a long-term biodiversity, ecosystem and awareness research ... · lter europe guideline on best...

LTER Europe Guideline on Best Practices v.3

1

Project no. GOCE-CT-2003-505298 ALTER-Net

A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and

Awareness Research Network

LTER Europe GUIDELINE on best practices WP I3-2009-03-30 Deliverable 2.I3.D3

Instrument: Network of Excellence Thematic Priority: Global Change and Ecosystems (Sub-priority 1.1.6.3, Topic 6.3.III.1.1) Due date of deliverable: <insert date> Submission date: 30th March 2009 Start date of project: 1st April 2004 Duration: 5 years Deliverable lead contractor: ICE PAS / ERCE IIPAS Revision: 1.0

wwwwww..aall tteerr--nneett ..iinnffoo,, wwwwww..ll tteerr--eeuurrooppee..nneett


2

Content:

CONTENT:..................................................................................................................................................................2

1 ESTABLISHING & DEVELOPING NATIONAL NETWORKS ................................................................3

1.1 OBTAINING NATIONAL COMMITMENTS .........................................................................................................3 1.1.1 Example of proposal to establish national LTER network – Finnish example [E. Furman, M. Forcius].........................................................................................................................................................3 1.1.2 MoU and Sample Letter of Intent Between Partners – UK example [T. Parr] .................10

1.2 APPLICATION TO ILTER..............................................................................................................................14 1.2.1 Application to ILTER – Austrian example [M. Mirtl] ...............................................................15 1.2.2 Application to ILTER – Portuguese example [M. Santos-Reis] ...........................................20

1.3 LTER-EUROPE MEMBERSHIP.......................................................................................................................22 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF NATIONAL NETWORKS..................................................................................................23

1.4.1. Structure ...............................................................................................................................................25 1.4.2. Website and network presentation ..............................................................................................28

2 SITES & NETWORK OF SITES...................................................................................................................30

2.1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS & ACTIVITY .............................................................................................................30 2.2 SITE SELECTION...........................................................................................................................................31 2.3 SITE COORDINATION ..................................................................................................................................38

3 PLATFORMS & NETWORK OF PLATFORMS .......................................................................................39

3.1 PLATFORM CHARACTERISTICS & ACTIVITY...................................................................................................39 3.2 SELECTION OF LTSER PLATFORMS ..............................................................................................................41 3.3 PLATFORM MANAGEMENT .........................................................................................................................45

4 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT [D. BLANKMANN] .............................................................................47

4.1 GOOD PRACTICE IN DATA MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................47 4.2 BEST PRACTICE: SITE LEVEL.........................................................................................................................47 4.3 BEST PRACTICE: NATIONAL NETWORK .......................................................................................................48

4.3.1 EXAMPLE: Initial steps of Information Management in the FinLTSER Network [H. Karasti] 48

4.4 BEST PRACTICES: LTER-EUROPE.................................................................................................................50


3

BOX 1.1.1. Example of proposal to establish national LTER network. Development of a plan for a national LTER network f or Finland – Proposal to the Academy of Finland for the planning phase Participating persons forming the planning group:

Finnish Environment Institute (Convener), Director General Lea Kauppi Finnish Environment Institute, Research Manager Eeva Furman Finnish Environment Institute, Research Manager Martin Forsius Finnish Forest Research Institute, Senior Researcher John Derome Finnish Institute of Marine Research, Prof. Markku Viitasalo Finnish Meteorological Institute, Director Yrjö Viisanen University of Helsinki, Prof. Juha Merilä University of Helsinki, University lecturer Erland Eklund University of Oulu, Prof. Kari Laine University of Joensuu, Prof. of Environmental Policy Pertti Rannikko University of Turku, Prof. Mari Walls The planning group is committed to carry out the work of the planning for the Finnish LTER network, as outlined in this proposal. A list of institutions that have been contacted and have show interest in participating in the planning process is presented in Annex 1. Those and other relevant universities and institutes will be contacted by the planning group during the proposed planning phase, and their views and opinions will in this way be heard.

1 ESTABLISHING & DEVELOPING NATIONAL NETWORKS

1.1 Obtaining national commitments

The national process requires identification of potential partners (institutes and LTEM networks) interested in constituting the network which objectives are stated in the Mission and Vision of global LTER network (ILTER).

ILTER's Vision:

ILTER’s vision is a world in which science helps prevent and solve environmental and socioecological problems.

ILTER's Mission:

ILTER consists of networks of scientists engaged in long-term, site-based ecological and socioeconomic research. Our mission is to improve understanding of global ecosystems and inform solutions to current and future environmental problems. [http://www.ilternet.edu/about-ilter/mission] The basis of cooperation between partners is usually either letter of commitment/intent or memorandum of understanding.

1.1.1 Example of proposal to establish national LTER network – Finnish example [E. Furman, M. Forcius]


4

BOX 1.1.1. Example of proposal to establish national LTER network. Abstract:

Several research institutions in cooperation with the Research Council for Biosciences and Environment have been developing the rationale for LTER (Long-Term Ecological Research) in Finland. The institutions have been encouraged to come up with a proposal for planning a national LTER network. The background and the concept of LTER are described in this proposal. LTER in Finland should have objectives similar to that of the existing international LTER network (ILTER) with particular emphasis on objectives related to : (i) understanding long-term trans-boundary ecological phenomena; (ii) facilitating national and international collaboration, and (iii) promoting comparative analysis on a European scale. The Finnish LTER sites should be developed into multi-functional research platforms and should include ecological and socio-economic dimensions. The sites to be selected should maintain high quality infrastructures that enable long-term ecological research with a focus on complex interactions between environmental pressures (climate change, land use change, atmospheric pollution) and ecosystem functions and services. The sites should cover a wide range of ecosystems and human induced pressures and serve as bases for socio-economic research. A national LTER program is crucial for the understanding of long-term large-scale environmental phenomena and maintenance of the ecosystem services. This proposal lays down the aims and basic principles for the planned LTER Network in Finland. Moreover, this proposal describes a process for establishing an LTER network for Finland, and finally, a budget is requested for covering the marginal costs of the planning phase (11/2004-12/2005) of the Finnish LTER network.

1. Background

History of LTER and ILTER

The concept for the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) was introduced in the USA more than 20 years ago. With an initial of six sites the National Science Foundation (USA) established the LTER network, each of the selected sites to conducting high quality research on well defined environmental and ecological phenomena on a broad spatial and temporal scale. Presently the US LTER network consists of 24 well established sites and more than 1300 scientists, students and educators being involved in the LTER activities (http://lternet.edu/). Two central concepts form the basis for the LTER-research: Many of the ecological processes and problems are long-term (typical examples are e.g. effects of climate/global change and changes in biodiversity) thus requiring systematic approaches and funding structures. By focusing the research to selected representative, well-equipped research areas, it is possible to detect phenomena and carry out process research that would not be possible in a distributed system. In addition, the available resources are efficiently used because the same data can be used by several different projects. Comprehensive reviews on the LTER program have been conducted twice, once after every 10 years. The reviews have revealed the outmost importance of long-term ecological research. During the 20 years the focus of environmental research has changed from local phenomena to rising large-scale issues and questions that the program is now continuing to respond to. Moreover, the latest review in 2000 pointed out the need to continue the development of the program towards multi-functionality, i.e. continue to increase the capacity for multi-dimensional synthesis and analyses of impacts of human drivers on ecosystem services. In 1993, the International LTER (ILTER) network was initiated (www.ilternet.edu). During the 10 years of operation, the ILTER network has expanded to a network of 30 national networks. In addition, some 15 countries are actively developing their national networks, and even more countries have expressed a strong interest towards LTER activities. The LTER/ILTER program is quickly developing into a functional global structure and activity, that aims to respond to the continuing long-term large-scale global change.


5

BOX 1.1.1. Example of proposal to establish national LTER network (CONT.). Situation in Europe

During the past 10 years, 11 individual European countries have developed their LTER networks and applied for a membership to the ILTER program (www.lter-europe.ceh.ac.uk/index.htm). This has taken place without any regional coordination from a European umbrella organization. From this slow "distributed" development the European region is rapidly moving towards a concerted and coordinated effort to establish a European ILTER network. To highlight this rapid development, the activities within Europe during the past year are briefly described below: In January 2003, a workshop on "European Networking of Long-term Ecosystem Research (LTER) and Monitoring for Environment and Health" on 16th January was hosted by the European Environment Agency (EEA). Altogether 23 European countries and the US were represented. There was very strong agreement that a European LTER network should be developed. LTER-Europe should be about the development of "multi-functional research platforms" and should include ecological and socio-economic dimensions. Funding for LTER will come mainly from national sources and therefore the development of LTER-Europe will be largely a bottom-up process. Some of the existing networks (UNECE/IM & ICP Forests, SCANNET, CARBO-EUROPE, ENFORS) can form a foundation for the national programs. As a conclusion the EEA clearly endorsed the development of a ILTER-Europe network and a decision was made to prepare a EEA strategic document on the role and importance of the long-term ecological research in Europe. The US State Department (US-SD), through the Embassy in Copenhagen has contacted and discussed with the national organizations around the Baltic Sea. Paul Thorne (US-SD) and Robert Waide (LTER Network Office) visited Finland on November 8, 2002, and continued to the Baltic states. The US-SD has since decided to support the development of the national networks in the Baltic countries, and all of them (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) are actively developing their networks and related research plans. The US-SD has decided to continue supporting this development. On the meeting with the representative of the US-SD (Paul Stephenson, US Embassy in Copenhagen) that took place in Seattle on September 21, 2003, it was indicated that the US-SD will sponsor a workshop in 2004, with the objective to plan for the activities of the sub-regional Baltic ILTER, and harmonize any open questions in the network development (organized 14-16 October 2004 in Vilnius). The EC Directorate Research has clearly recognized the importance of long-term ecological research. Various aspects of long-term ecological research were included to the 6. Framework Programme for R&D, and in particular to the work program of the first call. As a result of the first call, a Network of Excellence project (ALTER-Net coordinated by CEH, UK) was started. ALTER-Net (www.alter-net.info) is a partnership of 24 organizations from 17 European countries which will develop durable integration of biodiversity research capacity. Over the next 5 years ALTER-Net will:

• Create a network for European long-term terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem research, based on existing facilities;

• Develop approaches to assess and forecast changes in biodiversity, structure, functions and dynamics of ecosystems and their services; and

• Consider the socio-economic implications and public attitudes to biodiversity loss. One of the main goals of ALTER-Net during the coming five years is to create durable integration for European ecological research. ALTER-Net will address this e.g. by supporting European countries in developing their ILTER programs, and by organizing a sustainable coordination for the ILTER-Europe network. For this task ALTER-Net has established a Work Package (I3). These multi-functional ecosystem research sites should offer good environments to investigate long-term biodiversity processes at relevant spatial and temporal scales, as well as for integrated environmental and socio-economic research on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of its components. Such research activities will be outlined in a couple of other work packages of the ALTER-Net. SYKE is a partner to the ALTER-Net and will in this capacity support the development of the Finnish network. ALTER-Net does not, however, fund national programs nor can it support financially the planning processes or the participation of national networks in the ILTER program.


6

BOX 1.1.1. Example of proposal to establish national LTER network (CONT.). Situation in Finland After the visit of the US-SD and LTER in Finland, a planning process was started in Finland following the consultative meeting with the Council of Bio- and Environmental Sciences of the Academy of Finland on 15 January, 2003. It was agreed that the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) would coordinate a preliminary plan for the Finnish LTER network. Moreover, it was agreed that with the input from all interested research institutions a proposal would be submitted to the Academy of Finland. This proposal aims at increasing international collaboration and the potential in general of the Finnish scientists to act in international fora. Discussions during the year 2003 revealed that there is excellent awareness towards the importance of long-term ecological and ecology related socio-economic research, and that there is a strong interest from the Finnish scientific community towards multi-functional research platforms. The centralization of research infrastructures, being behind the LTER concept, has started to evolve within the research stations of Finnish universities. Examples of such centralization include the SMEAR- observing systems of Hyytiälä, GAW and ICP observing systems of Pallas, and several large experimental long-term research projects in Lammi, e.g. CLIME, TRACEFLUX and EURO-LIMPACS. In addition, ecology linked socio-economic research is carried out sporadically in Finland, the regional patterns fitting relatively well with the centralization of ecological research. ALTER-Net is at present the largest process which tries to link both ecological and socio-economic long term research to serve the needs of biodiversity management in a European context. A good starting point for the establishment of a Finnish national LTER network is the well developed network of university research stations. These offer the basic infrastructures for conducting successful collaborative research, basic laboratory facilities, competent personnel and office as well as accommodation facilities for visiting scientists. 2. Proposed process for establishing an LTER networ k for Finland Principles for the network The LTER network for Finland is proposed to be based on certain agreed principles. 1. The efforts in Finland will be concerted into a relatively small number of high-quality large-scale sites that cover main ecosystem types in Finland. The participating institutions aim at systematically developing the chosen sites by allocating new research projects and available resources to enhance the research infrastructures. 2. The Finnish national network is open to any new site for which there is a justified research plan and guaranteed sustainable funding that enable the long-term operational functioning of the proposed site. 3. These sites are proposed to be endorsed by the Academy of Finland necessary for the application of the ILTER membership from the international ILTER committee. 4. The Finnish ILTER network will act as a composition of multi-functional research platforms to which all research groups (both Finnish and foreign) are welcome to conduct research on. 5. Any data, historical or new, obtained for these sites are made available for new synthesis and for new research projects in these sites and the outside scientific community. 6. The Finnish Environment Institute offers to act as a synthesis center which provides national coordination for the Finnish LTER network, and promotes synthesis across disciplines and cause-effect relationships, aiming to explore new concepts, ideas and theories on the basis of the ILTER information. To confirm that the whole Finnish LTER network will comply with the above agreed principles, an agreement of the bylaws, procedures and data policy should be elaborated and signed by all the institutions participating in the LTER network.


7

BOX 1.1.1. Example of proposal to establish national LTER network (CONT.). Main themes In the 2003 meeting of the ILTER network held in Seattle on September 22, 2003, two main themes were agreed for the ILTER network that should be addressed from the network results during the forthcoming years. These were:

� Global water cycle (including ecological effects of altered biogeochemical cycles) � Biodiversity change

Under these main themes it was agreed to carry out the following cross-cutting tasks:

� Synthesis of existing knowledge � Identification of methodology/standards � Development of data management systems � Socio-economic causes and implications � Training and transferring of knowledge

The US LTER program has led the way in many of the above mentioned tasks. For the overall LTER program it was established a synthesis center which has proven to be successful and attracts leading scientists from all over the world. The data management systems developed for the LTER program are examples for any joint research activity. Moreover, the training and mentoring of the pre- and postgraduate students has been addressed very seriously and that is probably one of the reasons for the scientific success of the US research community. However, it seems that the integration of socio-economic analyses into ecological research has not progressed further than in Finland. In the Finnish LTER program the above identified themes and tasks can be considered most relevant and they should be considered as the main drivers of the Finnish LTER program. The advancement of the cross-cutting tasks would serve the whole scientific community of Finland. Proposed structure It is proposed to select the sites via an open call organized by the Academy of Finland. A feasible number of sites would be 3-6, each representing different bio-geographic regions and one or several ecosystem types in Finland. Each proposed site should contain excellent facilities and long records of past long-term ecological research. Following the management organization operational in the US LTER network, each site should have a responsible leading scientist (principle investigator, PI) who is in charge of resource management and for carrying out the long-term research plan for each site. The PIs of the sites and of the Synthesizing center would form a coordinating body which is here called a Scientific Steering Body. Once the Finnish LTER network is operational a Management Board is suggested to be established, consisting of representatives of funding organizations.

Examples of main ecosystems and institutional affiliations from which suitable sites and research consortia could be selected are presented in Annex 2.

3. Proposal for the planning phase Proposed steps The process towards establishing the Finnish LTER network include the following steps:

1. The planning group of the present proposal drafts the Terms of Reference for the call of LTER research plans outlining: • The background of LTER • The objectives of the Finnish LTER network • The criteria for site selection • Principles for cooperation • Management structure of the network

2. The ToR is reviewed by the Academy and a decision on further action is made.

3. In case a decision on continuation is made, the Academy issues, on the basis of the ToR, an open call for research plans, possibly in connection with the 15 May call (4-5 year plans). This call may include a possibility for targeted funding for the long-term ecological research at the Finnish LTER sites. It is, however, realized that a major portion of the LTER funding should originate from those organizations running the sites.


8

BOX 1.1.1. Example of proposal to establish national LTER network (CONT.).

5. The ToR is reviewed by the Academy and a decision on further action is made.

6. In case a decision on continuation is made, the Academy issues, on the basis of the ToR, an open call for research plans, possibly in connection with the 15 May call (4-5 year plans). This call may include a possibility for targeted funding for the long-term ecological research at the Finnish LTER sites. It is, however, realized that a major portion of the LTER funding should originate from those organizations running the sites.

7. An international evaluation is organized and the sites are selected by the Academy. Possible funding decisions for targeted funding for some projects are made.

8. An application is submitted to the ILTER Committee requesting a membership in the ILTER network. The application includes a full research plan of the selected sites, full description of the long-term funding of the sites, and the endorsement by the Academy of Finland.

9. The selected sites are reported also to ALTER-Net.

10. The national LTER network and its management structure is implemented. Proposed timetable After the decision for the funding for the planning phase, the work is proposed to be carried out as follows 1. Meetings of the planning group November-December 2004 2. Terms of Reference to the Academy January 2004 3. Decision on further action by the Academy February 2005 4. Open call for sites (Academy) March-May 2005 5. International evaluation panel September 2005 5. Selection of sites (Academy) December 2005 6. Submission of the application to ILTER December 2005 7. Reporting of selected sites to ALTER-Net December 2005 Proposed budget It is here proposed that the Academy of Finland would provide financial resources for covering the marginal costs of the planning phase of the national Finnish LTER network. These costs constitute from the following items: 1. National travel for the planning group 2 000 2. Secretarial assistance and coordination 4 000 3. Consumables 500 4. Travel to the ILTER meeting in 2005 2 500 5. Coordination with the Baltic states 1 000 6. Visiting scientists from US LTER 4 000 TOTAL REQUESTED € 14 000 Annex 1 Institutions contacted and shown interest to participate in the process outlined in the proposal

Finnish Environment Institute Finnish Forest Research Institute Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute Finnish Marine Research Institute Finnish Meteorological Institute Finnish Meteorological Institute, Arctic Research Center North-Ostrobothnia Regional Environment Centre North Karelia Regional Environment Centre West-Finland Regional Environment Centre University of Helsinki University of Helsinki, Lammi Biological Station

University of Helsinki, Kilpisjärvi Research Station University of Joensuu University of Jyväskylä University of Kuopio University of Oulu University of Oulu, Bothnian Bay Research Station University of Oulu, Oulanka Research Station University of Turku University of Turku, Subarctic Research Station Kevo University of Turku, Archipelago Research Institute


9

BOX 1.1.1. Example of proposal to establish national LTER network (CONT.). Annex 2 Examples of main ecosystems and institutional affiliations from which suitable LTER sites and research consortia could be selected:

Kilpisjärvi-Utsjoki: Subarctic-Oroarctic Ecosystems

Institutional affiliations: Kilpisjärvi Research Station of the University of Helsinki, Subarctic Research Station Kevo of the University of Turku, Department of Art Studies and Cultural Anthropology of the University of Oulu. Main ecosystems: Wide treeless oroarctic areas above tree line, subarctic mountain (in some areas widely defoliated) birch forests, forest tundra and scattered northernmost coniferous forests in river valleys. Northern animal and plant species adapted to cold conditions. Ecology related socio-economic characteristics: Saami culture, extensive land use, reindeer herding, exploitation of timberline forests, introduction of fish to lakes, recreation in sensitive habitats, salmon fishery in River Teno. Research topics: Long-term studies for the responses of subarctic communities and population dynamics to human induced factors such as climate change, plant-herbivory relationships, treeline ecology and breeding ecology of birds. Periodicity in the quality and quantity of vegetation and aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna in the mountain region. Sustainability of local cultures, especially through maintenance of livelihoods of indigenous groups. Prerequisites for collaborative management of ecological resources. Nature-culture relationship in the Arctic. Pallas-Sodankylä: Northern Boreal Forests - Fell Ecosy stems Institutional affiliations: Finnish Meteorological Institute - Arctic Research Centre, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory of the University of Oulu, Finnish Environment Institute. Main ecosystems: Finland's third largest national park that is characterized by oroarctic fell areas surrounded by northern boreal forest – peatland landscape with small lakes. Coniferous forests extend up to 400-500 metres above sea level, where a narrow belt of stunted mountain birch trees typically marks the tree line. Only hardy dwarf shrubs thrive higher up the fells. Ecology related socio-economic characteristics: Saami culture, extensive land use, reindeer herding, exploitation of timberline forests, introduction of fish to lakes, recreation in sensitive habitats. Research topics: Processes of contaminants in the subarctic environment. Effects of climate warming on northern boreal and subarctic ecosystems, forest health, biodiversity and lake functioning. Effects of increased UV-irradiance on boreal nature and interactions between ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. Sustainability of local cultures, especially through maintenance of livelihoods of indigenous groups. Prerequisites for collaborative management of ecological resources Bothnian Bay: Northern Coastal Ecosystems Institutional affiliations: Bothnian Bay Research Station of the University of Oulu, University of Helsinki, University of Kuopio, North-Ostrobothnia Regional Environment Centre, West-Finland Regional Environment Center, Finnish Marine Research Institute, Finnish Environment Institute, Dept. of Sociology of the University of Oulu Main ecosystems: Bothnian Bay being the northernmost part of the Baltic Sea was formed after the latest ice age only some thousands of years ago. Salinity in the Bothnian Bay is very low, only 0.1-0.3 % compared to 3-4 % in the oceans. Only a few species have adapted to this brackish water environment, which implies extreme vulnerability to environmental changes. Coastal ecosystems are influenced by the land up-heavel. Ecology related socio-economic characteristics: Maintenance of local livelihoods the needs of which relate to ecological dynamics such as fishing, aquaculture, agriculture and coastal tourism. History and ethnology of coastal fishery in the Bothnian Bay. Research topics: Population ecology of threatened bird species. Structure and movements of ice, and interaction between water, ice and snow. Changes of ice-cover with the predicted global warming. Impact of climate warming to coastal communities in the land up-heavel area. Biota inside the ice (including algae, bacteria and protozoans) and their contribution in the nutrient cycle. Evolution of conflicts between exploitation of natural resources and maintenance of ecological characteristics. Research on rural sociology and history of environmental politics.


10

Links & references:

www.environment.fi/syke/lter

www.tsv.fi/tik/english.html

1.1.2 MoU and Sample Letter of Intent Between Partners – UK example

[T. Parr]

The lead agency of the ECN is the Natural Environmental Research Agency (NERC). NERC signed an initial Memorandum of Understanding with potential partners which in most cases led to the signing of a more-formal “Letter of Intent” between NERC and its partners in ECN. These letters described the commitments made by the partners to monitoring, research, communication and co-ordination activities. For instance under this agreement NERC (through its Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) agreed to co-ordinate the network and data management activities, whilst most other partners committed to running sites and implementing a set of standard measurement protocols. The letter of intent also included ECN’s original “Mission Statement”.

BOX 1.1.1. Example of proposal to establish national LTER network (CONT.). Seili-Husö-Tvärminne: Coastal and Archipelago Ecosyst ems Institutional affiliations: Archipelago Research Institute of the University of Turku, Tvärminne Zoological Station of the University of Helsinki, Husö Biological Station – Åbo Akademi, Finnish Marine Research Institute, Finnish Environment Institute Main ecosystems: Brackish water ecosystems in coastal and archipelago areas of Southern Finland. A vast archipelago of thousands of rocky islands surrounds the southernmost Finnish continent. The area is influenced by slight land up-heavel. Most of the largest islands are partly covered by pine forests (Pinus sylvestris). The archipelago ecosystems include also a long history of traditional agricultural practices. A halocline is often present in deep or very sheltered basins. The gradual changes in topography, hydrography, salinity and exposure are reflected in the flora and fauna, which are composed of marine, brackish and limnic species. Ecology related socio-economic characteristics: Maintenance of local livelihoods the needs of which relate to ecological dynamics such as fishing, fish farming, tourism, agriculture. Structural changes in rural areas (+emigration) and its consequences on the ecology. Research topics: Pelagial plankton ecology. Factors limiting the primary production. Ecology of the Baltic Herring, timing of the reproduction, homing behavior, abundance and survival of the eggs. Biodiversity of the Archipelago. Research on rural sociology and history of environmental politics. Many studies on archipelago history, society and livelihoods (Univ. of Turku & Åbo Akademi)


11

BOX 1.1.2.1. Example of Memorandum of Understanding – UK LTER


12

BOX 1.1.2.2. Example of Letter of Intent – UK LTER


13

Links & references

www.ecn.ac.uk/aboutecn/ECN_MoU_LoI_Mission_1992.pdf

www.ecn.ac.uk

BOX 1.1.2.2. Example of Letter of Intent – UK LTER (CONT.)


14

1.2 Application to ILTER

The procedures of joining LTER network are specified in ILTER and LTER Europe By-laws. According to LTER Europe By-laws national networks adopted by the global LTER network ILTER automatically become level 1 members (L-1) of LTER-Europe unless explicitly excluded. The application comprise two steps:

• submission of an application form to ILTER President;

• letters of support from key national stakeholders certifying national interest in launching and development of LTER Network;

• official presentation of the network to ILTER Coordinating Committee during the Annual ILTER Conference.

Links & references

International long-term ecological research. Network - ILTER network. Policy

document: http://www.ilternet.edu/about-ilter/key-documents/ILTER-bylaws-10-01-

2004.pdf

The European Long-term Ecosystem Research Network LTER-Europe Policy, Constitution

and By-Laws: http://www.lter-europe.net/document-archive/bylaws/I3035v12-LTER-

Bylaws-2008-1.doc/view


15

1.2.1 Application to ILTER – Austrian example [M. Mirtl]

BOX 1.2.1. Example of application form to ILTER – LTER Austria

Dr. Hen-biau King Chair of the ILTER Network

Vienna, 24.6.2004

Subject: Application for ILTERN-membership

Dear Sir!

We are pleased that the Austrian Federal Environment Agency (UBA, see attachment 1) together with the Austrian Society for Long Term Ecological Research (LTER-Austria, see attachment 2) have decided in agreement with the Federal Ministry for Education, Science & Culture (BMBWK) to formally apply for ILTERN-membership. Inspired by the international LTER-process as presented at the ILTER business meeting in London (July 2001), we initiated the formation of the Austrian LTER community. This included the pro-active participation in the LTER-process on the European level (LTER-Europe, ALTER-Net) and the complementary networking of LTER-relevant facilities and scientists in Austria. The historical and institutional development of the long-term monitoring and research sector in Austria resulted in a division of tasks where the the UBA is in charge of the networking and management of LTER-sites and ALTER-Net while LTER-Austria represents the entire scientific LTER-community. Both are intensivley co-operating in developing the conceptual design of the Austrian LTER-network. This cooperation guaranties for a long term perspective of LTER in Austria. Based on existing LTER-facilities, some of which have been managed for more than 100 years, a concept for three LTER-site-clusters (Multifunctinal Research Platforms, MFRPs), spanning all major biogeographical regions, has been developed (see figure in attachment 3). The current national research frame programme forsees the implementation of a common data policy including limited public access to LTER-relavant data. This concept will be presented for discussion at the ILTERN business meeting in Manaus (July 2004) on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Education, Science & Culture by our joint representative, Dr. Michael Mirtl.

XXX Attachments (1) Description of the Federal Environment Agency (2) Description of the Austrian Society for Long Term Ecological Research (3) The Austrian LTER-Network (Location of Multifunctional Research Platforms, MFRPs)


16

BOX 1.2.1. Example of application form to ILTER – LTER Austria (CONT.)


17

BOX 1.2.1. Example of application form to ILTER – LTER Austria (CONT.)


18

Fig. 1.2.1. Presentation of the network to ILTER Coordinating Committee – LTER Austria


19

Fig. 1.2.1. Presentation of the network to ILTER Coordinating Committee – LTER Austria

(CONT.)


20

1.2.2 Application to ILTER – Portuguese example [M. Santos-Reis]

BOX 1.2.2.1. Example of application form to ILTER – Portuguese LTER


21

BOX 1.2.2.2. Portuguese LTER – letters supporting the network’s application to ILTER

Coordinating Committee


22

1.3 LTER-Europe Membership

The European Long-term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER-Europe) is a regional network of ILTER. National networks adopted by ILTER automatically become members of LTER-Europe.

Applications for membership may also be made directly to LTER-Europe. They should be supported by a national public institution (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences, national funding agency such as a National Research Council, or government institution such as a Ministry of Environment). A letter requesting admission from the national public institution should address the criteria mentioned in LTER Europe By-laws and must be sent to the Chair of LTER-Europe.

To ensure that the specific objectives of LTER-Europe will be met by all LTER Europe networks, European regional network developed and agreed on particular criteria which set the level 2 (L-2) membership. These are:

• Participation in the annual LTER-Europe Coordinating Committee meeting,

• Information on national network structure,

• Communication and responsiveness (less than 15 days response time to questions and requests communicated by email to the contact persons nominated according to item 5.

• Regular update of information on national LTER facilities (sites, platforms) in the LTER InfoBase (metadata),

• Nomination of contact persons: One representative and up to two deputies,

• Organisation of annual national LTER meetings,

• Annual status / progress report of national network to LTER-Europe,

• A data management and accessibility policy including a commitment to begin the process of sharing and exchanging data and knowledge with other members of LTER-Europe

Additionally all applications should be supported by a national public institution (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences, national funding agency such as a National Research Council, or government institution such as a Ministry of Environment). A letter requesting admission from the national public institution should address the criteria mentioned below and must be sent to the Chair of LTER-Europe:

• Recognition by a government body or other institutional entity acting at the national level;

• Existence of a national committee or other management structure;

• A set of sites or proposed sites with criteria for selection of new sites;

• A statement of collective purpose that might include defined research or monitoring themes;

• A data management and accessibility policy including a commitment to share and exchange data and knowledge with other members of LTER-Europe;

• Assurance relating to the long-term nature of the national network;

• A commitment to supply information about its sites and procedures as may be reasonably requested by the LTER-Europe Committee or its officers;

• A commitment to meet eventual LTER-Europe network criteria as defined by the LTER-Europe Co-ordinating Committee

The best practice is set by two documents: LTER-Europe: Criteria and Recommendations (Mirtl et al. 2008) and The European Long-term Ecosystem Research Network LTER-Europe Policy, Constitution and By-Laws.


23

Links & references

The European Long-term Ecosystem Research Network LTER-Europe Policy, Constitution and

By-Laws: http://www.lter-europe.net/document-archive/bylaws/I3035v12-LTER-Bylaws-2008-

1.doc/view

Mirtl, M. , Frenzel M., Furman E., Ohl C., Krauze, K., Grünbühel, C., 2008. LTER-Europe: Criteria

and Recommendations: http://www.lter-europe.net/document-archive/bylaws/I3034v01-

LTER-Europe-Criteria-handout20080117.pdf/view

1.4 Organization of national networks Contrary to the setup of LTER in the United States of America, a top-down approach for the structuring of LTER-Europe was not feasible due to the diverse funding mechanisms of the European research area. Consequently, the design of LTER-Europe, its infrastructure, governance and related research projects considered heterogeneous framework conditions, including varying initial situations across countries in terms of involved stakeholder institutions, national research programmes and divergent possibilities in former East and West European countries. Another challenge consisted in the conceptual expansion of LTER to LTSER, dealing with entire socio-ecological systems and inducing a transformation of the scientific community and interest groups that had so far been involved in and carrying the traditional LTER.

Independently of organizational diversity all national networks are to efficiently deal with several tasks. The list comprise:

• organization at least one national meeting per year to maintain flow of information and completion work,

• delivering a Standard Annual National Report,

• update of InfoBase with a lists of LTER sites and LTSER platforms and updated National Map of sites and platforms

• delivering an updated National LTER Mind Maps (key elements of the national LTERs: stakeholders, institutions, platforms and sites)

• re-considering coverage of sites and platforms at national level as contribution to LTER Europe effort in increasing representativeness of the network with respect to environmental and socio-economic gradients,

• contribute to standardization of parameters, methods and protocols,

• promotion of LTER at national and international level (through publications, conferences, thematic sessions),

• update of national WEB sites and ensure delivery of information to LTER Europe website.

Additionally, networks are recommended to pro-actively integrate with national monitoring sites and communities to achieve maximum synergies between environmental monitoring and research. The special attention should be paid to interface with: EEA / SEIS, UNECE / WGE, ILTER, ESFRI / LifeWatch, UNESCO / UNESCO MAB, ICP.


24

Links & references

Mirtl, M., 2008. Optimizing the interaction and interface of Environmental/Ecosystem

Research and Environmental/Ecosystem Monitroing in Europe. Keynote background

document on the monitoring-research interface modified for the purpose of the

ICP Integrated Monitoring Task Force Meeting 2008.

Available as: I3047v01_KeyNote_Interface_LTER_LTEM_ICP_IM.DOC

Mirtl, M., 2007. MEMO: EEA & LTER-Europe State of the art after 4 years LTER-process and

formal foundation of LTER-Europe. Available as: I3050v01_LTER_EEA_2007.doc

BOX 1.4.1. Background questions for strategic statements on the interface between

individual monitoring programmes and LTER networks.

The questions to monitoring networks and programmes

Usually research questions emerge from monitoring activities, the analysis of monitoring data, efforts to improve monitoring and to feed information from monitoring into public awareness, political processes and abatement strategies. But in many cases the networks or programmes in charge of the monitoring cannot properly react on such emerging questions as research in general or the required kind of research lies outside their topical scope and/or principal mandate. So, what are research questions emerging from and important for the particular network or program?

• What are the questions related to the better analysis, assessment and interpretation of monitoring data?

• What questions are relevant for the improvement of monitoring designs, indicators, methods and the parameterisation of monitoring programs, including efforts to make these programs more cost efficient.

• What questions and research results could also be crucial to increase the political usability and impact of data and information from monitoring.

Research questions can either be dealt with either by use of monitoring data, sites and infrastructure of the network or programme they are relevant for or emerge from, or they can be independent of this related network or programme. That requires knowledge on:

• What research needed to capitalize on (your) monitoring data?

• What research questions required field work and/or additional data gathering at monitoring sites?

• What research questions recommended the long-term use of your sites/facilities for environmental/ecological research.

The complementary questions to LTER-Europe or other research programs/networks:

• What core questions of LTER (LTER-Europe) can only be tackled by use of existing data (what are these data)?

• What LTER requires access to and/or the existence of long-term research infrastructure (what are the related networks/programmes)?

• Which existing networks and/or programmes providing information and data needed to be improved/modified to properly support LTER in it’s work on core research questions.


25

1.4.1. Structure

LTER Europe does not promote an uniform pattern of national network design. Structurally and functionally diverse national networks are accepted as long as they are able to meet the criteria for networks, sites and platforms, and secure continuous monitoring and delivery of sound science based on key LTER characteristics. Those are:

Site-based research – LTER is a rare example of world-wide network carrying regular monitoring and research of broad spectrum of environmental variables at a local level (LTER Sites) and of environmental as well as socio-economic variables at a sub-regional level (LTSER platforms) that continuously feeds scientific analyses, up-scaling, synthesis and theory development.

Long term – LTER dedicates itself to consistent research and monitoring with the time horizon of decades. This produces a particular type of science, which requires its own statistics, tools and produce unique results.

System approach – a target of LTER-Europe research is to better understand complexity of ecological and socio-ecological systems, dynamics of abiotic and biotic variables, role and dynamics of system components, and interrelations between them.

Process-oriented research – tracing dynamics of interactions between different components of socio-ecological systems LTER-Europe aims at understanding complex cause-effect relationship and their dynamics in time.

Fig. 1.4.1. Examples of national LTER’s organizational schemes - a) Austria, b) Finland, c)

Germany, d) Israel.

a)


26

b)

c)

d)


27

Fig. 1.4.2. Operational structure of ECN – UK LTER

The Environmental Change Network is a multi-agency partnership co-ordinated by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on behalf of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and thirteen other sponsors (funding bodies). In addition 7 research organisations are involved in ECN’s research and monitoring programme. The organisational structure of ECN is shown in the diagram below.

The current governance structure consists of a: (i) a policy making “Steering Committee” with members from each of the sponsoring organisations; (ii) a Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (STAG) made up of independent scientists who advise on measurements, protocols and research priorities; (iii) a Central-Cordination Unit (CCU), currently located at CEH Lancaster, which undertakes co-ordination, data management, public relation, data analyses and policy liaison; and (iv) two groups that composed of the site managers of the terrestrial and freshwater networks.

Links & references

The partner organisations: www.ecn.ac.uk/sponsor.htm.

Terms of reference for the Committees and Groups, and research strategy:

www.ecn.ac.uk/research.asp.


28

1.4.2. Website and network presentation

National LTER networks’ websites are a basic source of information about particular, national missions and goals of networks, their formal and operational structure, contact people, activities and scientific results and their implementation. Websites should also provide comparable standard information on the national networks on the LTER-Europe WEB site.

Thus the best practice includes:

• providing the URL link between a national network website and LTER Europe one,

• providing at least ONE page at national website in English, if the rest of the WEB presentation is in national language, to make it accessible for the broader public,

• develop website according to recommendations stating mandatory and optional content.

The MANDATORY CONTENT of a national website includes:

• when did the country join LTER-Europe?

• some sentences on the LTER-history of the country (very brief)

• role of your country in LTER-Europe (formal offices...)

• specific goals/aims of the national network (if you have such)

• organisation of the national network: very brief!!!

• officers of the national network

• key contact.

The OPTIONAL CONTENT comprises:

• links to other national links with LTER-relevance (and in English) o key stakeholders, key institutions o scientific frame programmes o sites & platforms

• documents that can be downloaded

• references: key findings of the national LTER,

• news/ events.

Fig. 1.4.2. Recommended structure of a national website.


29

Fig. 1.4.3. Examples of national LTER websites – a) Hungary, b) Poland.

a)

b)


30

2 SITES & NETWORK OF SITES

2.1 Site characteristics & activity Traditionally LTER developed as a network of instrumented sites extending from square meters up to hundreds of hectares. Principally they are delineated to represent orographic and ideally also hydrological micro-catchments to allow for traditional ecological quantitative monitoring and research of specific fluxes of energy and matter or biological components (water quality and quantity, pollutants, carbon, bioindicators, etc.). Activities at LTER sites concentrate on topics in the field of primary production, population ecology of selected taxonomic groups, biogeochemical cycles, organic matter dynamics, disturbances and biodiversity.

Sites can represent both aquatic and terrestrial and natural or managed ecosystems. Their network reflects major ecosystems/habitats (forests, agro-pastoral areas, wetlands and rivers, urban and sub-urban areas) at different latitudes and altitudes. Controlled management of these sites may be taking place but other direct influences of human activity are usually avoided. At this level, the information on the natural components of the system will have to be integrated with corresponding statistical data on the socio-economic dynamics in and around the area. In many cases such sites form part of disciplinary or habitat-specific networks (e.g. monitoring and research networks for forests).

Links & references

Mirtl M., 2006. Design of LTER-Europe. Conceptualizing LTER-facilities for an European

LTER-Network. Available as: I3017v02_LTER_design_nomencl_Mirtl.doc


31

2.2 Site selection Selection of sites is a responsibility of national network. However the basic set of criteria has been provided by Mirtl et al. (2008) - “LTER-Europe: Criteria and Recommendations”. They include:

• Basic commitment of hosting institution(s) for at least 5 years including: o Staff - site coordinator formally appointed for at least 2 years o Infrastructure (field work, lab work etc.)

• Principal agreement on (meta)data collection, storage and exchange: o Data in English o Up-to-date/current documentation in the LTER InfoBase (3 adopted levels of meta-information) o Storage in Excel or Access and in future perspective shared database, at least for metadata) o Accessibility of information (according to LTER Europe Bylaws) o Time series - depend on topics covering at least two data sets with a sufficient time interval,

• Availability of information in English, • Maximum response time to questions/requests of 10 days (email).

Considering different framework conditions of European national LTER networks not all sites need to fulfil the criteria, however the status of a site is connected with a specific set of rights and duties.

BOX 2.2.1. Site selection procedures adopted by ECN – UK LTER.

Site Selection Rationale

The site selection rationale are explained in the Terrestrial and Freshwater measurement protocols that were published at the beginning of the ECN programme. The following is an extract from the terrestrial measurement protocols book: Site selection A preliminary list of 140 possible sites was compiled, based on their being currently or recently active research sites which could provide historic data on some aspects of environmental research. The following criteria were then used to refine the list and to select a series of 24 target sites which, it was believed, could constitute a terrestrial network for the United Kingdom:

• good geographical distribution covering a wide range of environmental conditions and the principal natural and managed ecosystems;

• some guarantee of long-term physical and financial security; • known history of consistent management; • reliable and accessible records of past data, preferably for ten or more years; • sufficient size and opportunity to allow further experiments and observations.


32

BOX 2.2.1. Site selection procedures adopted by ECN – UK LTER (CONT.).

The target sites met most of these criteria but it was inevitable that, in a network for which there was very limited central funding, the second became the primary criterion. Whilst physical security was, for the most part, assured by the sites being located at or being associated with existing research stations, assurances of financial security for what was envisaged as a long-term project with an initial life expectation of at least 30 years were difficult to obtain. The terrestrial network was thus founded, in January 1992, with eight of the target sites (Drayton, Glensaugh, Hillsborough, Moor House-Upper Teesdale, North Wyke, Rothamsted, Sourhope, and Wytham) being committed and with the expectation that other sites would join later. By 1996 the network had expanded to a total of 11 sites by the addition of Alice Holt, Porton Down and Snowdon/Y Wyddfa. None of the additional sites was in the original list of target sites but each increased considerably the geographical distribution and representativeness of the network. It is intended that this 'spine' of representative sites should be extended in the future and supplemented by the recruitment of sites which will provide replication within the major axes of UK environmental variation.

The site selection criteria for the freshwater sites are given by Sykes, lane & George (1999).

Site Descriptions

The ECN programme operates a network of 12 terrestrial and 45 freshwater sites throughout the UK. Sites range from upland to lowland, moor land to chalk grassland, small ponds and streams to large rivers and lakes. Each of the sponsoring organisations provide one or more sites and covers the costs of ECN measurements at those sites.

A clickable map providing access to site descriptions and site information can be found at: www.ecn.ac.uk/sites.htm.

Measurement Protocols

The measurements made by ECN cover a wide range of physical, chemical and biological 'driving and response' variables identified as being important for the assessment of environmental change. The suite of variables is measured at all ECN sites using published, standard protocols. The intention is that ECN provides a broad baseline of integrated environmental information relevant to a range of current environmental issues (e.g. climate change, water pollution, biodiversity, atmospheric pollution) and future, less obvious, issues. There are many projects that focus on long term environmental change in particular aspects of the environment, but ECN's principle strength lies in its multidisciplinary approach, enabling the analysis of important relationships between environmental variables and across ecosystem components.

A full list of measurements and downloads of the measurement protocols for terrestrial and freshwater sites can be found at: www.ecn.ac.uk/protocols/index.asp


33

BOX 2.2.2. Example of site application form to join a national network. Invitation to Submit an Expression of Interest for Serving as a LTER/LTSER Facility in the Finnish LTER Network Background

The Finnish Environment Institute is a partner in ALTER-Net (A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network), which is a “Network of Excellence”, funded by the EU’s 6th Framework Programme. One of the main aims in ALTER-Net is to develop an integrated and harmonized network of multi-functional long-term ecosystem research platforms (LTER/LTSER) to support the inter-disciplinary investigation of long-term biodiversity and ecosystem processes at relevant spatial and temporal scales. The aim is to achieve durable integration on a European scale, via a formal European LTER Network that is based on the national LTER/LTSER networks. ALTER-Net is preparing for the EU's 7th Framework Programme by submitting a proposal for establishing a well-instrumented research network for socio-ecological research and monitoring in Europe. The Academy of Finland has funded the preparatory process of the Finnish LTER network. The planning group, which consists of the representatives from universities and research institutes, including the Finnish Environment Institute, has prepared the criteria for the Finnish LTER/LTSER network. This is an invitation to apply for a status of 'LTER /LTSER Site'. All the research institutes, research units and especially consortia that are pr epared to commit to the criteria set up for the LTER/LTSER sites for at least the next six years are w elcome to express their interest. Additional information is available on the web site of the Finnish LTER network (mainly in Finnish): www.ymparisto.fi/syke/lter . Objectives I The National LTER Network reinforces the strengths of Finnish research and provides opportunities for the creation of new areas of expertise (for example multidisciplinary environmental research).

II The National LTER Network improves research networking at the national, European and global level.

III The LTER Network promotes the internationalisation of Finnish research.

IV The LTER Network increases the critical mass of Finnish research, thus enabling us to better utilize funding opportunities in the EU and other international contexts, such as the forthcoming EU FP7 on research capacities. Definitions (modified from M. Mirtl) The LTER (Long-Term Ecosystem Research) Network is a network of fully instrumented sites for long-term observations and experiments. LTER is also a research network of scientists, collectively engaged in and dedicated to multi- and interdisciplinary long-term and large spatial scale research and monitoring in ecological science including the human dimension (http://www.ilternet.edu/). The concept Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) has been introduced to stress the focus on the human dimension. A core of LT(S)ER sites, which can be for instance a research station, is responsible for primary data management and for coordination of LT(S)ER functions. LTER-site (“traditional” LTER-site): A LTER-facility of limited size (1-10 km²) representing one or more habitat types and forms of land use (e.g. forests, agro-pastoral areas, wetlands and rivers, urban and sub-urban areas) at different latitudes and altitudes. Activities are concentrated on biogeochemical processes and selected taxonomic groups. LTSER-platform (“next generation” LTER-site, LTER-cluster, Multifunctional Research Platform): A modular LTER-facility consisting of sub-sites (existing LTER facilities) covering different habitats, forms and intensities of land use and scale (local to landscape) and relevant infrastructure such as laboratories and instrumented catchments. The elements represent the main habitats, land use forms and practices relevant for the region (100-10000 km²) and cover scales from local to landscape level. LTSER-platforms are economic and social units, or coincide/overlap with such units, where adequate information on land use history, economy and demography is available. These platforms operate at the scale(s) required to study socio-environmental phenomena and manifest clearly defined problems on the interface between social and environmental dynamics. The Finnish LT(S)ER network will initially contain both LTER sites and LTSER platforms, but the aim is to develop the national network towards a network of LTSER platforms.


34

BOX 2.2.2. Example of site application form to join a national network (CONT.). Timetable

The deadline for submitting the Expression of Interests is 31.3.2006. Two paper copies of the Expression of Interest along with the supplements should be sent to the following address: Suomen Ympäristökeskus KIRJAAMO / LTER Expression of Interest PL 140 FIN-00251 Helsinki The sites to be included in the network will be decided by the steering committee for the Finnish LTER network (a coordination group for Finnish environmental research, to be appointed in the beginning of 2006 by the Ministry of the Environment). The applicants will be informed about the decision in May 2006. The first meeting of the site representatives of the network will be organized in May/June 2006 by SYKE. The network is aimed at functioning as a permanent and developing research infrastructure. National, regional and local funding organizations invest resources for the research activities and infrastructure in these areas through proposals and consultations. Provided the Finnish LT(S)ER network was chosen as part of the Finnish/EU research infrastructure programme, the research and monitoring activities in the network could be substantially expanded and deepened in future.

Further information

Marjut Nyman Finnish Environment Institute P.O.Box 140 FIN-00251 Helsinki Tel. +358 9 40300 352 Fax +358 9 40 300 390 Email: Marjut.Nyman at ymparisto.fi

Eeva Furman Finnish Environment Institute P.O.Box 140 FIN-00251 Helsinki Tel. +358 9 4030 0336 Fax +358 9 4030 0391 Email: Eeva.Furman at ymparisto.fi

Martin Forsius Finnish Environment Institute P.O.Box 140 FIN-00251 Helsinki Tel. +358 9 40 300 308 Fax +358 9 40 300 390 Email: Martin.Forsius at environment.fi

The information to be provided:

1. Name of the area and the scale of actions intended (LTER/LTSER)

2. Name and contact details of the coordinating organisation

3. Other research institutes, research units and other organisations participating in the LTER/LTSER

activities

4. Location of the site/area (landscape province i.e. 'maisemamaakunta')

5. Biotopes or habitats to be covered

6. Appendices:

i. Map of the site/area (item 4)

ii. Work plan (max. 15 pages, for contents see below)

iii. List of the most relevant publications following the instructions of the Research Council for Biosciences and Environment of Academy of Finland (www.aka.fi)


35

BOX 2.2.2. Example of site application form to join a national network (CONT.). Content of work plan

The description of the research and monitoring themes and thematic entities, that the LT(S)ER will be geared towards and focused on in future, should be given in an appendix, the length of which must not exceed 15 pages.

The work plan shall be organized as follows: 1. Abstract (ca. 200 words) and a list of main objectives 2. Research themes in the site/area Each main theme is briefly described and objectives for each theme listed. 3. Current projects Current projects related to above-mentioned themes are listed according to the following categories:

• International research projects • National research projects • Monitoring projects

4. Availability of the data Describe the long-term data series available for the national and international research community and the terms of data distribution and usage. 5. Local participation Describe any relevant activities in research projects and monitoring and co-operation with local actors, such as schools, civic organizations, and volunteers. 6. Education and communication Describe the training of undergraduates and other education (e.g. courses, seminars) that is being conducted in the area in connection to the themes described in work plan item 2. 7. Support services The support services that the area will provide are described, e.g. accommodation, means of communication, accessibility, work premises, laboratories, scientific libraries, educational facilities, other facilities and support services essential/strategic for the LT(S)ER –activities. 8. Available research infrastructure, facilities and human resources

a) Describe briefly what kind of research activities the laboratories are geared towards. What kind of research infrastructure (including the infrastructure that is the property of the coordinating institute and other institutes/parties in this LT(S)ER consortium) exists for the LT(S)ER –activities to enable the realization of the research themes described in the work plan (e.g. consumer durables, laboratory entities, field- and sampling equipment, reference collections, data storage and documentation tools, data bases etc.)?

b) Give name, research field/assignment and degree/status of senior personnel undertaking the realization of the LT(S)ER –themes (item 2), such as professors, senior scientists and post-docs and the number of personnel undertaking other activities (laboratory assistant, field staff etc.). 9. Quality assurance/control in monitoring and research Describe briefly the status of harmonization of the methods, protocols and instruments used in the research and monitoring in relation to similar research and monitoring carried out in other institutes and parts of Finland or internationally. Has any harmonization of methods or quality assurance/control taken place with other research institutes? What are the standards possibly followed in the field/laboratory or other research/monitoring activities? 10. Networking Networks that the area, or part of it, belongs to, are listed according to the following categories:

• National and/or international ecological research networks • National and/or international ecological monitoring networks • National and/or international social research networks • National and/or international socio-cultural monitoring networks • National and/or international multidisciplinary research, education- or development networks

(e.g. • biosphere reserves) • The networks that the area, or part of it, will be part of during the next six years.


36

BOX 2.2.3. Finnish site evaluation proposal.


37

Fig. 2.2.1. Site selection based on environmental gradients (precipitation and land use)

– Israeli LTER.

Links & references

Mirtl, M. , Frenzel M., Furman E., Ohl C., Krauze, K., Grünbühel, C., 2008. LTER-Europe:

Criteria and Recommendations: http://www.lter-europe.net/document-

archive/bylaws/I3034v01-LTER-Europe-Criteria-handout20080117.pdf/view

www.ecn.ac.uk/protocols/index.asp

www.ecn.ac.uk/sites.htm.

Sykes, JM. and Lane, AMJ (Eds) (1996). The United Kingdom Environmental Change

Network: protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites. Stationery Office,

London. (ISBN 0 11 702197 0)

Sykes, JM., Lane, AMJ. and George, G. (Eds) (1999). The United Kingdom Environmental

Change Network: protocols for standard measurements at freshwater sites. Institute of

Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdon. (ISBN: 1 870393 49 X)


38

2.3 Site coordination

Coordination of LTER site comprise the number of obligations: i) securing of data collection (with respect to agreed by LTER Europe community common parameter set) and storage, ii) data quality check, iii) ensuring delivery of information on research, and knowledge synthesis on site level - including publications and presentations, iv) answering to local demand for scientific information (local stakeholders, decision makers), v) fund raising.

Thus skills suggested for LTER site manager are following: • Data manager • Recognised scientist • Structure builder • Communicative and able to communicate with local stakeholders, politicians, public,

scientists • With secure position • Networked • Locally oriented [I3040_13_Balaton_flip13_a_small.JPG]

Fig. 2.3.1. Resources required for coordination and management of LTER site according

to expertise of site coordinators


39

3 PLATFORMS & NETWORK OF PLATFORMS

3.1 Platform characteristics & activity The concept of LTSER platforms evolved in response to that demand implying the expansion the traditional LTER approach. Important drivers and pressures and their impacts cannot be comprehensively investigated on the spatial scale of hundreds of hectares. Moreover, to support fundamental research on ecosystem processes in the long-term the selection of locations for traditional LTER sites was biased in favour of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. Thus, the characteristics of the LTER-facilities as well as the disciplines involved in research do not suffice to appropriately investigate socio-ecological systems. This resulted in the request for a new-generation of LTER considering the human dimension in a scale- and level-explicit design and thus signalling the transition towards Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research or LTSER.

But developing the framework for LTSER needs to take a wide range of components into account, ranging from the underlying concepts to the challenge of developing the common language indispensable for proper interdisciplinary research. Identifying appropriate regions and physically implementing LTSER has revealed to be a major long-term effort, which strongly requires a shared vision and division of tasks on the European scale.

LTSER platforms consisting of a modular hierarchy of sub-sites (existing LTER facilities) covering different habitats, forms and intensities of land use and scales (local to landscape). These platforms operate at the scale(s) and levels required to detect socio-environmental phenomena and manifest clearly defined problems on the interface between social and environmental dynamics. They provide a framework for interdisciplinary teams to undertake detailed qualitative and quantitative study of specific aspects of the dynamics of socio-environmental interaction, so that models can be developed which allow for up-scaling the knowledge involved. At present several countries have started to develop LTER-facilities of this modular kind.

The core characteristics of LTSER-platforms include: • Multi-site • Multi-habitat • Scale consciousness (hierarchy of scales, multilevel analyses, up/down-scaling...) • Social dimension, sustainable regional development, multi- and trans-disciplinarity • Interoperability and congruency of data across disciplines • Infrastructure for optimized multi-site-experiments • Gradients covered

o between: “LTER-Europe socio-ecological regions” (biogeopgraphy PLUS social and economic),

o within: urban-natural, habitat types, management practices, altitude etc. • Focus: Processes (fast and slow, related to biodiversity and others), testing & validation

of (BD-) indicators (incl. link to models and theories) • Link of research an monitoring, socio-economic and ecological research

With respect to research LTSER platforms promise: • Availability of information on land use history, socio-economy, demography • Maximum number of existing LTER-relevant facilities • Status and perspective of facilities (access to data, commitment etc.) • Representativeness for ecosystem services relevant for the broader (biogeographical)

region • Relevant management practices (alternatives) investigated • Availability of reference areas (undisturbed natural habitat(s) typical for the region) • Coverage of typical gradients of the (biogeographical) region.


40

Fig. 3.3.1. Structure of LTSER platform and its contribution to research and dissemination

of knowledge.

Regarding the physical infrastructure LTSER platforms represent clusters of facilities supporting LTER activities and providing data. Ideally, we propose to distinguish between (i) site-level activities representing in-depth ecological research in quantitatively relevant habitat types, containing specific sampling plots, (ii) intermediate scale elements such as national parks, biosphere reserves or investigated meso-catchments and finally (iii) the region as such. Nested designs from the site- to the landscape levels and cascadedly harmonized sampling and parameter sets enable the systematic assessment of the representativeness of individual elements for their vicinity. Elements belonging to bigger scale activities, including national and international monitoring schemes, are functionally linked for further up- and downscaling and crosswise validation (e.g. biodiversity indicators).

Links & references

Mirtl M., 2006. Design of LTER-Europe. Conceptualizing LTER-facilities for an European

LTER-Network. Available as: I3017v02_LTER_design_nomencl_Mirtl.doc

Mirtl, M., Boamrane, M., Braat, L., Furman, E., Krauze, K., Frenzel, M., Gaube, V., Groner,

E., Hester, A., Klotz, S., Los, W., Mautz, I., Peterseil, J., Richter, A., Schentz, H., Schleidt, K.,

Schmid, M., Sier, A., Stadler, J., Uhel, R., Wildenberg, M., Zacharias, S., 2009. LTER-Europe

Design and Implementation Report – Enabling “Next Generation Ecological Science”:

Report on the design and implementation phase of LTER-Europe under ALTER-Net &

management plan 2009/2010. Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency

Austria). Vienna. 220 pages. ISBN 978-3-99004-031-7. Available as:

I3033v33_LTER_Europe_Rep_proof_v01.doc


41




Mirtl, M. and Krauze, K., 2007. Developing a new strategy for environmental research,

monitoring and management: The European Long-Term Ecological Research Network's

(LTER-Europe) role and perspectives. In: T. Chmielewski (Editors), Nature Conservation

Management: From Idea to Practical Results. Lublin - Lodz - Helsinki - Aarhus, pp. 36-52.

3.2 Selection of LTSER platforms The the best practice in selection of LTSER platforms by the national LTER-networks and by LTER-Europe as a regional network have been specified by Mitrl at al. (2008). They serve achieving the best possible coverage in terms of various European gradients and support development of interdisciplinary, demand-driven science addressing all components of DPSIR model. Therefore new candidate platforms should primarily

• cover missing European environmental zones

• cover missing LTER socio-ecological regions (LTER-SER)

• increase the number of countries

• include regions with varying income levels, but similar resource endowments of special interest.

The basis for selection of platforms is socio-ecological stratification of Europe and analysis of coverage of existing LTER facilities conducted within the framework of FP6 NoE AlterNet by Metzger et al. (2005, 2008, manuscript) Formal criteria include:

• Established management of the entire LTSER platform, including several LTER sites with affiliated site coordinators,

• Platform managers are formally appointed for at least 2 years,

• Memorandum of understanding (MoU) – a formal basis of LTSER – must be signed by at least 5 participating partners across client groups,

• Documentation of ongoing sociological, economic and natural scientific research (“Socioeconomic-Ecological research”),

• The binding involvement of non-scientific client groups and stakeholders (local decision makers, provincial administration, regional developers, population) to support trans-disciplinarity and participatory approaches,

• Institutional commitment of partners. Finally the design criteria should be met, which comprise:

• Scale- and level explicit approach: concept how the design addresses relevant levels and scales,

• LTSER facilities/activities shall cover main habitat types of region,

• LTSER facilities/activities shall cover different scales, levels of organisation and sectors,

• Involvement of client groups (research, networks, monitoring, local decision makers, regional development; see MoU)


42

• Coverage of within-gradients of the biogeographical region (e.g. range of land use intensity),

• Concept for the coupling of monitoring and research and how both can be secured in the long term.

BOX 3.2.1. Example of LTSER MoU – LTER Austria

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Multifunctional Research Platform Eisenwurzen

Approved version of 15 October 2005 Revised January 2009

Contents

1 PREAMBLE

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 THE INTERNATIONAL LTER PROCESS 2.1.1 LTER at the international level 2.1.2 ILTERN 2.1.3 LTER-Europe 2.1.4 ALTER-Net

2.2 EMBEDDING OF THE MFRP EISENWURZEN IN LTER IN AUSTRIA (MFRP CONCEPT) 2.2.1 Österreichische Gesellschaft für Langzeitforschung (LTER-Austria) 2.2.2 Federal Environment Agency 2.2.3 Establishment of the Austrian LTER network

3 MULTIFUNCTIONAL RESEARCH PLATFORM EISENWURZEN

3.1 DEFINITIONS OF MULTIFUNCTIONAL RESEARCH PLATFORM TERMINOLOGY 3.2 AIMS OF THE MFRP EISENWURZEN 3.3 ADDED VALUE 3.4 ORGANISATION AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT 3.5 DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION 3.6 INTEGRATION AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF THE MFRP EISENWURZEN 3.7 IMAGE AND PUBLICITY 3.8 SIGNATORIES (CLIENT GROUPS) AND SIGNATURE

4 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY


43

BOX 3.2.1. Example of LTSER MoU – LTER Austria (CONT.) 3.2. Aims of the MFRP Eisenwurzen

The aim of the MFRP Eisenwurzen is to research the complex interconnectedness between the natural landscape of the Eisenwurzen region, it s historical and current use and the controlling variables of this use. Taking supra-reg ional constraints such as global change and socio-economics into account, the intention is to develop the scientific basis for sustainable management. Among other things, this me ans:

• Integrating, harmonising and focusing research acti vities and facilities in the region (work programmes, parameter sets, strategy developm ent)

• Collaboration between different specialist fields ( interdisciplinarity) • Close links between science and regional developmen t, regional decision-makers,

regional educational establishments etc. (transdisc iplinarity) • Proximity to the changing subjective and objective needs of the regional population

(participation) • Stronger focus on the region’s environmental histor y (historic land use,

palaoecology) and its impact on the present-day sit uation (including exploitation of potential for validating forecasting models)

• Coordination of the geographic resolutions at which individual disciplines work or for which they have data (e.g. census data at a municip al level) to facilitate reciprocal referencing

• Researching of long-term ecological processes in re levant habitats (primary production, carbon balance, deposition of materials , biodiversity, disturbances) and assessment of development trends

• Use of synergies by linking (environmental) monitor ing and research • Exploitation of the potential delivered by the many diverse LTER-relevant

organisations and infrastructures in the region in multi-site analyses and experiments

• Production of development scenarios and empirical m odels for their testing (integrated modelling, millennium assessment)

• Development of strategies to secure, exchange and o ptimally exploit data, information and meta-information on the region.

The aims can only be prioritised as they are being implemented and in line with the resources that come on-stream. Nonetheless, this co mbination of aims should illustrate one quality: the overarching issue is to create a platf orm for an innovative approach to research which will not only promote excellence in disciplin ary research by creating a highly integrated working environment with a maximum level of basic data, but will also create a communication forum for developing methods for hand ling complex interconnections that can only be grasped in an integrated approach.


44

BOX 3.2.1. Example of LTSER MoU – LTER Austria (CONT.) 3.3. Added value

As is the case with the inventory of the MFRP Eisenwurzen’s aims, a list of the likely value added can only serve as an example, although it can also provide a useful picture right across the various client groups:

• Commitment/concentration of research focusing on the Eisenwurzen region, both with relevant regional issues (including those resulting from local conditions) and with global developments and their impacts on the region.

• Use of national and international research funds for the region

• Opportunity to access infrastructural funds for research in the region (including the European Commission’s infrastructure initiative in its Seventh Framework Research Programme, FP7)

• Placing the Eisenwurzen region on the international agenda

• Integration of structures and initiatives in the region (integrative effect)

• Use of the MFRP Eisenwurzen and its elements for educational purposes

• Methodical contribution to the development of a new research strategy (LT(S)ER)

• Creation of a physical research platform and a communication forum that can be used outside the context of the MFRP

• New insight into the natural landscape of Eisenwurzen and its interaction with society

• Research into sustainable development opportunities for the region

• Properly substantiated testing of future scenarios for the region

• Increasing the efficiency of environmental monitoring in the region

• Improvement in access to environmental information in and from the region.

3.4. Organisation and financial support

The MFRP Eisenwurzen aims to put structures in place as soon as possible that will effectively support the achievement of the aims outlined in section 0. The main functions of these structures are:

• Control over content-related aspects

• Internal organisation (including decision-making processes that incorporate all client and user groups)

• Representation on a national and international level

• Networking

• Data management (support for data exchange and comprehensive data mapping)

• Publicity (website)

The intention is for the pilot and set-up phase to lead quickly into a long-term secure production phase. The MFRP Eisenwurzen therefore ideally needs permanent financial support, preferably from the regional bodies concerned.


45

Links & references

Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Mücher CA, Watkins JW. 2005. A climatic

stratification of the environment of Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14: 549-

563

Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, van Eupen M, Mirtl M. (manuscript) An assessment of long

term ecological research activities across European socio-ecological regions.

Manuscript submitted to Ecosystems.




Metzger, M., Mirtl, M., 2007. LTER socio-ecological regions (LTER-SER) - representativeness

of European LTSER facilities - current state of affairs. AlterNet 3.I2.D1 Report Available at:

http://www.alter-

net.info/bfora/user/systems/sig/showpage.asp?sig=340&page=7&arg=1

3.3 Platform management In order to achieve a scale and level explicit design the levels of administration, decision making and management impacting the area at different scales need to be identified, differentiating between internal and external drivers. Socio-ecological profiling reveals key ecosystem services, environmental and economic compartments and societal factors driving the system. An actor analysis identifies the corresponding interest groups engaged in regional and local decision making, management, administration, regional development, education, monitoring and research itself, as well as stakeholders of dominating economic and land use sectors. Only interactive involvement of these key groups allows for the identification of research demands as regionally perceived. One of the processes LTSER platforms support is reconciling national and international top-down research strategies with bottom-up necessities of nature protection, regional development, environmental reporting, and the assessment of abatement strategies. LTSER and LTSER projects in the proper sense mediate between strategies and requirements. Non-scientists should be involved in the definition phase of projects and the re-translation of scientific findings into guidelines for administration and management build. Transdisciplinary and participatory approaches play an important role in the dissemination of knowledge and educational efforts to change behaviour where scientific findings recommend so. All the above implies the necessity of establishing a multidimensional communication space considering a wide range of idioms spoken across actor groups of the same mother tongue. The same is true for science when it comes to the required data access and data flows. Without central facilitation the efforts for provisioning required data for complex LTSER projects alone would exhaust projects, even if these data were freely available. It is obvious and has broadly been accepted that LTSER requires a platform management secured in the long term and providing a wide range of services deducible from the outlined work and communication flows. Amongst these services are:

• Conceptual work • Project development • Networking across interest groups, disciplines & stake holders • Communication (inter- and trans-disciplinary communication space, WEB site etc.) • Data integration and policy • IT-Tools • Representation (nationally, internationally) • Public relations


46

• Lobbying • Fund raising

This results in set of skills required from LTSER platform manager: • Scientific generalist • Manager in power • Well informed & connected • Experienced in data management • Communicative and able to up-scale the work to provide links to higher levels of the

political community and international society [I3040_14_Balaton_flip14_a_small.JPG]

Fig. 3.1.1. Resources required for coordination and management of LTSER Platform

according to expertise of platform managers

Links & references

Mirtl, M., Boamrane, M., Braat, L., Furman, E., Krauze, K., Frenzel, M., Gaube, V., Groner,

E., Hester, A., Klotz, S., Los, W., Mautz, I., Peterseil, J., Richter, A., Schentz, H., Schleidt, K.,

Schmid, M., Sier, A., Stadler, J., Uhel, R., Wildenberg, M., Zacharias, S., 2009. LTER-Europe

Design and Implementation Report – Enabling “Next Generation Ecological Science”:

Report on the design and implementation phase of LTER-Europe under ALTER-Net &

management plan 2009/2010. Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency

Austria). Vienna. 220 pages. ISBN 978-3-99004-031-7. Available as:

I3033v33_LTER_Europe_Rep_proof_v01.doc


47

4 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT [D. Blankmann]

4.1 Good practice in data management LTER-Europe is a network of national networks. While each national network differs in its composition and funding sources, the individual LTER sites may be broadly divided into governmental monitoring sites and university-based research sites. Some sites may be jointly managed by governmental agencies and universities. It is important to recognize that information management requirements at governmental sites may be very different from those at university-based research sites. Because there is significant variability among the national networks with respect to the organization of the LTER sites, for the purposes of this section, an LTER site will be considered to be an organizational entity of sufficient complexity that it has someone whom the National Representative designates as a Site Manager. This is to be distinguished from a research location. An LTER site may have one or more research locations. In this context, an LTSER platform should be considered as a single LTER site.

4.2 Best Practice: Site Level Each LTER site should have someone who is considered as the Information Manager.

The US-LTER defines the role of the Information Manager as: Develops (and maintains) the site information system and data catalog, develops databases for site data archive and metadata, implements web pages to place data online, interacts with site researchers, provides data for cross-site databases.

The Information Manager and the Site Manager may be the same person. In some national networks, the national representative, the site manager, and the information manager may all be the same person.

Because different LTER sites/national networks may have limited resources, it is important to provide guidance as to what are the most important responsibilities that the Information Manager has. The following areas are fundamental to LTER information management.

Critical responsibilities

1. Data quality control: This is of primary importance for manual systems where data is collected in the field, hand written in notebooks, then transferred to digital form. Often a researcher will enter data into a spreadsheet in one format. If the site stores data in a relational database, then there is another step in the chain. Each time there is a change in storage medium there are potential data quality problems.

2. Data curation: Long term data requires a system for long term archival of data. This means that data needs to be stored in more than one location in addition to a researcher's personal computer. Procedures need to be developed to periodically review the status of archived data to make sure that the data is still accessible. For example, legacy data that is stored on floppy disks or zip drives should probably be converted to some other media. Data should be backed up to removable media and stored offsite.

3. Data sharing: Since LTER-Europe is a network, data generated by an LTER site needs to be made available to other researchers on a timely basis. How data is made available is determined by each LTER site.

4. Provision of high quality metadata: While integrated data/metadata data systems such as SERONTO/Moris2 could provide a system for providing high quality metadata, these


48

systems are not currently available. What does high quality metadata mean? In means that there is sufficient information about a monitoring or research project so that its meaning is clear across time, space, and discipline. That means that data should be described in such a way that it would meaning at least 20 years in the future and to researchers who were not involved in the research. Ecological Metadata Language (EML) is one standard for documenting ecological data.

4.3 Best Practice: National Network Each National Network should have someone who is considered as the Information Manager. At the national network level, the information manager supports the site level information manager(s). Because there is so much variability in the LTER-Europe network, it is impossible to describe a single best practice for the role of the national network level information manager. Following are several models that can be adopted depending on the resources and organizational structure of national network.

1. Centrally managed national network (national network employs site-level information managers) If the national network employees site information managers then the network information manager would have a managerial/supervisory relationship to site information manager. In this case the network information manager is responsible to make sure that all site-level information management functions are carried out properly. The national network will probably maintain a network level web site. Depending on the size of individual sites/platforms, the national information manager may be responsible for managing individual site level web pages. In this model, the management of technology development is carried out centrally. If the network is large then it might employ its own developers. A variant of this model is centralized management of a distributed development team (centributed). ALTERN-Net's I6 is an example of this form. In the centributed model, individual site information managers are selected based on giving the network a range of expertise. A site information manager has both local and network responsibilities. For example, one site may employ a database expert; another site may employ a GIS expert; another site may employ someone with web design expertise. Specific responsibilities:

a. Design and maintenance of National Network web site b. Data Curation: Centralized archiving of all network data c. Metadata management: insures that local site information managers provide high

quality metadata. d. Data sharing: maintains a network level data catalogue

2. Network coordination of individually managed LTER sites (individual site employs the site information manager.) LTER-Israel, for example, is a consortium of governmental and university managed sites. If the national network is a collection of sites that are managed by different organizations, then the network information manager has a coordinating role rather than a managerial role. Specific responsibilities:

a. Design and maintenance of National Network web site b. Data Curation: Centralized archiving of all LTER network data; direct

management of any network-level research data. c. Metadata management: provides support to local site information managers in

the provision of high quality metadata. d. Data sharing: maintains a network-level data catalogue

4.3.1 EXAMPLE: Initial steps of Information Management in the FinLTSER

Network [H. Karasti]

This section describes the initial steps of organizing information management (IM) and of forming an IM approach in the FinLTSER Network. The approach attempts to account for its


49

contextual conditions, both with regard to the national network’s circumstances and the multi-level organizational structures of the LTER program with an awareness to the future directions and challenges brought along by e-Science initiatives for large-scale data-intensive research collaborations, such as the ESFRI initiative of LifeWatch.

Information management activities in the nascent Finnish Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (FinLTSER) Network commenced by organizing a survey in order to gather a comprehensive understanding about the initial state and circumstances of information management at sites and platforms within the network. The findings revealed a variety of local situations, i.e. information management practices and systems are diverse because sites’ needs that vary due to their histories, research biomes, themes etc. This relates to the fact that the FinLTSER Network was, to a great extent, built on an existing network of autonomous research stations, together with a number of research sites and long-term monitoring programs of the main governmental research institutes.

Second, efforts were aimed at gaining a formal status and establishing an organizational structure for information management within the national network. Information Management Group (IMG) was formed of participants responsible for information management at each of the LT(S)ER sites and platforms together with representatives of associated research institute. The national level IMG is seen as a long-term collective forum where experience sharing, learning and reflection can take place. The co-leads of the IMG were granted membership in the FinLTSER Steering Group. Through an established organizational status, information management has gained visibility and become part of collaborative processes within the national network, for instance, in the process that made FinLTER recognized as a key national research infrastructure.

A third step has been to attend to existing and emerging relationships with other LTER networks’ information management bodies, such as the Information Management Committee of the first national network of the LTER program in the United States with almost 30 years of experience, ALTER-Net Work Package I6 followed by the nascent Information Management Expert Panel of the regional network of LTER-Europe, and the Information Management Committee of the global umbrella network of ILTER. The aim has been to participate in activities that have an effect for information management both within the larger LTER networks and the national network. It is important to develop FinLTSER IM in accordance with international policies, standards and planned development trajectories in global LTER network of networks.

In the context of FinLTSER Network, formation of an information management approach and strategy began with a recognition that sites and platforms will continue to need to have some autonomy in IM in order to be able to account for and support their diverse research interests and activities (cf. monitoring networks). The site-based IM approach is appreciative of the necessity to develop - in a bottom-up manner – sites’ IM practices, procedures, systems and strategies that support their local circumstances. In addition, site-based information management creates an opportunity for a specific kind of close, two-way relationship between site science and information management. This relationship is likely to be important in the era of e-Science as it allows IM and science to develop together in conditions where future expectations can be known in detail only to an extent as the visions of e-Science are currently being formulated.

Links & references:

� Karasti, H., Baker, K. (2004). Infrastructuring for the Long-Term: Ecological Information Management, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2004 (HICSS’37). January 5-8 2004, Hawaii, USA. p. 10. � Karasti, H., Baker, K. S., Halkola, E. (2006). Enriching the Notion of Data Curation in e-Science: Data Managing and Information Infrastructuring in the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network, Computer Supported Cooperative Work – An International Journal 15 (4): 321-358.


50

� Karasti, H., Baker; K. S. (2008). Digital Data Practices and the Long Term Ecological Research Program Growing Global. International Journal of Digital Curation 3 (2): 42-58.

4.4 Best Practices: LTER-Europe The centributed model can be loosely applied at the LTER-Europe level. One of the lessons learned from the ALTER-Net I6 experience is that information management cannot be considered in isolation from the needs of the research scientists. With the end of ALTER-Net funding centralized information management must evolve from a focus on funded informatics research to something fundamentally different. The formation of the Information Management Expert Panel at the Mallorca meeting (December 2008) represents the first phase of this transition. Currently the membership in the expert panel was based on individual interest rather than national network representation.

By contrast the US LTER has an information management committee with one formal representative from each US LTER site. Currently there are two co-chairs and an executive committee. The co-chairs and the executive committee are elected by the full membership. It is too early to tell whether this model is appropriate for LTER-Europe, but it is worth considering.

At this initial stage of the LTER Europe Network, perhaps the most important task with regard to information management is to increase its visibility and foster general awareness of the crucial role of information management also in e-Science efforts.

Knowledge transfer and learning from all levels of LTER information management are urgently needed, and one promising way to support these activities are collective forums on multiple levels where experience sharing, analysis and reflection can take place. This could be supported by the LTER organizational structure and configuring of networks with different responsibilities at site, platform, national, regional and global levels, and by creating possibilities to integrate site-level information management expertise and local innovation into the joint development processes. Throughout the network and at all levels urgent attention is required for education and capacity building in information management, not only for dedicated information management personnel but also for scientists.

National level collaborative forums hold the potential of evolving into long-term learning environments where participants share existing and nurture new knowledge, provide peer-support, solve problems collaboratively, as well as foster and stimulate local innovation in matters of information management and infrastructure development. Collaborative forums on levels beyond the national one, can address information management issues of larger magnitude, such as standards and technologies development for the LTER program. However, it must be kept in mind that local level is the ultimate test-bed in new standards and technologies implementation in large-scale scientific efforts. Because as extensive as possible inclusion of sites, platforms and national networks is required for technologies and standards to be useful for collaborative science, community building is an important aspect of the information management forums as inclusion is not only a question of techn(olog)ical but also social readiness.

We differentiate between bottom-up and top-down information management approaches. The former are necessary for national networks built on existing heterogeneous networks or research-oriented networks (cf. monitoring networks), and the latter can be suitable for national networks purposefully built as LTER networks or for monitoring networks. These different approaches, however, suggest the need for different IM approaches on the level of sites, platforms and national networks.


51

We recognize the need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of information management with regard to the multiple levels of LTER program. There is an imminent need for an investigation and assessment of what goes on each level in terms of information management and an attempt to clarify the responsibilities and relations of the multiple levels of LTER with regard to information management.

Links & references: http://knb.ecoinformatics.org/software/eml

a long-term biodiversity, ecosystem and awareness research ... · lter europe guideline on best...

Documents