Norse, Elliott (5/30/98)

Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI) appreciates this opportunity to provide input on the future of the Biological Oceanography Program at NSF through the OEUVRE process. The Geoscience Directorate's effort to examine new opportunities and reevaluate current priorities and processes shows exceptional foresight and openness, and is critical for ensuring NSF's responsiveness to the needs of both the scientific community and society as a whole. MCBI's comments address the second and third questions.

2. What are the major opportunities open to biological oceanography in the next two decades and what challenges need to be overcome to realize those opportunities?

The largest challenge that humankind faces is how to live on the Earth without inflicting so much damage to its living systems that they break down, reducing biological diversity, altering biogeochemistry and thereby threatening our nation's and species' well-being and survival. Clearly, the conservation problems that the world now faces will only intensify as the human population, resource consumption and waste production grow.

The quest for scientific knowledge for its own sake is among the noblest of human endeavors, one which MCBI supports unequivocally, and is essential to progress and the human spirit. But it is not sufficient because it doesnÕt address humankind's pressing concerns, and could increasingly be seen as an unaffordable luxury. We are in the midst of an unparalleled crisis, as evidenced by two profoundly worrisome trends: on a very rapid time scale and on a spatial scale ranging from local to global, the EarthÕs biogeochemistry is being altered and its biological diversity is being lost (Norse 1993; Butman & Carlton 1995). In the eyes of the public that supports scientific research, confronting this challenge with sound scientific understanding is a premier raison d'être for disciplines such as oceanography.

The multidisciplinary work on global change that NSF has catalyzed and supported since at least the early 1980s exemplifies the application of the highest-quality science to the pressing societal need of preventing alteration of the worldÕs biogeochemical cycles, hence climate and all that is linked to them. But NSF has not played anywhere near a comparable role in addressing the otherÐno less seriousÐthreat: loss of marine biological diversity, a concept less familiar than loss of biodiversity on land (Norse 1996). NSF's scattered investment in longstanding disciplines relevant to biological diversity lacks the focus, skillful integration of disciplines, magnitude and, hence, payoffs of NSF's laudable work on global change. This seems particularly true in the marine realm.

Since the late 1970s, conservation biologyÐthe multidisciplinary science of maintaining biological diversity at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levelsÐhas emerged and grown impressively, but conservation biologyÕs crucial shortcoming is its largely terrestrial focus. A quick-and-dirty study (Irish & Norse 1996) of papers in the leading journal, Conservation Biology that showed that papers with a terrestrial focus outnumber marine ones by a ratio of 13:1. On the other hand, marine scientists have devoted far less attention to conservation than our terrestrial counterparts. Thus, there is a huge, unfilled gap at the intersection of conservation biology and marine sciences. As anthropogenic alteration of the sea continues to increase, the need for solid scientific research in marine conservation biology becomes ever more critical. Marine Conservation Biology Institute urges NSF to become the catalyst and leading force in this emerging multidisciplinary field, just as NSF enabled US scientists to make momentous contributions to understanding global change.

Many of the white papers preceding the March 1998 workshop and the subsequent OEUVRE report highlighted important points on this issue. The many references made on the importance of examining conservation questions illustrate how the scientific community is recognizing the important role it plays in understanding and addressing anthropogenic impacts on marine biological diversity.

The support expressed in the white papers and the report for multidisciplinary research and long-term studies is particularly applicable to marine conservation biology. (Terrestrial) conservation biology is a multidisciplinary science that arose in response to recognition among zoologists, botanists, ecologists, biogeographers, geneticists, physiologists, behaviorists and others that questions about conserving biodiversity are best answered by combining perspectives, each of which provides only part of the understanding needed. This makes sense: Genes, species and ecosystemsÐthe three levels of biological diversityÐdo not function in isolation from one another, and therefore, to understand them scientists cannot function in disciplinary isolation. Yet cross-fertilization of disciplines and the application of the results thus obtained to conservation has been very limited within the marine sciences, something that needs to change. The OEUVRE report is commendable for recognizing the need for increased interaction not only among subdisciplines in oceanography, but also with terrestrial ecology and other marine fields. It explicitly mentioned the need for improved communication and coordination between nearshore paleoecologists and ocean ecologists, the need to break down artificial barriers between basic and applied ocean ecology, and the need for greater integration of marine fisheries management and basic ocean ecology.

These needs go far beyond the specific disciplines mentioned, however. It is difficult to avoid the impression that NSF has favored oceanography carried out with ships, submarines and satellites in or above blue waters rather than marine sciences carried out with small boats or scuba tanks in green and brown waters, where productivity and economic importance to humans are far greater and human impact is far more severe. (This was a major point in comments on OEUVRE submitted by Alice Alldredge.) The need to maintain the sea's biological diversity is an ideal central organizing theme for increasing our knowledge of marine systems by encouraging and funding collaborations that pertain to conservation among a wide range of relevant biological, physical and social science disciplines, from urbanized estuaries to the remotest open oceans.

The OEUVRE report section on human impacts and habitat linkages strongly emphasizes research that would allow us to forecast trends and their ecological consequences, in part through interpretation of the paleoecological record, a crucial goal for understanding, managing and conserving biological diversity. A similar, and excellent research agenda is presented in Butman & Carlton (1995). However, given the rapid rate at which human activities are affecting biological diversity, research cannot be limited to basic questions about how systems function and improving predictions of how they will respond to change. Alone, this emphasis is too passive. A prudent homeowner should not only understand rudiments of combustion dynamics and effects of wind and humidity on fire risk, but also how to put out a fire. From Brazil to Kalimantan, the terrestrial part of our home literally is on fire, while less-known anthropogenic threats to marine biodiversity, such as bottom trawling, are disturbances with similar effects in the sea (Watling & Norse 1998). For this reason, we believe that questions directly pertinent to conserving biological diversity deserve equal emphasis, such as:

1) Why are corals worldwide dying from new epidemics?

2) What are the impacts of declining fisheries on seabird and marine mammal populations?

3) How can we maintain native species against the onslaught of alien species?

4) What is the minimum viable population size for declining white marlin, bluefin tuna or barndoor skates?

5) How does removal of apex predators by fishing affect marine food web dynamics?

6) What areas are marine invertebrate population sources and sinks and how do these relate to maintaining biological diversity and fisheries in marine reserves?

7) What are the boundaries of marine biogeographic provinces, and how are they affected by water masses, currents, etc?

8) How do anthropogenic benthic disturbances compare with natural benthic disturbances in their effects on succession and biogeochemistry?

9) How do projected anthropogenic changes in ocean circulation affect recruitment dynamics of benthic species?

10) How do life history strategies and genetic structure of populations with planktonic larvae affect extinction probabilities?

One way to address conservation questions directly is to follow the report's recommendation to take advantage of existing human-caused "experiments" resulting from activities such as fisheries collapse and management, nutrient enrichment from polluted run-off, habitat degradation and restoration, and marine reserves that restrict human activities. Studying these intentional and accidental "experiments" on natural systems can provide a wealth of information directly relevant to maintaining marine biodiversity. As the report and several white papers noted, marine reserves in particular can provide valuable opportunities for both basic and more applied conservation research. As the widespread nature of human impacts on the marine environment is making it increasingly difficult to find unperturbed systems, marine protected areas not only can maintain biological diversity and allow for the recovery of populations and ecosystems, but also establish the closest thing we have to a "baseline" against which human effects can be measured.

Marine conservation biology now exists, as evidenced by the 1,051 enthusiastic marine scientists and conservation biologists at the first Symposium on Marine Conservation Biology, which MCBI organized at the annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology in 1997. The interest in the scientific communityÐparticularly in young scientistsÐis remarkably strong and the need from a societal standpoint has never been greater. However, without reliable, substantial funding and appropriate recognition from the most respected funderÐNSFÐmarine conservation biology will never approach its full potential. These two factors, recognition and funding, are the greatest challenges this field faces. Academic departments structured along traditional single discipline lines discourage interdisciplinary collaboration and deter scientists from conducting research that ventures beyond traditional boundaries. When funding opportunities are structured along these same lines, the task can become impossible, especially when applied sciencesÐwhich focus on efficacyÐare judged by the standards of pure sciencesÐwhich focus on novelty. While a research proposal may be "cutting edge" by posing questions as they apply to conserving biological diversity, it may not be considered "cutting edge" in the traditional discipline with which it is most closely affiliated, and such proposals run the risk of being bypassed. Dealing with disparities in recognition and funding are unique and necessary contributions that NSF can make to marine conservation biology.

Restructuring research programs to reflect these needs is essential but not sufficient. Scientific information diffuses into society far less effectively than information on the home run race, the stock market, politiciansÕ romantic adventures or the latest movies. A quick reading of the New York Times Science Times section (and our personal experience) suggests that marine conservation stories are seriously underreported even in the highest quality mass media, let alone in USA Today. To make consequential advances in marine conservation research, findings need to be put into accessible forms and distributed to people who can make a difference. NSF can play a significant role by making the results and benefits of the research it funds known to the general public and the policymakers who rely on sound scientific information.

Even for an agency that has struggled to maintain its role as the champion and premier funder of pure research, advancing a new multidisciplinary applied science with high potential to advance basic scientific understandingÐwhether global change or marine conservation biologyÐshould be an exciting prospect. But we would also like to encourage NSF to champion and fund an endeavor that, at first glance, might seem less exciting: long-term monitoringÐespecially continuous long-term monitoringÐthat can show trends to which we need to pay attention. We donÕt mean mind-numbing, routine monitoring of variables irrespective of its potential to tell us anything, but monitoring of indicators that have meaning in themselves or as proxies for things that do. For example, Dayton (1989) reported tremendous population variations in an Antarctic sponge (Homaxinella balfourensis) on a time-scale of decades; he could not have seen these trends in a research program lasting much less than 30 years. The late John SutherlandÕs settling plates, collected over decades in North Carolina waters, are a treasure chest of information that could help (among other things) to determine when alien species arrived and what their impacts were on native species. Barry et al. (1995) were fortunate enough to relocate the exact intertidal survey markers from the 1930s that allowed them to see northward shifts in Monterey Bay invertebrates as a function of climate change; how much more valuable would his study have been if the data were quasi-continuous, as were the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) data analyzed by Roemmich & Magowan (1995). Because they can tell us things that are difficult to see on time scales that determine most of our behaviors, and because they are so uncommon, long-term data sets are more difficult to maintain but produce far greater payoffs overall and greater payoff per annum than data from the more usual hit- and-run studies. I have a distinct impression that biological data from inshore waters (where humans exert their greatest effects) are even scarcer than ones from blue waters.

3. What infrastructure must be developed to meet these challenges? Consider kind and amount of training, access to single PI and multi-user facilities, integration with or needed inputs from other disciplines, and any other potential bottleneck.

Advancing a new science requires experienced investigators from a variety of existing disciplines who can apply their insights and young people who train in this area from the outset. A funding program for marine conservation biology, therefore, should provide both opportunities for research by principal investigators that builds the framework for further studies and training of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. MCBI urges NSF to initiate a two-pronged program to do this. One component is a grant program similar to the Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) program offered through NSF's Division of Environmental Biology. The 5-year PEET grants are structured to train a new generation of taxonomists and target poorly known groups of organisms. In my proposed marine conservation biology program, 5-year grants of approximately $140,000 each per year would be offered to fund at least one post-doctoral fellow and one graduate student at an adequate salary and benefits to encourage new scientists to enter the field. Requirements for recipients might include decent compensation for post-docs and students, modest indirect costs for universities and tuition remission to graduate students from universities. We think that ramping up over three years would allow for mid-course corrections, with the first year supporting about 40 projects, and an additional 40 projects added in each of the following 2 years, for a total of 120 projects starting in Year 3.

At the same time, additional dollars would be allocated for competitive research grants. Since demand will be smaller at first than it will be as alumni of the above training program start to establish themselves, significantly greater resources should be devoted to PEET-style grants to help develop the field than to traditional competitive grants at the start. As marine conservation biologists trained by the program establish themselves in research institutions starting in Year 6, funding for marine conservation biology can be diverted to competitive grants that do not earmark monies for training, as suggested below (these are in 1998 dollars, unadjusted for inflation); graduate students and post-docs will be trained, albeit at reduced rates, with assistance of competitive grants. Note that under this scheme total marine conservation biology funding essentially reaches a plateau in Year 3.

A program with this structure could bring marine conservation biology from an embryonic state to being a robust young science in just a decade after scientists gathered at the first Symposium on Marine Conservation Biology. If such a program is too large for NSF, perhaps it could be carried out in cooperation with another agency, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Conclusion

NSF is positioned to catalyze a quantum improvement in understanding of human impacts on the sea by laying the foundation for the new science of marine conservation biology. I urge you to seize this opportunity to direct significant resources towards this most critical issue of the 21st century.

References Cited

Barry, J.P., C.H. Baxter, R.D. Sagarin & S.E. Gilman (1995). Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a California rocky intertidal community. Science 267:672-675

Butman, C.A. & J.T. Carlton, editors (1995). Understanding Marine Biodiversity: A Research Agenda for the Nation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

Dayton, P.K. (1989). Interdecadal variation in an Antarctic sponge and its predators from oceanographic climate shifts. Science 245:1484Ð86

Irish, K.E. & E.A. Norse (1996). Scant emphasis on marine biodiversity. Conservation Biology 10(2):680

Norse, E.A., editor (1993). Global Marine Biological Diversity: A Strategy for Building Conservation into Decision Making. Island Press, Washington DC

Norse, E.A. (1996). A river that flows to the sea: The marine biological diversity movement. Oceanography 9(1):5-9

Roemmich, D. & J. McGowan (1995). Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in the California Current. Science 267:1324-1326

Watling, L. & E.A. Norse (1998, in press). Physical disturbance of the sea bottom by mobile fishing gear: A comparison with forest clear-cutting. Conservation Biology