for the period are hard copy correspondence files. Renewal proposal for the VCR LTER site -- The content of the renewal proposal followed directly from the mid-term review process and the work making the adjustments suggested by the panel. The basic contents of the new proposal were in hand when proposal time came around. Odum, prior to his death, was instrumental in the development of the research structure, Hayden, Blum and Shugart developed the draft of the proposal following the Fall of 1991 meetings of all PIs. Proposal drafts were distributed and adjustments and corrections were made. With the renewal proposal we have increased our PIs by formally adding faculty who had become involved in the program: John Porter (mammology); Tanya Furman (mineralogy); Patricia Wiberg (sediment transport), and Linda Blum (microbial ecology). More recently we have added Jim Galloway (precipitation chemistry), Steve Macko (stable isotope geochemistry), and Keith Eshleman (hydrology). Working papers of the several PIs are in private files. An electronic copy of the proposal is stored in VCRIS. Leadership change -- Following our 2 year, proposal extension, we began the process of making the additional adjustments needed for proposal resubmission: further development of the long-term experiments and establishing PI leadership stability. We received favorable reviews by the Panel on the research theme and framework of the VCR LTER. The central item in development of leadership stability was the full time dedication of PI Hayden to the VCR and the LTER project. This required terminating other existing research relationships and developing other research funding focused on the site. We finished our leadership transition in late August of 1992. We accepted and implemented most of the recommendations of the Lagera report. There are no special documents for this activity. Electronic copies of weekly PI meeting notes -- All PIs and upper level staff get e-mail copies of PI meeting notes weekly and other documents on project administration and management. In addition, electronic copies of key project documents are available to all PIs on our GOPHER information system (VCRIS). Role of Coordinating Committee Meetings -- We have gained much from discussions at coordinating committee meetings in group research planning techniques, administrative strategies and organizations, and initiating intersite research activities. We have no official documents of this process. Response document for the Risser Committee -- Finally, this report to the Risser Committee will constitute an important self-study document for our archives. It is stored in VCRIS and it will prove a useful resource. ************************ Across-LTER Site Integration & Syntheses -- Shugart -- Bill Lauenroth of CPR LTER spent a sabbatical year at UVa in which a forest version of the Century was developed. Associated with this visit was a LTER workshop on modeling at LTER sites. Cross-site applications of the Century Model. application across LTER sites is a tangible funded result of the Lauenroth sabbatical. This activity involves most of the LTER sites. The book Vegetation Dynamics and Global Change by Solomon and Shugart. 1993. (Chapman and Hall, NY) is the result of a workshop with Parton and Lauenroth (CPR LTER). In addition a second book titled A Systems Analysis of the Global Boreal Forest by Shugart, Leemans and Bonan 1992. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) involved a workshop, involved the VCR, Bonanza Creek, Cedar Creek and Niwot Ridge LTERs. A recent workshop hosted by Shugart on Functional Types for Large Scale Vegetation Modeling (to be published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) involved VCR, Jornada and CPR LTERs. Blum -- Linda Blum headed up the VCR contribution to LIDET. LIDET (Long-term Decomposition Experiment Team) Experiment (LTER Network decomposition experiment) It is a long-term decay experiment (10-yrs) investigating processes of refractroy soil organic matter formation. Specific project goals are to examine the role of macroclimate and substrate quality in controlling the long- term carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics of leaf and fine root litter. VCR LTER is actively participating in this network-wide experiment. Blum also took the lead at the VCR in the NIN Root Dynamics Experiment. The goal of this intersite comparison is to examine the role of plant species and edaphic factors in controlling long-term organic matter accumulation in marshes as a function of root production and root decay processes in two different estuarine environments. Hayden -- Hayden participated in the NSF workshop on Integrated Regional Models at the Institute for Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, N.Y. About 20% of the participants had LTER affiliations. The subject of the workshop was integration of ecosystem, geophysical and sociological modeling. A synthesis chapter for a book on the subject was completed and is now in review. Hayden has taken the lead in integration and synthesis activities for the network in the area of climate/ecosystems dynamics. This monthly newsletter is circulated throughout the network. In addition, Hayden has published synthesis articles about the site (Hayden, et al., 1990; Ray et al, 1991; and Ray et. al., 1992). Hayden and Greenland (Andrews LTER) have worked together in climate synthesis including developing research proposals. Hayden and Magnuson (North Temperate Lakes LTER) have started a research project on fish dispersal by tornados. A stated rationale of the LTER program is to "augment the progress of ecological science." What are specific LTER contributions to the advancement of ecology as a science? [11] Specific VCR LTER contributions -- Advancement of ecological sciences at the VCR has been advanced by the PIs in six areas: 1. We developed new, spatially-explicit, modeling protocols (Rastetter, 1991 and Fahrig, 1993). 2. We developed a community of LTER PIs across site in the area of climate ecosystem dynamics with the monthly publication of CED by Hayden and distributed by the Network Office. 3. We developed an international modeling consortium with LTER sites as key nodes in the system (Shugart). 4. We discovered a case where the extinction of a keystone species resulted in a fundamental restructuring of landscapes and ecosystems (Hayden et al., 1990). 5. We published review and synthesis articles on global climate change and ecosystem dynamics at the VCR (Ray et al., 1993). 6. We developed and demonstrated the value of a minirhizotron for the direct observation of belowground root production and decomposition. (Day). If the NSF-supplied financial resources have been inadequate for meeting the LTER objectives at your site, what have been the most significant consequences? [12] Resource allocation decisions at the VCR have focused on the need to accomplish core area objectives through various staffing strategies. We began using a PhD staff person to take care of productivity and nutrient cycling core topics and PIs took responsibility for the other core areas. With the departure of the PhD staff, we switched to technician do the data collection in the productivity and nutrient cycling core areas. We now designate a specific PI to take responsibilities for all 5 areas. Some resources to support the staff of the PIs to do the core area baseline work comes from the core grant. The latter approach permits better quality control but reduces the PIs ability to carry forward his own research programs fully. We need new resources to resolve this problem. Our efforts to meet disciplinary diversity requirements have been two-fold: 1] subcontracts to neighboring universities and 2] providing funds for graduate student support. Each of these approaches narrows the divisions of the resource pie. The result is a limited resource for each PI to do the research planned. We limit our involvement with outside subcontracted PIs to 6 because of resource availability. We have added PIs from our faculty using student support and rights to the use of LTER facilities as an attraction. We use this mechanism to increase disciplinary diversity on the project. Our design plan for student support is one per PI supported from the core grant. Many PIs are capable of working with more graduate students than one. Additional support for graduate students would result in greater PI involvement in the LTER. They would not have to go elsewhere for student support. We have limited the type, scope and degree of replication of our long-term experiments because of the cost of installation, implementation, and experimental replication requirements. Independent Site Support for the VCR -- Unlike many of the LTERs, the VCR started in the LTER program without the benefit of a pre- existing field facility or laboratory and an institution already supporting research at the field site. Proposals to fund major laboratory developments have not yet been successful. We have been successful in garnering grants and contracts to supplement the LTER funding. None of these are long-term resource commitments. Beyond activities funded directly by the LTER program, to what extent have the LTER network and your individual site attracted, stimulated, or facilitated other research programs or projects? [13] Our LTER site has attracted four NSF grants from the ecosystems panel (Day, Young, Anderson, & Waller). The NOAA-CCAP grant was funded because we installed a global-positioning-satellite, survey system and provided logistic support. We won NASA funding because of the kind of work done at the VCR. The VCR is part of a proposal that has made the final cohort of candidates for a Virginia Commonwealth Center ($10,000,000). The VCR is a major asset in this proposal and will be a major player in the activities of the Commonwealth Center. The VCR is a major resource in winning companion research programs. We summarize the history of leveraging the VCR LTER to win funding below and the individual awards are listed in [13b]. Given that there was little funding for research on the Virginia Coast Reserve before the LTER program began, it is clear that an LTER program attracts considerable additional research funds. Awards Summary for the Period 1987-1993 NSF non-core funds for the VCR Research Grants $1,519,473 Technical Supplements $ 429,961 REU Grants $ 44,400 _________________________________________ Total other-NSF awards $1,993,834 Non-NSF funds Won by VCR PIs $1,102,243 Won by VCR Students* $ 56,975 _________________________________________ Total non-NSF awards $1,159,218 ______________________________________________ Total non-Core Grant $3,153,052 ______________________________________________ NSF LTER Awards BSR 87-02333 (1987-1992) $1,994,620 DEB 92-11772 (1993) $ 607,495 ______________________________________________ Total NSF LTER Grants $2,602,115 _______________________________________________ *These are funds won in open competition with written proposals and do not include department teaching assistantships or research assistantships For every dollar of NSF, LTER core grant money awarded we have earned an additional 1.21 dollars in Grants and Contracts. Of the $3,570,282 of total non-LTER awards, $913,144 went to development of the research infrastructure at the VCR. This investment will carry forward in to the coming years and support additional research. Provide a list of research projects (with Principal Investigators, funding agencies, and amounts) carried out using your site. Please indicate which of these projects contribute to the LTER objectives. [13a] -- PI Funded Proposals Supporting Research at VCR LTER: Proposals which have directly helped us meet LTER objectives are marked as such with an asterisk (*). Other funding for the site is unmarked. Iris Anderson (VIMS) -- NSF [$180,000: 1992-1994] "Marsh Dynamics"** Linda Blum (UVa) -- NSF [$60,000: 1991-1993] "Root Dynamics in mid-Atlantic Salt Marshes: Comparison between VCR and NIN marshes."* Linda Blum (UVa) -- Virginia Dept. Mines, Mineral, & Energy [$12,312; 1992-1993] "Radiotelemetry Networking of Remote Physical Monitoring Systems."* Linda Blum (UVa) -- VGMSC - NOAA [$158,332: 1993-1995] "Comparison of the trophic structure in Tidal Creeks of the Delmarva Peninsula."* Linda Blum and William. Odum (UVa) -- NSF REU [$18,500: 1991] Research Experiences for Undergraduates.* Linda Blum and John Porter (UVa) -- NSF Tech Supplement [$63,490: 1992] GPS, Sparkstation, Computer hardware and software.* Frank P. Day (ODU) -- NSF [$406,500 1990-1993] "Belowground Processes and N Availability Across a Dynamic, Nutrient Poor Barrier Island Landscape."* Frank P. Day (ODU) -- NASA [$15,652 in 1992] "Root Growth and Development in Response to CO2 Enrichment." This proposal was funded on the basis of work completed to date at the VCR.* Raymond Dueser (UVa) -- NSF REU [$7,500: 1988] Research Experiences for Undergraduates.* Raymond Dueser (UVa) -- Virginia DNR [$20,000: 1990-1991] Genetic Variation among Populations of Delmarva Fox Squirrels.* Raymond Dueser (UVa) -- NSF REU [$6,000: 1989] Research Experiences for Undergraduates.* Raymond Dueser (UVa) -- NSF Supplement [ $228,781: 1988] GIS/ARCINFO Equipment.* Raymond Dueser and Aaron Mills (UVa) -- NSF REU [$11,250: 1990] Research Experiences for Undergraduates.* Raymond Dueser (UVa) -- Virginia Museum of Natural History [$18,000; 1989-1990] "Salary support for Takahiro Asami" This was for two years of support to use mitocondrial DNA in small mammal extinction and immigration study on Parramore Island on the VCR.* Raymond Dueser (UVa) -- Wistar Institute [$45,263: 1990-1991] "Ecology of non-Target Small Mammal Species." This is a study of the raccoon population of Parramore Island.* James N. Galloway (UVa) -- NSF [$430,000:1992-1993] "Sulfur and Nitrogen in Wet Deposition of the North Atlantic Ocean: Sources, Scavenging Processes, Trends and Impacts (AEROCE). Hog Island on the VCR was added an AEROCE site.* Bruce P. Hayden (UVa) -- NOAA [$257,000: 1989-1993] Climate of the Florida Keys and the Atlantic Coast. The VCR site is one of the station locations for this study and the data developed will be given to the VCR.* Bruce P. Hayden & all UVa PIs (UVa) -- Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, the University of Virginia [$175,000: 1987-1993]. These are matching funds from the University in support of the LTER program at the University. Bruce P. Hayden (UVa) -- NASA EOSDIS [$12,000: 1991-1992] Using VCR LTER Data Needs to test The EOS Information System. Bruce P. Hayden and John Porter (UVa) -- NOAA CCAP [ $52,917: 1992-1993] Tidal Variations and Wetland Delineations Study. This work is sited at the VCR and the results of the work is designed to permit more accurate analyses of remote sensing data.* Luis Lagera (UVa) -- TNC + Northampton Co and VEE [$25,000: 1990- 1991] County wide nutrient nutrient analyses. This study was a community/science research project at the VCR site.* Aaron Mills (UVa) -- NSF BSR [$3,750: 1988] Research Supplement.* Aaron Mills (UVa) -- NSF REU [$11,250: 1991] Research Experiences for Undergraduates.* John Porter & Herman Shugart (UVa) -- The Nature Conservancy [$5,000: 1992-1993] Land-Cover chronology of Parramore Island. This is a cooperative study with the TNC at the VCR.* John Porter (UVa) -- NASA EOSDIS [$12,000: 1991-1992] Using VCR LTER Data Needs to test The EOS Information System. John Porter and Randy Carlson (UVa) -- NSF [$33,982:1992] Global Positioning System Technology Supplement for the LTER Network. * Herman Shugart (UVa) -- NSF Tech. Supplement [$49,987: 1990] GIS equipment.* Herman Shugart, Raymond Dueser and William. Odum (UVa) -- NSF [$96,941: 1989-1990] Remote Sensing and GIS Applied to Inter- Comparison of Ecological Processes at Coastal LTER Marsh-Estuarine Ecosystems. * Herman Shugart (UVa) -- NASA EOSDIS [$12,000: 1991-1992] Using VCR LTER Data Needs to test The EOS Information System. Herman Shugart and John Porter (UVa) -- NSF Tech. Supplement [$49,971: 1991] GIS equipment.* Herman Shugart (UVa) -- University of Virginia [$160,000; 1989 - 1991 ] Global Systems Analysis Program (GSAP) This program focuses on ecosystem modeling. In conjunction with the VCR LTER modeling workshops was held and model intercomparison was studied. * Deborah Waller (ODU) -- NSF [$118,484: 1993-1995] Nitrogen Fixation by Subterranean Termites in Forests. This project was funded on the condition that the work would be done at the VCR LTER.* Donald Young (VCU) -- NSF - Research Opportunity Award [$24,549: 1989] "Effects of summer drought on Myrica water relations and photosynthesis at the Virginia Coast Reserve LTER site."* Donald Young (VCU) -- NSF - SGER [$10,000: 1990-91] "Physiological recovery of an actinorhizal shrub, Myrica cerifera, from Hurricane Hugo."* Donald Young (VCU) -- National Geographic Society [$18,122: 1990- 91] "Ecology of Myrica thickets on Atlantic Coast barrier islands."* Donald Young (VCU) -- VCU [Grants-in-aid, $6,931: 1992] "Mycorrhizal associations for Myrica cerifera in a barrier island environment." * Donald Young (VCU) -- NSF - SGER [$17,999: 1992-1993] "Effects of storm overwash on Myrica cerifera at the Virginia Coast Reserve LTER site."* Joseph Zieman (UVa) -- Virginia Marine Science Consortium (NOAA) [$36,714: 1990-1991] "Isotopic Detection of Nitrogen Sources and Processes in Chesapeake Bay and the Virginia Coast Reserve." Joseph Zieman, Bruce P. Hayden, John Porter, Steven Macko, and Mark Brinson (UVa) -- USMAB [$20,000; 1992-1993] Endpoints Workshop."* Joseph Zieman & Steve Macko (UVa) -- MAB [$40,000 1991-1992] Use of Stable Isotopes as Tracers of Anomalous Nitrogen input to the VCR.* STUDENT GENERATED FUNDING FOR VCR RESEARCH Funding for VCR students: External Fellowships and Research Award to Graduate Students: The awards below supporting research of VCR students are the result of open competition of written research proposals. Students with teaching assistantships and research assistantship awards are not shown. M. Lefsky - NASA Fellowship $16,000 F. Daria - GIS Support Alderman Lib. $18,000 J. Harvey - Moore Research Award $2500 K. MacMillin - Bannon Fellowship $1250 K. MacMillin - Research Award $1250 & $1500 J. Kastler - Bannon Fellowship $1250 J. Kastler - Research Award $1250 D. Osgood - Research Award $2000 M. Santos - Research Award $2000 S. Robinson - Moore Research Award $1500 D. Yozzo - Bannon Fellowship $2500 D. Yozzo - Moore Research Award $2500 M. Lefsky - Research Award $1475 Student Travel Awards to Present Papers $400 S. Robinson K. MacMillin J. Kastler D. Yozzo D. Osgood Describe the actual role of your LTER activities in facilitating these adjunct activities [13b] Approximately 25% of the VCR LTER budget goes to support the infrastructure development and maintenance at the site to support research. This infrastructure includes a transportation system (vans and boats), housing, laboratory & shop facilities, GPS and Laser surveying systems, electronic equipment design & fabrication, electronic communication & information systems and baseline data collection. GIS/ARC-INFO and project accounting services are also available to PIs with companion projects. PIs who win research contracts for research at the site have full access and rights to our LTER research infrastructure and may use access rights in selling their proposals to agencies for funding. If appropriate, cite examples of how your site has influenced non-LTER research programs at other locations. [13c] The National Park Service manages barrier island coasts from New York to Texas and on the Arctic coast. We have worked with the National Park Service in developing their barrier island research program and its interface with the Department of the Interior program on global climate change. A joint research activity is planned. There is considerable public concern about the nature and value of publicly-supported research and the ways in which this research might or should benefit society. How might you answer the following question: In what specific ways have or will LTER results from your site or the network contribute to societal issues? [14] Our Site -- The role of agricultural nutrient enhancements in estuarine eutrophication may be due to groundwater transport and an overland flow. At the VCR site the overland flow route is minimal. Agricultural nutrients can only enter the lagoons through groundwater. Preliminary indications are that forested wetlands and forested tidal creek margins are sinks for the agricultural nutrients. This issue is a central one in community development plans of The Nature Conservancy. In addition, a citizens, water-quality organization is in operation and cooperates with the LTER program. The Network of Sites -- There is a growing realization that changes in land use and land cover may well have larger impacts on climate than the putative changes predicted for a doubling of CO2. This is likely in view of the global population increases. Results from LTER research in ecosystem and landscape dynamics will contribute to the understanding of this problem. The wide network of sites also permits the study of regional process in increases the chances of study of catastrophic landscape change, e.g. the landfall of hurricane Hugo at North Inlet. In what specific ways has the work of the LTER sites and the network influenced the policies and practices of the following potential constituencies: [15] Other research institutions [15a] The Nature Conservancy has engaged in research at the Virginia Coast Reserve since the mid-1970s. Their research was mostly of inventory type. With their access to research infrastructure of the VCR LTER, especially the GPS capability, they are now engaged in biogeographic monitoring research. Government and non-government agencies [15b] The National Park Service, has legislation before Congress to add to their enabling legislation a research requirement. LTER-like sites within the National Park System are being discussed as a model to implement their research programs. The LTER program at the University of Virginia was an important consideration in the decision of the National Park Service to establish a CPSU (Cooperative Park Service Unit) at the University of Virginia. In addition, Mike Erwin of National Fish and Wildlife Service conducts joint research at the VCR with LTER PIs. Local and regional communities [15c] At the Virginia Coast Reserve we have been working with The Nature Conservancy and the Northampton Water Management District on a water quality project that contributes to their needs as well as to needs of our LTER. How has the LTER program contributed to: [16] Pre-college education [16a] Our connection with pre-college education is largely restricted to PI participation in local schools on career days and presenting our research to young students. We have had secondary school groups use the Oyster facility on a fairly regular basis. Undergraduate education [16b] We take advantage of the NSF REU program to introduce undergraduate students to research with as many 4 or 5 REUs per year. In addition, we use a small part of our core grant to involve undergraduate students in field studies and as aides to staff members. The VCR site and facilities are used to support field trips, mostly by PIs, for their classes. As we have no means to cover the logistics costs, we do not provide our facilities for class use to other than our PIs. Graduate-level education [16c] We are currently supporting 10 graduate students on core grant funds. In addition, graduate students, on other sources of funds, under the direction of VCR PIs have access to our field facilities. We have two students on NASA fellowships working with us on our LTER. Significantly, three undergraduates have completed senior theses at the VCR. We offer occasional seminar courses with a focus on our site. Most of the graduate students enrolled have been working at the site. A very important part of the education process for graduate students is learning to be publishing scientists. Our appendix to this report highlights student authorship in journal publication and a list theses completed with the aid of VCR resources. Education of general public [16d] Shirley House is the laboratory facility for the VCR LTER. The public invites itself in from time to time and scientists in residence provide tours of our facilities and explain our research programs. The VCR is public area and contacts between residents, fisherman, and tourists are common and often involve discussions and explanations of what are research is all about. The Nature Conservancy also conducts tours of the site and our research program is used as a plus in selling The Nature Conservancy and its missions. Education of those involved in environmental policy- making [16e] The Nature Conservancy and the local governments of Accomac and Northampton Counties, Virginia are the main policy makers that we have contacts with. We have work with them in nutrient monitoring programs and on the development of a MAB program. We have quarterly meetings with The Nature Conservancy and discuss our research relative to community development activities. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Has the LTER program an adequate planning process in place for revising the objectives of the program? In what directions should the program objectives change? Do the five core areas need to be re-evaluated, and, if so, how should this be done? [17] With the evolution of the Coordinating Committee meetings, topics such as program objectives and NSF review processes have increasingly come under discussion. This network-wide study of objectives and requirements will, most likely, become more formalized in subsequent meetings. It is generally recognized that the core area requirements are difficult to meet, simultaneously, in breadth and depth. To date there has been only a minimal effort to study the problem and make recommendations to the National Science Foundation. The network office should be charged with reviewing such topics on a recurring basis. If additional funds were available, should priority be given to adding additional sites or for increasing funding of existing sites? [18a] We are acutely aware of the resource needs at our site and the nature of the program expansions that would better realize our mission. We are convinced that additional resources would have very substantial returns on the investment. At the same time, we recognize that there are important landscapes yet to be covered by the LTER program. Most of the PIs at the VCR would rather see significant increases in funding for existing sites over a major expansion of the number of sites but recognize the need for additional sites. If additional funds were available and the choice were to add sites to the network, what criteria should be used for additional sites and what would be your recommendations for high-priority additions to the network? [18b] Criteria -- We offer the following as appropriate selection criteria: 1] The proposal offers excellent, new scientific approaches; 2] The site should not duplicate an existing site; 3] The site should have existing long term records; 4] The site should have features or landscapes that offer special scientific opportunities. Suggestions for new additions -- We recommend that the following types of landscapes be considered for the next round of LTER competitions: 1] Urban-Rural Gradient LTER, 2] Freshwater Wetlands LTER, 3] Tropical Desert LTER, 4] Cold Desert LTER, 5] Sonoran Desert, 6] Coral Reef LTER, and 7] Delta LTERs. If approximately 3.0M were available as annual funding for your site, how would you propose that the funds be invested? [18c] We developed a framework for new science with expanded funding and have identified the critical research needs to expand the research framework currently in place with the view of maximizing the pace of scientific advancement. This exercise was done with the view of doing new science and doing more of what we are already doing at the site. The list of needs below is not given in priority order as that has not been worked out for this exercise. At the end of this section, we address the new and different research plans at both the site and network levels. Support for 6 new PhD-level support staff -- At the present time we have one full-time, research assistant professor staff (J. Porter: Data Manager). We would select 6 research professors to fill the following roles: 1] field site director to run the laboratories and coordinate facilities, 2] hydrology/nutrient flux specialist to coordinate our work on the pattern and movements of inorganic nutrients, 3] specialists in lagoon and marsh productivity and decomposition studies to coordinate work in that area, 4] stable isotope geochemist specializing in nitrogen and sulfur pathways in ecosystems, 5] a specialist in invertebrate community ecology, and 6] a GIS specialist with strong training in ecosystems or community ecology. Expand Summer Salary Support for PIs -- In order to fully engage project PIs who have academic responsibilities, it is essential to provide support at the level of 2 summer months for each PI, a technical staff person and two graduate students. Under current conditions each PI must find support in this measure or greater where he/she can. This usually means taking on research activities unrelated to the LTER mission. The lack of full engagement of PIs is the greatest impediment to full research productivity for the site. Further Increase PI Diversity -- We would propose to increase subcontracted PIs to fill needed specialities including entomology, micrometeorology, aboriginal archaeology, landscape historian, paleoecologist and population ecology. Annual Surveys -- We would augment our remote sensing surveys by adding 1] Quarterly Visible and IR Photographic Flights and 2] AVRIS Aircraft Flights: Linkage Study to Satellite Images. Replication of Long-Term Experiments -- We would use additional funding for replication of long-term experiments now being installed. The VCR has replicate instances of most landscape and ecosystem elements. Experimental replication at the landscape scale can be done at the VCR. Technical staff for core areas -- We would use technicians to expand our core-area, research program under the direction of appropriate PIs. New laboratory facilities -- Our current field laboratories are restricted to those activities that require immediate sample processing. Otherwise we ship samples back to the University laboratories. Expansion of field laboratories would greatly improve productivity. Offshore wave and current meters -- At the present time, we rely on data from NOAA wave gauges 10s of kilometers from the VCR site. We would install wave and current meters off the central portion of the VCR. These installations would permit the calculations of storm energies propagated toward the coast and the calibration of our models for generating estimates of proxy measures of storm wave climates. Development of a local network of tide gauges -- In order to properly develop a water budget for the site, we need to have a network of tide stations with remote reporting capability. Such installations with our GPS system would permit detailed elevation studies where centimeter resolution is needed to resolve critical ecosystem and geophysical processes. Improved Electronic Connections Between University & Site -- Data transmission lines from the Eastern Shore of Virginia are not modern in vintage. We would propose to install proper data transmission quality lines to our laboratories at the site. Electronic Data Acquisition -- Because of the difficult logistics, especially during poor weather, we have found it necessary to install some remote data transmission equipment (meteorological data). We would increase this capacity to our wide ranging needs to monitor water table elevations. Expense currently limits our capacity to do this. High Resolution GPS Capability Expansion -- We would propose to have full high resolution GPS equipment at the site so that cm resolution in the vertical is possible anywhere on the VCR. At the VCR, very small variations in elevation make substantial ecosystem deferences. Electronic Image Transfer Capabilities to Subcontract PIs -- We propose to install work-stations of the Sparkstation class at all subcontracting institutions so that image-transfer capability and remote access to our GIS facilities are fully available. Meteorological Network Expansion for Mesoscale Coverage -- We would install a network of remote reporting weather stations to capture the mesoscale variations in weather conditions. During the convective half of the season, order-of-magnitude variations in rainfall for example are critical. On-Islands Lodging Facilities -- Expanded researcher traffic at the site will require additional lodging facilities. We would propose to rent space to double our capacity to accommodate scientists. Boat Facilities Expansion -- Expanded researcher traffic at the site will require additional water transportation capabilities. Additional boats and trained boatmen will be required. We would need to double our current resources. Technical Support in Data Mgt. and Electronics & Fabrication -- We anticipate that two new technical support staff would be required. A full time data management assistant and a full rather than part-time electronics and fabrication specialist would be needed. ******************** Intersite Research Objective -- A portion of the expanded core grant should be set aside to support intersite research ventures. The current method of forming a consortium, generating a workshop and proposal and then submission of a multi-subcontract proposal to NSF is cumbersome in that it is in competition with all other ecosystem proposals. If funds were added to core grants, intersite programs could be implemented with Network Office and Sites guidance. Among the topics suitable for such a venture would be modeling, climate/ecosystems in changed climates, cross-site decomposition, below ground production, litter removal and addition experiments. Greater Resources & New Science -- If funding is to increase it is reasonable to expect new advances in science. We have discussed this notion and offer the following as an examples in which such new science may result. Add large-space to long-term. The notion here is that some ecosystem processes occur at a scale significantly larger than normal funding would permit study of in a meaningful way. Larger is not necessarily better but a larger experimental or monitoring domain can permit new science to be done. The example in physics is the supercollider. It is "super" to permit a very specific set scientific discoveries to be approached. We offer an example of our thinking. At the VCR, nutrient flow paths east of the divide on the peninsula probably regulate nutrient dynamics in part of the lagoons and marshes of the VCR. A network of wells for monitoring water head and water chemistry would be required to resolve this scale of dynamics. It is likely that such a nutrient study would need to be manned for years. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural community imbedded in a natural landscape may well permit answers to questions of the wider value to society. Development of a lagoon water-budget would be required. Adding an Integrated Regional Studies Research Program -- At our site we have a dynamic ecosystem that responds to regional geophysical processes, processes which in turn are influenced by cultural conditions on the lower Delmarva Peninsula. Significantly, the local governments and the conservation organization, The Nature Conservancy, are implementing land use controls to "save" the lagoons of the VCR from nutrients from the mainland via groundwater flow. Our studies indicate that this may not be the dominant threat to the lagoons. Clearly, the population pressures will grow on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and the connections between the economy, conservation and physical controls on key processes is an ideal focus for an expanded research program. Larger Grant & Site Administration -- The larger the Grant the greater the infrastructure required. Administrative duties expand (perhaps are compounded) with added people and expanded programs. We have 18 PIs and Collaborators. We are still at the hunting party level of organization. If this were to expand significantly into more than 20 or 30 of PIs, we would need to have a significant change in the administrative structure of the program. We would need to install a coordinating committee structure within the Site LTER. This coordinating committee would need to have full LTER Network contacts. Impact of Larger LTERs on Ecosystem Science -- One issue that arises out of the notion of 3M/year LTERs is the impact on the institutions of ecology. In other disciplines, such infusions of resources resulted in new professional societies, the blooming of new journals, the development of new forums for scientific presentation. 3M/year would also mean that the PhDs trained at LTER would take positions at other LTERs rather than at small colleges where they quickly end their research careers. This then would result in a multiplicative impact on the ecosystem sciences. In our view such an investment would move the science rapidly forward. Should more resources be directed toward: [19] Network functions [19a] It is our view that there is some appropriate proportionality between the dimensions of the LTER sites and the dimensions and scope of the Network Office and its functions. International participation such as IGBP, MAB and IAI/START [19b] We are active participants in IGBP and MAB but must funds-hunt and negotiate for resources to participate as members. If we are to represent LTER and LTER is to become a full partner in these programs, logistic support augmentation of site grants would be required. Such logistics insure LTER a seat at the table. A second level of participation is in active research programs. At this time we seek out funds by individual grant processes to funding agencies with appropriate mission. Refining and augmenting Minimum Site Installation capabilities [19c] The concept of minimum site installation is has been one of the hallmarks of the LTER program. It is an effort toward standardization and comparability. It has served the LTER sites well in the past. The development of these evolving standards, constitutes site contributions to the Network, e.g., ARC/INFO GIS, GPS capabilities, Super Computer Connectivity, full electronic communications. Application of these standards and bringing sites into full compliance should be a significant aspect of the renewal- proposal process. Expanding the number of participating scientists and broadening the range of disciplines [19d] Our site would benefit directly by additional PIs and coverage of additional disciplines. At the VCR, direct funds transfer to individual PIs for their individual research agenda ranges from $6,000 to $18,000. Communal resources (boats, vehicles, staff, lodging) are added indirect resources. The VCR has 19 PIs who are candidates for this support. Further subdivision of the resource pie at our site beyond the current level is not likely. More PIs would require new resources (NSF or other). While we are a very diverse LTER we have needs for additional disciplines and expertise and would welcome new resources to augment our team. Initially, we view a more productive application of resources would be to increase the individual funding for existing PIs. Currently, all of our PIs must seek funds from other agencies to meet their summer stipend needs. This means that they are not fully involved in the LTER site. The PIs work hard to get additional funding that is directly focused on the site, but it is not always possible. Increasing the dedication on the part of PIs, man-hours and intellectual effort, to the site by expanding resources for PIs would have immediate returns on the investment. (See response to 18c.) Use of research results in a social context [19e] The landlord for the VCR, the Nature Conservancy, has an ambitious social agenda for the two counties of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The Nature Conservancy would like to have a greater part of our mission end in results that would help them in their land management and community development programs. We work with the community on a MAB program and on the citizen's water-quality monitoring and analysis network. Our joint research project has a social application focus and work with them on several low-end funded activities that might be deemed "socially responsible" on our part. However, our research framework is mostly basic ecological science which may be of limited utility in addressing broad social and stewardship issues. It is not clear how a requirement for social application would be added to the LTER objectives, perhaps a social-application, core area? In our view, support (augmentation of funds) for participation in MAB, IGBP and other existing institutions with defined social objectives would be the most efficient way to maximize social application of LTER results. Education of students and/or the public [19f] Additional support for student education should include four types 1] support for more graduate students, 2] more REU students, 3] Network fellowships that permit LTER students to spend part of their education at another LTER site, and 4] develop intersite post doctoral study programs that would foster intersite synergisms. Additional support for education of the public should be approached with great care. A REU-like summer program for public school teachers might be scientifically productive and could have a multiplicative effect of getting LTER science out to the public. Careful planning would be required for such a venture. High priority would be difficult to win. A Network View of a Major Expansion of Funds -- It is useful to consider the structure of the future network with $3M/year funding for a total of $60M to $65M total. The existing funding that the atmospheric sciences has through NCAR and its university affiliate UCAR is a model that merits consideration for our Network. We view the application of this model as follows. The 18 or 20 LTER sites be constituted as the National Center for Ecological Research (NCER): a "distributed center." The required parallel organization would be the University Corporation for Ecological Research (UCER). UCER would consist of member Universities and Colleges. Through UCER, scientists throughout the nation would have access to the 20 research sites and centers that make up NCER. UCER is an access organization in support of the network of sites. Our Network Office could become UCER. NCER is a not single bricks and mortar research center like NCAR in Boulder, Colorado. In our model, the LTER sites become the laboratories of NCER and UCER members have access to this field laboratory system. Other activities [19g] Major equipment -- To the best of our knowledge there are two mass-spec machines for stable isotope analyses available to PIs (one at the University of Virginia (VCR) and the other at Woods Hole (Arctic Lakes and Harvard Forest). In the long-term, a similar facility closer to the western LTERs would be of value and a consortium of these facilities could be established to keep the network up to date in technology, methods and techniques. Landscape Level Experiment Installation -- Most experiments are at the the sub-landscape-element scale and yet the processes which control landscape and ecosystem dynamics are often organized at a larger scale and proper experiments would require a larger infrastructure. Such a ventures would be more expensive than current funding could support. Should the LTER program further standardize a basic core data monitoring program at each site to ensure a long-term data base? [20] It is our view that, in the long-term, standardization is essential and is in the best interest of the LTER program and more importantly, ecosystem science. Standardization, on the other hand, is neither easy nor cheap. A committee on standardization within the LTER network should engage in proper planning with the view that a program for standardization could be put in place in 5 years time. Five years would be an adequate time to develop the funding to support advances in standardization. It is clear from other disciplines that standardization is an ongoing activity and is realized over a time frame of decades. Comment#1 -- We are trying to integrate our core data programs into the sites of our long-term experiments and at our sites of intense process research. To standardize these programs would tend to result in them being free standing research obligations and perhaps not closely related to the research interests of PIs or to data collection programs long in place. A tradeoff with costs and benefits results. Comment #2 -- It is not clear how the review panels view an ideal core area data program much less standardization between LTER sites. Core data programs, like beauty, tend to be in the eye of the beholder. A better definition of how to meet the core area data program would be of value in the research planning process and at proposal preparation time. Comment #3 -- Each site currently implements within-site standards for the collection of long-term core data sets. These core data sets are selected to fulfill site-specific data needs and are appropriate for site-specific habitats and conditions. Intersite standards exist for a relatively limited number of types of data (such as meterological data). Expansion of "network-wide" standards would provide for better intercomparability of LTER sites and examination of large-scale questions, but cannot be pursued without additional resources, both for workshops to develop the standards and for data collection. It is critical that intersite standards be emergent standards that incorporate the viewpoints of all the participating sites. Imposed standards, reflecting a narrow viewpoint, would be a major impediment to achieving useful cross-site long-term data sets. Should there be a formal archival system for data and key samples? [21] At the present time we archive only sediment cores. Our archival system is PI specific and not a VCR wide project activity. Archival storage is essential for the research programs of several of our PIs. The archival protocols are individual but consistent with the methods in their discipline. Our PIs recognize that scientific advances have come from study of archived samples but also note that institutional support in a commitment is essential for such a program to be successful as a decades long program is required. A Network Office directed study of sample archives should address this problem. Comment #1 -- Sample archival is costly. Dedicated space is required and the requirements often include special environmental control. Long-term commitment is essential. Technical staff is often required. NSF has supported such activities in the past (deep sea cores, ice cores, etc.) and so there is a basis for such programs. They would need to be line-items in NSF budgets. Comment #2 -- Regular sample archival is one means of building long-term data sets in a to-be-developed-later mode. Often new technologies are applied to archived samples, e.g., sediment and ice cores, blood samples, etc. Hubbard Brook has experience in this area and should be consulted. What other information or opinions would you like to provide that was not requested in the above questions? [22] At the present time, the LTER community is sufficiently large that most of the highly productive ecosystem scientists are LTER involved. The pool of non-LTER scientists from which peer reviewers are drawn is becoming smaller. If LTERs were to expand in size, this pool would grow smaller still and peer reviewers would be harder and harder to find. LTER inbreeding results. This should be systematically evaluated. During the past two decades the training of ecologists has expanded greatly. These highly trained individuals, many trained in LTER programs, often settle into the smaller, non-research oriented colleges and universities. They then become inactive as publishing scientists. This is a waste of a significant resource that could advance ecosystem science. An LTER Fellows Program aimed at these scientists and funded by NSF in a competition could well support these scientists for the summer field-season under the umbrella of the LTER site framework for research. Please provide a brief description about the process your site used to respond to this questionnaire. [23] The following is the plan to meet the Risser Committee sent to all PIs by e-mail on February 12,1993. ************ Procedure for response to the Risser committee call for information. The Risser committee report from the VCR is a very substantial undertaking and of considerable moment. We have a day or two more than two weeks to get the job done. The following procedures will be followed. 1. The Risser Committee list of questions we need to answer will be sent to all PIs for their study. Non-UVa PIs should send their contributions to me by e-mail. Text that PIs would like to see worked into the report should be sent by e-mail. Non-UVa PIs should heed the schedule below in allocating their time to work on this effort. 2. I will draft a first-cut response to all the questions. This draft will be ready for our weekly PIs meeting on Tuesday, 16 February at 3:30. The meeting will be a working meeting on our response. I will identify areas of the report where I need specific kinds of information and special knowledge from various PIs. I will also collect PI notes (and send me an e-mail version of your notes, suggestion, and composition) on the Risser Committee questions. Writing assignments for various questions will be made at this meeting and due back to me (by e-mail) by the close of the day on Friday, 19 February. 3. I will finish a second draft, complete in all sections, by Monday, February 22 and circulate it to the PIs. 4. At the next weekly PI meeting (23rd of February), we will discuss shortcomings of our response document, air out conflicts of visions, and decide on final structure of the report. 5. John Porter and I will, quickly, generate a penultimate version of the report on Wednesday the 24th. Two readers will help to clean and spruce up the discourse in the report and return it to me by 5:00 PM on the 25th. 6. Between Friday the 26th and Monday morning the 1st of March we will finalize the report and Fed-Ex it to Paul Risser. 7. Our report to the Risser Committee will be posted on our gopher system: VCRIS. E-mail copies may be solicited. 8. Please expect office visits by me for special information requests. APPENDIX: PUBLICATIONS _____________________________________________________________ PIs, Post Docs & Staff in Bold Type & Students in Italics * = work entirely or predominantly supported by VCR LTER Resources # = partial support from VCR LTER Resources and collaborations of the PIs with non-VCR colleagues that relate to the PIs work at the VCR. _____________________________________________________________ Agren, G.I., R.E. McMurtrie, W.J. Parton, J. Pastor, and H.H. Shugart. 1991. State-of-the-art of models of production-decomposition in conifer and grassland ecosystems. Ecological Applications 1:118- 138.# Al-Abed, S. and A. C. Mills. 1993. Genesis of Soils in the Marsh/Upland System of the Coastal Lagoon of Virginia. Soil Sci. In Review* Blum, L.K. 1993. Root Dynamics in a Mid-Atlantic Salt Marsh. Marine Eocl. Prog. Series. In Press.* Blum, L.K., A.L. Mills. 1991. Microbial Growth and Activity During the Initial Stages of Seagrass Decomposition. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 70:73-83. * Bonan, G.B., B.P. Hayden. 1990a. Forest Vegetation Structure on the Eastern Shore of Virginia circa 18,000 years B.P. Va. J. Sci.41:4A:307-320. * Bonan, G.B., B.P. Hayden. 1990b. Using a Forest Stand Simulation Model to Examine the Ecological and Climatic Significance of the Late- Quarternary Pine-Spruce Pollen Zone in Eastern Virginia, U.S.A. Quarternary Res. 33:204-218. * Bulger, A.J., B.P. Hayden, M.E. Monaco, D.M. Nelson. 1993. Biologically-based Estuarine Salinity Zone Classification Derived from a Multivariate Analysis. Estuaries. In Press.# Carter, G.A. and D.R. Young. 1993. Foliar Spectral Reflectance and Plant Stress on a Barrier Island. International Journal of Plant Sciences. In Press.* Chambers, R.. 1992. A Fluctuating Water-Level Chamber for Biogeochemical Experiments in Tidal Marshes. Estuaries 15:53-58. Chambers, R., W.E. Odum. 1990. Porewater Oxidation, Dissolved Phosphate and the Iron curtain: Iron-Phosphorous Relations in Tidal Freshwater Marshes. Biogeochem. 10:37-52. # Cohn, M., and Kochel, R.C., 1993, The Relative Role of Geomorphic Processes in Storm Recovery of Washover Sites on the Virginia Barrier Islands: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abs. w. prog. v. 25, no. 2, p. 9.* Conn, C. E. and F. P. Day. 1993. Belowground Biomass Patterns on a Coastal Barrier Island in Virginia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. In Press. Davis, R. and R. Dolan. 1992. The "All Hallows' Eve Storm -- October, 1991. J. of Coastal Research. 8:987-983.# DeKimpe, N.M., R. Dolan, B.P. Hayden. 1991. Predicted Dune Recession on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, U.S.A. J. Coastal Res. 7:451-463. # Dolan, R., B. Hayden, K. Bosserman, L. Lisle. 1987. Frequency and Magnitude Data on Coastal Storms. J. Coastal Res. 3:245-247.# Dolan, R., H. Lins, B. Hayden. 1988. Mid-Atlantic Coastal Storms. J. Coastal Res. 4:417-433.# Dolan, R., D.L. Inman, B. Hayden. 1990a. The Atlantic Coast Storm of March 1989. J. Coastal Res. 6:721-725.# Dolan, R., S. Trossbach, M. Buckley. 1990b. New Shoreline Erosion Data for the Mid-Atlantic Coast. J. Coastal Res. 6:471-477.# Dueser, R.D. 1990. Biota of the Virginia Barrier Islands: Symposium. Va. J. Sci. 41:Special Issue 4A.* Dueser, R.D. 1990. Biota of the Virginia Barrier Islands: Symposium Introduction. Va. J. Sci. 41:4A:257-258.* Dueser, R.D., K. Terwillinger. 1988. Status of the Delmarva Fox Squirrel in Virginia. VA. J. Sci. 38:380-388.# Dueser, R.D., J.H. Porter, J.L. Dooley, Jr. 1989. Direct Tests for Competition in North American Rodent Communities : Synthesis and Prognosis, p. 105-125. In D.W. Morris, Z. Abramsky, B.J. Fox, M.R. Willig (eds.). Symposium on Patterns in the Structure of Mammalian Communities. Special Publication of the Museum #28. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.# Emanuel, W.R., I.C. Prentice, T.M. Smith, H.H. Shugart, A.M. Soloman. 1989. Models for Analysis of Vegetation Responses to Global Environmental Change, p. 251-260. In R.D. Noble, J.L. Martin, K.F. Jensen (eds.). Air Pollution Effects on Vegetation Including Forest Ecosystems. Proceedings of the Second US-USSR Symposium, U.S.D.A. For. Ser., N.E. For. Exp. Stat. Broomall, PA.# Fahrig, L. 1990a. Interacting Effects of Disturbance and Dispersal on Individual Selection and Population Stability. Comments on Theoret. Biol.1:275-297.* Fahrig, L. 1990b. Determinants of Local Population Size in Patchy Habitats. Theoret. Population Biology. 34:194-213.* Fahrig, L. 1991. Simulation Methods for Developing General Landscape-level Hypotheses of Single Species Dynamics, p. 417-442. In M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner (eds.), Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Ecological Studies 82, Springer-Verlag, N.Y.* Fahrig, L., D. Coffin, W. H. Lauenroth and H. H. Shugart. 1993. The Advantage of Long-Distance Clonal Spreading in Highly Disturbed Habitats. Am. Naturalist. In Press.* Fahrig, L., B. Hayden and R. Dolan 1993. Distribution of Barrier Island Plants in Relation to Overwash Disturbance: A test of Life History Theory. J. of Coastal Research. In Press.* Foyle, A. M. and G. F. Oertel. 1993. Seismic Stratigraphy and Coastal Drainage in the Quaternary Section of the Southern Delmarva Peninsula, VA, USA. Sedimentary Geology. In Press. * Franklin, J.F., H.H. Shugart, M.E. Harmon. 1987. Tree Death as an Ecosystem Process. BioScience. 37:550-556.# Friend, A. D., H.H. Shugart, and S. W. Running. 1993. A Physiology- Based Model of Forest dynamics. Ecology. In Review.# Garland, J., A.L. Mills. 1991. Classification and Characterization of Heterotrophic Microbial Communities Based on Patterns of Community-level Sole Carbon-source Utilization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57:2351-2359.# Harvey, J.W., R.M. Chambers, W.E. Odum. 1988. Groundwater Transport Between Hill Slopes and Tidal Marshes. Proceedings of the National Wetlands Symposium: Wetlands Hydrology. J.A. Kusler (ed.), Assoc. of State Wetland Managers, Berne, N.Y. pp. 270-277.# Harvey, J., P. Germann, W.E. Odum. 1987. Geomorphological Control of Subsurface Hydrology in the Creek Bank Zone of Tidal Marshes. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci. 25:677-691.# Harvey, J.W., W.E. Odum. 1990. The Influence of Tidal Marshes on Upland Groundwater Discharge to Estuaries. Biogeochemistry. 10:217-236.# Hayden, B. 1990. Climate Change and Ecosystem Dynamics at the Virginia Coast Reserve 18,000 B. P. and During the Last Century, p. 76 84. In Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. S.E. For. Exp. Stat. Gen. Tech. Report SE-65.* Hayden, B.P., R.D. Dueser, J.T. Callahan, H.H. Shugart. 1991. Long-term Research at the Virginia Coast Reserve: Modeling a Highly Dynamic Environment. Bioscience. 41:310-318.* Hayden, B. P. 1993. "Outsider" Overview of Biological Models. Integrated Regional Models Symposium Volume. Institute for Ecosystem Studies. Millbrook, NY. In Press.* Hoelscher, J. R. , W. K. Nuttle, and J. W. Harvey. 1993. Comment on "Calibration and Use of Pressure Transducers in Soil Hydrology." Hydrol. Proc. In Press.* Horn, H.S., H.H. Shugart, D.L. Urban.1989. Simulators as Models of Forest Dynamics. p. 256-267. In J. Roughgarden, R.M. May, S.I. Levin (eds.), Perspectives in Ecological Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.# Hussey, B. H. and W. E. Odum. 1992. Evapotranspiration in Tidal Marshes. Estuaries 15:59-67 .* Inman, D.L., R. Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina: Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System. J. Coastal Res. 5:193-237.# Johnson, S.R. 1991. The Occurrence of State Rare Species on Hog Island in the Virginia Coast Reserve. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 118:326 328.* Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Young. 1992. Variation in Tree Ring Width in Relation to Storm Activity for Mid-Atlantic Barrier Island Populations of Pinus taeda. Journal of Coastal Research 8: 99-104.* Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Young. 1992. Influence of Salinity and Shading on the Population of Pinus taeda on Barrier Islands. Ecology. In Press.* Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Young. 1993. Factors Contributing to the Decline of Pinus taeda on a Virginia Barrier Island. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, in press.* Kochel, R.C., L.A. Wampler. 1989. Relative Role of Overwash and Aeolian Processes on Washover Fans, Assateague Island, Virginia- Maryland. J. Coastal Res. 5:453-475.# Kochel, R.C., McGeehan, K.A., Valastro, S., and Carlson, R., 1991, Holocene Overwash Dynamics on the Virginia Barrier Islands: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abs. w. Prog., v. 23, no. 5, p. 205-206.* Kowalski, K., 1993, Influence of Barrier Island Stratigraphy and Bathymetry on Shoreline Change: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abs. w. Prog. v. 25, no. 2, p. 30.* MacMillin, K. , L, K. Blum, and A. L. Mills. 1992. Comparison of Bacterial Dynamics in Tidal Creeks of the Lower Delmarva Peninsula. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 86:111-121.* MacMillin, K. , L, K. Blum. 1993. Effect of DOC Source on Bacterial Community Dynamics in Tidal Marsh Creeks. In Prep.* McCaffrey, C.A., R.D. Dueser. 1990a. Plant Associations on the Virginia Barrier Islands. Va. J. Sci. 41:4A:289-299.* McCaffrey, C.A., R.D. Dueser. 1990c. Preliminary Vascular Flora for the Virginia Barrier Islands. Va. J. Sci. 41:4A:259-281.* Mills, A.L., L.K. Blum, L.M. Lagera. 1990. Distribution of Bacterial Abundance and Activity in the Virginia Coastal Lagoon Complex. ASLO Meetings, Williamsburg, Va. (Published Abstract).* Nuttle, W. K., and H.F. Hemond. 1992. Salt Marsh Hydrology: Implications for Biogeochemical Fluxes to the Atmosphere and Estuaries. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. In Press.# O'Brien, S., B. P. Hayden, and H. H. Shugart. 1992. Global Climate Change, Hurricanes and a Tropical Rain Forest. Climate Change 22:175-190. * Odum, W.E. 1988. Comparative Ecology of Tidal Freshwater and Salt Marshes. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Systematics 19:147-176.# Odum, W.E. 1988. Non-tidal Freshwater Wetland in Virginia. Va. J. Nat. Res. Law 7:421-434.# Odum, W.E., J.W. Harvey. 1988. Barrier Island Interdunal Freshwater Wetlands. ASB Bulletin 35:149-155.# Odum, W.E., B.P. Hayden. 1991. Virginia Coast Reserve. p. 158- 165. In Long-Term Ecological Research in the United States. LTER Publication No. 11. Network Office, Seattle, Wa.* Odum,W.E., J.K. Hoover. 1987. A Comparison of Vascular Plant Communities in Tidal Freshwater and Salt Water Marshes, p. 526- 534. In D.D. Hook et al. (eds.), Ecology and management of wetlands. London. Cromm Helm.# Oertel, G.F., J.C. Ludwick, D.L.S. Oertel. 1989. Standardization of the Volume-Change Element of Barrier Island Sediment Budget Analysis, p. 43-61. In D. Stumble (ed.). Barrier Islands, Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE.# Oertel, G.F., G.T.F. Wong, J.D. Conway. 1989a. Sediment Accumulation at a Fringe Marsh During Transgression, Oyster, Virginia. Estuaries 12:18-26.* Oertel, G.F., M.S. Kearney, S.J. Leatherman, H.J. Woo. 1989b. Anatomy of a Barrier Platform: Outer Barrier Lagoon, Southern Delmarva Peninsula, Virginia. Va. J. Mar. Geol. 88:303-318.* Oertel, G.F. 1992a. Paleographic and Morphostratigraphic Studies at the Barrier Island Long-Term Ecological Research Site. (Published Abstract)* Oertel, G.F and J. C. Kraft. 1993. New Jersey and Delmarva Barrier Islands. In R. E. Davis (ed.) Geology of Coastal Barrier Systems. Springer- Verlag. In Press.# Oertel, G.F, J. C. Kraft, M. S. Iearnery, H.J. Woo. 1993. A Rational Theory for Barrier Lagoon Development. SEPM: Special Publication #48. Quarternary Coasts of the United States: Marine and Lacustrian Systems. In Press.# Osgood, D., J.C. Zieman. 1992a. Factors Controlling Above-Ground Spartina Alterniflora Production and Tissue Element Composition in Different Aged Barrier Island Marshes. Estuaries. In Review.* Osgood, D., J.C. Zieman. 1992b. A Comparison of Physical and Chemical Properties of Substrate in Different Aged Barrier Island Marshes. Estuaries. In Review.* Porter, J.H., R.D. Dueser. 1989. A Comparison of Methods for Measuring Small Mammal Dispersal by Use of a Monte-Carlo Simulation Model. J. Mammalogy 70:783-793.* Porter, J.H., R.D. Dueser. 1990. Selecting a Body-mass Criterion for Measuring Dispersal. J. Mammology 71:470-473.* Porter, J.H., J. Kennedy. 1991. Computer Systems for Data Management. In G. Lauf, J. Gorentz (eds.), A Report to the National Science Foundation. In Press* Rastetter, E.B. 1991. A Spatially Explicit Model of Vegetation-Habitat Interactions on Barrier Islands. p. 353-378. In M.G. Turner, R.H. Gardner (eds.), Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Ecological Studies 82, Springer-Verlag, NY.* Ray, G.C., B.P. Hayden. 1992. Coastal Zone Ecotones. p. 408-420. In Hansen, A.J., et al. (eds.), Landscape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows. Springer-Verlag, NY.# Ray, G.C., B.P. Hayden, J. McCormick-Ray, A. Bulger. 1992. Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity of Coastal-Marine Zones. In Consequences of Greenhouse Effect for Biodiversity. Yale University Press. # Rozas, L.P., W.E. Odum. 1987. Use of Tidal Freshwater Marshes by Fishes and Macrofaunal Crustaceans along a Marsh Stream-Order Gradient. Estuaries 10:36-43.# Rozas, L.P., W.E. Odum. 1987. Fish and Macrocrustacean Use of submerged Plant Beds in Tidal Freshwater Marsh Creeks. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 38:101-108.# Rozas, L.P., W.E. Odum. 1987. The Role of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Influencing the Abundance of Nekton on Contiguous Tidal Freshwater Marshes. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 114:289-300.# Rozas, L.P., C.C. McIvor, W.E. Odum. 1988. Intertidal Rivulets and Creekbanks: Corridors Between Tidal Creeks and Marshes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 47:303-307.# Sande, E. and D.R. Young. 1992. Effect of Sodium Chloride on the Growth and Nitrogenase Activity of Myrica cerifera Seedlings. New Phytologist 120: 345-350.* Sande, E., D.R. Young. 1992. Effect of Sodium Chloride on Growth and Nitrogenase Activity in Seedlings of Myrica cerifera L. New Phytologist. In press.* Schneider, R.L., W.E. Odum. 1992. Barrier Island Interdunal Freshwater Wetlands. J. Southeastern Biologists. In Press.# Shugart. H.H. 1987. Dynamic Ecosystem Consequences of Tree Birth and Death Patterns. Bioscience 37:596-602.# Shugart, H.H. 1988. The Role of Ecological Models in Long-Term Ecological Studies. pp. 90-109. In G.E. Likens (ed.), Long-term studies in Ecology. Springer-Verlag, NY.# Shugart. H.H. 1990. Ecological Models and the Ecotone, p. 23-36. In R.J. Naiman, H. deChampes (eds.), Ecology and Management of Aquatic Terrestrial Ecotones. Pantheon Publishing.# Shugart, H.H. 1990. Using Ecosystem Models to Assess Potential Consequences of Global Climatic Change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:303-307.# Shugart, H.H. 1990. Modeling Future Changes of Vegetation Succession, p. 61-67. In Symposium on Global Change Systems, Amer. Meteorological Soc., Boston, MA.# Shugart, H.H. 1991. Concluding Comments, p. 465-469. In Shugart, H.H., R. Leemans, G.B. Bonan (eds.), A Systems Analysis of the Global Boreal Forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.# Shugart, H.H., G.B. Bonan, E.B. Rastetter. 1989. Niche Theory and Community Organization. Can. J. Bot. 66:2634-2639.# Shugart, H.H., G.B. Bonan, D.L. Urban, W.K. Lauenroth, W.J. Parton, G.M. Hornberger. 1989. Computer Models and Long Term Ecological Research, p. 217-266. In W. Goerke (ed.), Long-term Ecological Research: A Global Perspective. The German National Committee for the UNESCO-Programme, "Man and the Biosphere" (MAB), Bonn, DDR.# Shugart, H.H., G.B. Bonan, D.L. Urban, W.K. Lauenroth, W.J. Parton, G.M. Hornberger. 1991. p. 211-239. In P.R. Risser (ed.), Computer Models and Long-term Ecological Research and Global Change. SCOPE. John Wiley, London.# Shugart, H.H., Michaels, P.J., Smith, T.M., Weinstein, D.A., Rastetter, E.B. 1988. Simulation Models of Forest Succession, p. 125-151. In T. Rosswall, R.G. Woodmansee, P.G. Risser (eds.), Scales and Global Changes: Spatial and Temporal Variability in Biospheric and, Geospheric Processes. John Wiley and Sons, London.# Shugart, H.H., D.L. Urban. 1988. Scale, Synthesis, and Ecosystem Dynamics, p. 279-290. In L.R. Pomeroy, J.J. Alberts (eds.), Concepts of Ecosystem Ecology, Springer-Verlag, NY.# Shugart, H.H., D.L. Urban. 1989. Factors Affecting the Relative Abundances of Forest Tree Species, p. 249-274. In P.J. Grubb, J.B. Whittaker (eds.), Toward a More Exact Ecology. Jubilee Symposium of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell, Oxford.# Shugart, H.H. 1992. Concluding Comments, In A.M. Solomon, H.H. Shugart (eds.), Vegetation Dynamics and Global Change. Chapman and Hall, Ny. In press.# Shugart, H.H., R. Leemans, G.B. Bonan. 1991. A Systems Analysis of the Global Boreal Forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (book: not yet released)# Shugart, H.H., I.C. Prentice. 1991. Individual Tree-Based Models of Forest Dynamics and Their Application in Global Change Research. p. 313-333. In Shugart, H.H., R. Leemans, G.B. Bonan (eds.), A Systems Analysis of the Global Boreal Forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (a chapter in above book: not yet released)# Shugart, H.H., T.M. Smith, W.M. Post. 1992a. The Application of Individual-Based Simulation Models for Assessing the Effects of Global Change. Ann. Rev. Ecology Systematics 23. In press.# Shugart, H.H. 1992. Global Change. In A.M. Solomon, H.H. Shugart (eds.), Vegetation Dynamics and Global Change. Chapman and Hall, NY. In press.# Smith, T.M., H.H. Shugart, F.I. Woodward, P.J. Burton. 1992b. Plant Functional Types. In A.M. Solomon, H.H. Shugart (eds.), Vegetation Dynamics and Global Change. Chapman and Hall, NY. In press. # Smith, T.M., H.H. Shugart, D.L. Urban, W.K. Lauenroth, D.P. Coffin, T.B Kirchner. 1989. Modeling Vegetation Across Biomes: Forest- Grassland Transition. p. 240-241. In E. Sjorgren (ed.), Forests of the World: Diversity and Dynamics, Svneska Vasgeografiska Sallskapet. Uppsala, Sweden.# Smith, T.M., H.H. Shugart, G.B. Bonan, J.B. Smith. 1992a. Modeling the Potential Response of Vegetation to Global Climate Change. Advances in Ecological Research 22:93-116.# Solomon, A.M., H.H. Shugart. 1992. Vegetation Dynamics and Global Change. Chapman and Hall, NY. In press. # Urban, D.L., G.B. Bonan, T.M. Smith, H.H. Shugart. 1992. Spatial Applications of Gap Models. Forest Ecology and Management 42:95 110.# Young, D.R., E. Sande and G.A. Peters. 1992. Spatial relationships of Frankia and Myrica cerifera on a Virginia, USA barrier island. Symbiosis 12: 209-229.* Young, D.R. 1992. Photosynthetic Characteristics and Potential Moisture Stress for the Actinorhizal Shrub, Myrica cerifera, on a Virginia Barrier Island. American Journal of Botany 79: 2-7.* Theses and Dissertations * VCR LTER fully supported student. # VCR partial support usually logistics and facilities at the VCR Barr, L.1989. Sedimentation and Fallout Cesium-137 Cycling in a Virginia Salt Marsh. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Bonan, G. 1988. Environmental Processes and Vegetation Patterns in Boreal Forests. PH.D Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Chambers, R. 1990. Nitrogen and Phosphorous Dynamics in Tidal Freshwater Marshes. Ph.D Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Fetsko, M. 1990. A Water Balance Estimate at Brownsville, Virginia. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Fitch, G.M. 1991. The Role of Overwash on Hog Island. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Forys, E. 1990. The Effect of Immigration on Island Colonization and Population Persistence of Oryzomys palustrius on the Barrier islands of Virginia. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Frank, S. T. 1992. MACIS: The Mid-Atlantic Coastal Information System and the Quantitative Analysis of Marine Processes and Coastal Characteristics. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Frye, J. 1989. Methane Movement in Peltandra virginica. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Halama, K. 1989. Of Mice and Habitats: Tests for Density-dependent Habitat Selection. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Harris, M.S. 1992. The Geomorphology of Hog Island, Virginia: A Mid- Atlantic Coast Barrier. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Harvey, J. 1990. Hydrological Transport in Tidal Marsh Soils: Controls on Solute Cycling at the Scale of Marshes, Plants, and Soil Pores. PH.D. Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Hussey, B. 1989. Evapotranspiration from Vegetated Marsh Surfaces. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Johnson, S.R. 1991. Influence of Salinity, Shading and Storm Activity on Mid-Atlantic Barrier Island Populations of Pinus taeda. MS Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA* Lagera, L. 1988. The Role of Macrophyte Decomposition in the Depletion of Oxygen and Sequestering of Nutrients in the Lower Chesapeake Bay. PH.D. Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Larson, B. 1990. Habitat Utilization, Population Dynamics and Long Term Visibility in an Insular Population of Delmarva Fox Squirrels (Scirus nigercinereus). MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# MacMillin, Katherine, M. 1993. Bacterial Dynamics in Tidal Marsh Creeks of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. MS Thesis. University of Virginia,Charlottesville, Va.* Osgood, D. 1991. Factors Controlling Production and Tissue Element Composition in Naturally Developing Spartina alterniflora Barrier Island Marshes. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Porter, J.H. 1988. Mice in Motion: Dispersal in Two species of Peromyscus. PH.D. Thesis. University of Virginia.# Rauch, S. 1989. Geomorphologial Indices for Salt Marsh Creek Systems. Senior Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Ray, M.W. 1989. Below Ground Decomposition and Production Dynamics in a Virginia Salt Marsh. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Rozas, L. 1987. Nekton Community Structure and Interactions of Submerged Plant Beds and Tidal Freshwater Marshes. MS Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.# Sande, E. 1990. Effect of Sodium Chloride on Growth and Nitrogenase Activity in Myrica cerifera. MS Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.* Snow, D. 1990. Characterization of chemical, physical, and microbial properties in a salt marsh creek over the course of a spring and a neap tide cycle. Senior Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.* Whittemore, M.K. 1990. Soil Moisture, Salinity, and the Water Relations Patterns of Barrier Island Plants. MS Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.* Wright, E.J. 1988. A History of the Eastern Shore from Articles Published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1665-1850). Senior Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.*