The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) was heavily involved in the program, with Bill Dennison, Andrew Elmore, Steven Guinn, and Jane Thomas included in the planning and teaching of the undergraduate/graduate student workshop. In addition, Don Boesch was the after-dinner speaker on the first day. We also took a field trip to Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons, Maryland where Dave Secor provided welcoming remarks, and Mike Hulme, Bruce Cornwall and Dave Loewensteiner took students aboard the R/V Rachel Carson on a field trip to Chesapeake Bay and the Patuxent River. Jackie Takacs helped with logistics for the Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum field trip. Matt Fitzpatrick was involved in the early career workshop as well. In addition to UMCES staff, Allen Roberts from Tennessee State University helped with the spatial scaling issues, Alan Collins from West Virginia University and Carla Restrepo from the University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras helped with the social and economic issues, Brian Wee and Leah Wasser from the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) helped with the scaling and ecosystem services issues. The workshop organization was handled by the Ecological Society of America staff, Teresa Mourad, Andrea McMillen and Fred Abbott.

The students came from 15 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. They were diverse ethnically, geographically, and in terms of their major field of study. Several had recently graduated with their Bachelor’s degree and one student even missed her graduation in order to attend the workshop. They traveled from near and far, from small private and large public universities, and were excited to be participating.

A pre-workshop webinar was used to get the students up to speed on the topics addressed during the workshop: Bill Dennison and Jane Thomas provided an overview of science communication and conceptual diagrams and introduced students to the IAN online conceptual diagram creator. As homework assignments, students produced conceptual diagrams about issues for the different parts of the country they reside in. During the workshop we had a ‘poster session’ to review the diagrams. A couple of our favorite diagrams are shown below.

Conceptual diagrams ‘poster session’ showing diagrams created by the participants using the IAN online diagram creator.

Agriculture’s Link to Gulf Hypoxia diagram by Aubrie James.

Deforestation diagram by Sumnima Sharma.

Andrew Elmore and Steven Guinn provided an overview of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and introduced students to QGIS software and oriented them to the data sets they had assembled regarding the Potomac watershed which the students were able to interrogate during the workshop.

The student group projects were diverse and multi-disciplinary, providing ‘mash-ups’ of ecological data with social and economic data. The oral presentations at the end of the week were uniformly well presented with seamless speaker transitions by well-dressed students. The presentations provided context, used active titles, and incorporated visual elements, often using conceptual diagrams created by the students. The questions that the student groups asked were interesting and the results often surprising. The comparative analyses using various layers of spatial data sets allowed the student groups to gain insights into a variety of topics. Several guests joined us for the student presentations; Doug Myers (Chesapeake Bay Foundation), Cindy Wei (National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center), Chris Swan (University of Maryland Baltimore County), Katherine McCarter (Ecological Society of America).

Participants discussing their working group’s topic.

The Northern Shoveler working group, which included Brenda Castro-Voltaggio, Yvan Delgado de la Flor, Jessica Flondro, Tracy Wendt, and Stephanie Wilson, presented a talk entitled “Constructing artifical wetlands in the Patuxent River Watershed”. They produced an artificial wetlands targeting scheme (to make HAPPY fish and wildlife).

The Veined Rapa Whelk working group, which included Juan Botero, Tiona Johnson, Mark Rogers, Kelsey Stockert, and Becky Wood, presented a talk entitled “Do economic indicators correlate spatially with water quality?”. They learned that wealth doesn’t buy you ecohealth by comparing water quality in different counties (but would have been able to get better correlations if Juan had massaged the data).

The Fiddler Crab working group, which included Laura Bartock, John Brito, Aubrie James, Rugiyatu Kane, and Sumnima Sharma, presented a talk entitled “How are the trajectories of socioeconomic factors and water quality correlated in the Chesapeake watershed?”. They learned that human population growth rates influence Bay health (and that short term data sets give ‘better’ results).

The Red-bellied Cooter working group, which included Rory Carroll, Jim Hagger, Laina Lockett, Dan Schall, and Cristina Martinez, presented a talk entitled “Suburbia influence on watersheds”. They learned that suburban lawn fertilizer leaks nitrogen into streams (while they googled suburbia and dazzled us using Prezi).

The Lined Seahorse working group, which included Wanda Briscoe, Greg Patton, Mariana Quinones Rosado, and Joy Semien, presented a talk entitled “Trout as indicators of urbanization”. They learned that brook trout live in low-nutrient, cool temperature streams (which eutrophies Wanda’s brain).

Participants presenting the findings of their working group.

The Scaling Up workshop was an immersive learning experience, with short, intense teaching. Students gained new insights and learned about how data can be scaled for different types of analyses. They appreciated the interdisciplinary science, made friends, learned QGIS, enjoyed the field trip aboard the boat and to the park, learned ‘Why?’, not just ‘What?’ and ‘How?’. The one word summaries that students made at the end of the week included the following: grateful, appreciative, satisfied, eye-opening, real world, joy, inspiring, memorable, thrilled, diversity, bold, perspective, confident, thankful, expanded, in awe, fun, fascinating. My summary to the students was the following: “Inspired by you”.

Singing the Chesapeake Bay Blues

We threw off the lines from the Solomons pier

Aboard the Rachel Carson with our sampling gear

We headed out into the Chesapeake Bay

On a spectacular warm summer day

We were in search of the famous dead zone

Overboard went the CTD and the winch gave a groan

With the data streaming, we watched oxygen disappear

The dead zone was there, have no fear

Good news, we found the dead zone! Oops, that’s bad news

And it is why we’re singing the Chesapeake Bay Blues.

Osprey flying overhead and bait fish on the go

The Bay put on a very nice show

We looked up and saw Calvert Cliffs and the Naval Air Base

We looked down and saw the secchi disappear without a trace

We tracked chlorophyll, color and turbidity

Which compromise Chesapeake water quality

Collecting these data while underway

Trying to understand Chesapeake Bay

We are looking for some scientific clues

As to why we’re singing the Chesapeake Bay Blues.

We steamed up into a Chesapeake tributary

The Patuxent River with depths that did vary

Up past the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

Where scientists study this magnificent estuary

Dredging for oysters, we pulled up some shells

Oysters, barnacles, mussels and sea squirts as well

We trawled with a fishing net – didn’t catch much

We pulled in croaker, perch, bay anchovies and such

Not catching fish and a secchi who’s sight we did lose

That is why we’re singing the Chesapeake Bay Blues.

The Scaling Up crew converged in Baltimore

Analyzed data and generated graphs galore

Working for several days and nights

Preparing talks with some good insights

Bright young minds thinking about the Bay

Giving me hope that things will be OK

They are surely going to leave a trace

And make the world a better place

So on a future Rachel Carson cruise

We won’t be singing the Chesapeake Bay Blues

Panel discussion on jellyfish at The Diane Rehm Show. Left to right: Bill Dennison, Diane Rehm and Jack Cover. Credit: Amy Pelsinsky

Lisa Gershwin’s book included some wonderful anecdotes about various jellyfish blooms including stories of jellyfish clogging ship, power plant and cooling water intakes. It also included some great photos of these magnificent creatures. Jellyfish have no brains, no backbone, no heart, no gills, lots of water and not much organic matter. I recall Larry Madin calling jellyfish “organized water”. Lisa is clearly fascinated by these gorgeous, fascinating and sometimes dangerous animals. One of the themes in “Stung” is that there is a worldwide rise of jellyfish resulting from climate change, eutrophication, hypoxia, and overfishing, but this tenet is being challenged by a team of marine ecologists.

Rob Condon and 17 colleagues published a 2012 paper in Bioscience entitled ‘Questioning the rise of gelantinous zooplankton in the world’s oceans‘ in which they analyzed all of the jellyfish population data they could find, and concluded that the paradigm of a global rise in jellyfish is unsubstantiated. They noted a lack of good time course data sets and called for a concerted effort to monitor jellyfish. Rob and 21 colleagues followed up with a 2013 Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences article entitled ‘Recurrent jellyfish blooms are a consequence of global oscillations‘. In this paper, they describe a 20 year cycle of increasing and then decreasing jellyfish populations. The media tend to portray the ‘Rise of Slime‘ during the increasing phase, and then ignore the decreasing phase. And Carlos Duarte, my seagrass colleague who is also in Rob’s jellyfish group, co-authored a 2013 paper ‘Is global ocean sprawl a cause of jellyfish blooms?‘ in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment in which they advanced the concept of hardened shorelines due to coastal development, which they termed ‘ocean sprawl’. Since the life cycle of many jellies includes not only the free floating medusa stage but also an attached polyp phase, and polyps need hard substrates for attachment, the increase in hardened substrates in the coastal ocean could lead to increased jellyfish populations.

Atlantic sea nettle (Chrysaora quinquecirrha). Credit: Jane Thomas

In Chesapeake Bay, there is an interesting interplay between the stinging sea nettles (a cnidarian) and the comb jellies, Mnemiopsis leidyi (a ctenophore). Sea nettles are a top predator in the Bay and will eat the comb jellies. Both ingest oyster larvae, but Jenny Purcell determined that the larvae can survive sea nettles, but not comb jellies. Thus, sea nettles, while annoying for swimmers, could benefit oysters. When Jenny was at Horn Point Laboratory, I would ask her how the sea nettles were doing each summer because I enjoyed swimming in the Bay. She would say “It’s going to be a great year for nettles!”, which I had to reinterpret as “It’s going to be a terrible year for swimming!”. Jenny, Raliegh Hood, Chris Brown, Tom Gross and Mary Beth Decker teamed up to produce a sea nettle forecasting model, based on the relatively narrow temperature and salinity ranges of sea nettles, which the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office maintains on their website.

Portuguese-Man-of-War (Physalia physalis). Credit: Adrian Jones

Diane Rehm was fascinated by my nasty encounter with a Portuguese-man-of-war (Physalia physalis), but I also have had some wonderful jellyfish experiences. When I traveled to Palau with Jane Thomas and Ben Longstaff to work with the Palau Conservation Society on a science synthesis and communication project, we visited ‘Jellyfish Lake‘, a stratified marine embayment within a limestone ‘Rock Island‘. Thousands of beautiful Mastigias papua jellyfish live in this marine lake and make daily migrations within the lake. At night, they sink down to the pycnocline about 50 feet deep to absorb nutrients. In the morning the golden jellies, which contain symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae), swim in a spinning top fashion to the east side of the lake and then track the sun over to the west throughout the day.

Mastigias species of jellyfish in Jellyfish Lake, Republic of Palau. Credit: Jane Thomas

I very much enjoyed meeting Diane Rehm. She is a classy and intelligent woman, and her staff were also quite engaging. Investigating the topic of jellyfish stimulated me to read Lisa-Ann Gershwin’s interesting book, reconnect with some great colleagues, read some of the latest analyses of jellyfish trends, and reminisce about some good and bad jelly encounters.

I woke up this morning thinking about Rachel Carson. I wasn’t thinking about the author, exactly. It was more to do with the period of the early 1960s when Rachel Carson made a difference – a period of growing environmental consciousness as a prelude to taking action. Could it be that we are now in a similar period with respect to climate change? That possibility has put me in a cautiously optimistic mood.

Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring

Rachel Carson had been hovering in my peripheral vision for the last year or so. It began with my rediscovery of ‘The Edge of the Sea,’ her naturalist guide to the seashore along the east coast of the United States. Then, last summer marked the 50^th anniversary of the publication of ‘Silent Spring,’ which launched the environmental movement in the early 1960s. But, what really forced her into my consciousness was my visit to the University of Maryland’s Horn Point Laboratory, where incidentally the RV Rachel Carson was at dock, to lead a discussion about the knowledge journalist Bill McKibben and his activist role in the growing international movement to combat climate change.

The University of Maryland’s research vessel honors the memory of author Rachel Carson.

In ‘Silent Spring,’ Rachel Carson gave shape and substance to a largely unspoken unease about the impact that human activities were having on the global environment. Carson was writing during a time of unbridled optimism in industry and its promise of unlimited progress. However, it was also the height of the Cold War, and people were becoming aware of global hazards, not only from the potential use of nuclear weapons, but also from radioactive substances released into the environment by the development and testing of these weapons. Already recognized as the author of several best-selling naturalist books, Carson collected and synthesized what scientists in the early 1960s knew about how man-made chemicals used as pesticides and herbicides behaved in the environment. ‘Silent Spring’ issued the first warning to the general public about the hazards to nature, and to people through nature, of the promiscuous use of these chemicals. The wide-reaching environmental protection laws enacted by the United States during the early 1970s – the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act – are a direct result of a new, environmental movement sparked by Rachel Carson’s book.

Bill McKibben’s work as a knowledge journalist is inspired by Rachel Carson’s example. Like Carson, McKibben was an established author in 1989 when he published ‘The End of Nature,’ which is regarded as the first book about the science of global warming written for the general public. McKibben and Carson also share a tendency to introversion often found in writers. However, where Carson could not participate in the environmental movement set in motion by ‘Silent Spring,’ McKibben and his audience are heirs to that movement, and this compels McKibben to move beyond journalism and assume the role of activist.

Bill McKibben on a spring day

Different times call for different strategies. McKibben launched the 350.org campaign in 2008 (the number 350 ppm refers to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere considered safe from the point of view of climate change; that concentration rose past 400 ppm at the beginning of last month). So far, McKibben has stayed clear of the debate over whether the vast majority of climate scientists are correct in predicting dire consequences unless energy companies reduce the burning of fossil fuels quickly and soon. Instead, McKibben’s 350.org campaign focuses on identifying opportunities for people to make that happen, such as launching campaigns to convince universities to divest fossil fuel companies from their investment portfolios.

Bill McKibben’s effectiveness in awakening the public to action on climate change owes as much to his mastery of web-based niche media for getting his message out as to his command of the facts. McKibben understands well that tweets and blog posts won’t solve the climate crisis. That’s why he takes every opportunity to encourage people to act, get up from their seats and out into the streets. What a great idea for a spring day.

Meeting of the Vansville Farmers Club.

On 17 November 2012, I spoke with the Vansville Farmers Club at the Annapolis Yacht Club, as a guest of Francis “Skip” Gardner. I provided three stories about Chesapeake Bay, drew three lessons from those stories, provided three handouts regarding Chesapeake Bay issues, and asked three questions of the Vansville Farmers Club. The first story regarded my experiences sailing into Chesapeake Bay in 1977 aboard a tall ship and meeting watermen of Smith Island, cadets at the U.S. Naval Academy and sailors at the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum. The second story began ten years later, when I lived aboard a boat moored in the Choptank River and transited the Bay from top to bottom. I talked of swimming on the extensive oyster reefs and seagrass meadows, learning about the 132 recipes for crab cakes from watermen, and watching skipjacks ply the oyster reefs of the Choptank River. And the final story was returning to Chesapeake Bay after living for ten years in Australia to find recurrent mahogany tides, oysters practically gone, blue crab numbers down and seagrasses declining. These stories have been described in a previous blog post.

The three lessons that can be drawn from observing Chesapeake Bay over this 35 year span of time are 1) shifting baselines of perception, 2) the evolving scientific needs, and 3) the importance of training the next generation of problem solvers. 1) The shifting baselines are a reflection of changes in what constitutes ‘normal’ in the mind of residents. Incremental change can be difficult to detect, and it can become ‘normal’ to have reduced fisheries, turbid water and annual algal blooms. Experiencing Chesapeake Bay over long time periods can allow for broader perspective that provides context for the current conditions. 2) The evolving science needs reflect both the level of knowledge about Chesapeake Bay, as well as the changing management challenges. The initial phase of estuarine science describing the Bay processes and organisms was followed by eutrophication science that identified the problems associated with excess nutrients. The development of Bay models and monitoring programs ensued and good tracking schemes (e.g., indicators, report cards) were developed. Current management needs are being addressed by scientists to develop better monitoring tools, better diagnostics of various environmental issues and better targeting of restoration efforts. Learning about the implications of climate change is also a major emerging scientific effort. 3) The importance of training the next generation of problem solvers by using Chesapeake Bay as a training ground is exemplified by the diversity of professions of my former shipmates. For example, my 1977 Westward colleagues have become social workers, doctors, scientists and business CEOs. Greg Marshall, my shipmate in 1987, invented the ‘Crittercam‘ and works at National Geographic to apply unique underwater video imagery to answer compelling science questions. Ricky Arnold and I scuba dived in the Severn River to collect sediments for his thesis research, and Ricky applied his training in diving in his spacewalks as a Space Shuttle astronaut with NASA.

The three handouts that I provided the Vansville Farmers Club were A) the Chesapeake Bay report card, B) the Baltimore Harbor report card and C) the Measuring the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices newsletter. A) The Chesapeake Bay report card provided a sobering reminder of the challenges ahead for restoring Chesapeake Bay. But the positive trajectories observed in some of the report card reporting regions are testament for ecological tipping points and demonstrate the resilience of the Bay. B) The Baltimore Harbor report card is an example of a partnership between the business community, government, non-government organizations, academia, and citizens through the Healthy Harbor and the Waterfront Partnership Initiative. This provides an example of partnerships that I would like to emulate with the farming community. C) The Measuring Effectiveness newsletter provides an example of how government funding can be used to stimulate innovation and develop integrated restoration activities. The combination of the flush fee initiated by Governor Ehrlich for upgrading wastewater treatment and the Chesapeake and Atlantic Restoration Trust Fund initiated by Governor O’Malley, provide sustained funding streams that are being used to reduce Maryland’s impact on Chesapeake Bay.

Covers for Chesapeake Bay Report Card 2011, Baltimore Report Card 2012, and Measuring the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices newsletter.

The three questions that I asked were the following: 1) Do you believe that climate change is real?, 2) How important is a healthy Chesapeake Bay?, and 3) What are ways that farmers can retain soil, fertilizers and pesticides on the fields where they are useful, instead of having them runoff into Chesapeake Bay where they are damaging? The answer to the climate question was an acceptance of climate change as a reality. The issue of whether or not climate change was human-induced was not universally accepted, but the approach of developing adaptation strategies to dealing with climate change was endorsed. The response to the question of valuing a healthy Chesapeake Bay was to emphasize the role that farmers would like to play in helping maintain a healthy Bay. The alternative of converting agricultural lands into housing developments was emphasized as a perverse outcome of creating regulatory or economic conditions that would force farmers to sell their land, with deleterious impacts on Chesapeake Bay. The third question of what farmers can do generated a response that the farmers were happy to be asked this question – they generally have not been consulted as to ways that they can contribute in this realm and are often portrayed as the Chesapeake villains. It was this third question that prompted a follow-up meeting in May 2013, which will be recounted in a separate blog entry.

Map of protected and unprotected agricultural lands in Maryland. Source: Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Climate Change, 2011, pg. 15.

The Silent World, Jacques-Yves Cousteau

I wanted to learn to SCUBA dive at a young age and found a course that allowed me to learn at a Boy’s Club at the age of twelve. What had inspired me were National Geographic specials by Jacques Cousteau on television and this led me to read his book The Silent World. The mixture of water-related adventure, travel to exotic places and nature was a perfect mix for a young boy who loved being in the water. The Silent World was indeed a new world that awaited me when I was old enough to find my way to the ocean. Cousteau was not a scientist, but he did embrace science in his explorations, which kindled my interest in studying the ocean. I continued to SCUBA dive in the lakes of the Midwest and eventually in the ocean, spurred on by The Silent World.

The Lives of a Cell, Lewis Thomas

As a biology undergraduate major at Western Michigan University, I came across the book The Lives of a Cell by Lewis Thomas. This wonderful set of essays was inspirational to me in the way Thomas celebrated science and provided a perspective that science could be a way to viewing the natural world. Even though Thomas was a physician, his theme of the interconnected web of life was similar to the Gaia hypothesis put forth by James Lovelock. He also enjoyed the etymology of words and made interesting connections between human cultures and language, which was the first time I had been exposed to this perspective. Thomas also explained how more and better science was needed for the future and this became a creed that I have lived by.

The Forest and the Sea: A Look at the Economy of Nature and the Economy of Man, Marston Bates

As a Master’s student at the University of Alaska, I was attracted to the book The Forest and the Sea because of the evocative title. I was studying the leaf canopies of seagrasses and became intrigued by comparisons with leaf canopies of forests, thus my interest in the title. What I found in reading the book was much more than a book about nature, but about how humans interacted with nature. This connection between nature and human culture was woven in such a way that I began to appreciate how inextricably nature and human values are linked. The other aspect of reading a book featuring tropical rain forests made me want to experience the tropics, and I began to migrate closer to the equator over the next several decades.

Energy Flow in Biology, Harold Morowitz

As I was finishing my Master’s degree, a professor gave me a copy of Energy Flow in Biology by Harold Morowitz. He gave it to me after I had (by some miracle) successfully completed a graduate course in Physical Chemistry (P chem). This little book by a physicist about biology was profound and Morowitz’s ability to distill the essence of biology into discrete and fundamental pieces was remarkable. Reading this book provoked my interest in investigating the underlying scientific basis of living things. It also showed me how physics, chemistry and biology were interrelated in nature. Energy Flow in Biology also made me aspire to do a PhD, as it made me want to be able to think deeply about nature.

Biophilia, E. O. Wilson

During my PhD at the University of Chicago, I read Biophilia by E.O. Wilson while conducting my thesis research in Woods Hole, and was taken by his thesis that humans loved living things. I was enjoying being immersed in seagrass meadows and coral reefs and loved to think that I was tapping into a primal human urge to be surrounded by life. I had recently met surgeons and found that they were enamored with marine biology just as I was enamored with surgery and gross anatomy. I concluded that we both had Biophilia, a love of life that we wanted to express by being literally immersed in living things: a human body or surrounded by living things underwater. Wilson’s attractive writing and solid reasoning was enjoyable and I began to see that an academic career following one’s passion was an attractive option.

The Woods Hole Cantata, Gerald Weissmann

As I began my postdoctoral fellowship at Stony Brook, New York, the Woods Hole Cantata by Gerald Weissmann was recommended to me by an erudite actor that I met through my Hollywood-based brother upon learning that I had just spent a few years in Woods Hole. This book, like Lives of a Cell, was a collection of essays by a physician that brought together literary allusions, science and nature. I enjoyed Weissmann’s emphasis on avoiding reductionist science as I was aspiring to think more synthetically. The description of the buzz of excited chatter following Friday night lectures at the Marine Biological Laboratory described my feelings accurately, as I continued to visit Woods Hole regularly. The blend of science and humanities by Weissmann was an inspiration to me.

The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, Charles Darwin

At the University of Queensland, I had the opportunity to study and teach on the Great Barrier Reef. I rediscovered the brilliance of Charles Darwin in his first science book, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. I loved the woodcut figures illustrating Darwin’s theory of the formation of coral reefs, and his poetic metaphor of corals as monuments marking the burial of extinct volcanoes. Darwin’s clarity of thought created a hypothesis of how coral reefs were formed that could not be tested for over a hundred years, but was supported and made Darwin seem prescient. The part of the book that I found particularly amazing was the careful map that Darwin assembled through extensive correspondence with ship captains and naturalists around the world. Darwin mapped areas of coral atoll subsidence and uplift and from his writing, he appears that he was on the cusp of discovering plate tectonics, but was lacking enough data. Darwin’s book inspired me to be a better science communicator.

Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Ernest Boyer

When I was interested in joining the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science to lead the Integration and Application Network, the book Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate by Ernest Boyer was recommended to me. Boyer describes four elements of scholarship; discovery, integration, application and teaching, and this description of a multifaceted suite of academic pursuits resonated deeply with me. At the University of Queensland, I had begun to do more applied research and write synthesis books for broader dissemination than to my scientific peers. Boyer’s short, succinct book allowed me to begin to form a vision of what the Integration and Application Network could aspire to achieve and helped convince me to make this career transition.

Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Donald Stokes

As part of an institutional review, a visiting reviewer observed that what we were trying to do at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science was to achieve ‘Pasteur’s Quadrant‘. I eagerly read Donald Stokes’ book to find out what it meant to be in ‘Pasteur’s Quadrant’. Stokes described the French microbiologist Louis Pasteur doing both use-inspired research and understanding-inspired research. The book inspired me to rekindle my interest in seagrasses while continuing my integration and application activities. Pasteur’s Quadrant also inspired me to look for examples of scientists who combined use-inspired and understanding-inspired research.

Reviewing this list of my favorite books over my career, I can see that their impact was related to the stage of my career when I read them. As much as these particular books have meant to me, I would not likely recommend this complete set to anyone else, as their relevance was dependent on where I was at the time I read them. A big part of why these books made my top ten list was that they provided me with some aspirational goals that affected my career path. Another common feature is that they are relatively short books, but they packed big ideas and communicated them effectively. They were books that I would have liked to have written myself. The clarity of thought expressed by the authors was an inspiration. A measure of their impact is that I have revisited them on occasion, something that I do not tend to do with books. These ten books have served as milestones on my career journey.

Bob Menzer traveled up from his home in Florida for the event, and many of his family attended as well. Bob was the foundation director of the MEES program upon its inception in 1978. Bob left the University of Maryland in 1989 to head up the Environmental Protection Agency’s Gulf Breeze Laboratory near Pensacola, Florida (now called the Gulf Ecology Division) until his retirement.

Bob had a long career in the Department of Entomology at University of Maryland and, in addition to being the MEES Director, he also was the Director of the Water Resources Research Center. Bob was a huge help to me in both roles, as he helped me with my initial graduate student supervision through the MEES Program and also administered grants that I received throughout the Water Resources Research Center. In addition to having the vision to lead these programs, Bob also looked after the details in both programs. An example of this attention to detail was a phone call that I received from Bob following a field trip to southern Chesapeake Bay near the mouth of Hungars Creek (Murray et al., 1992). In collaboration with Drs. Michael Kemp and Laura Murray, I was investigating the interactions between nutrients and seagrasses. Mike and I had a Water Resources grant and Laura had a grant from Salisbury University where she was teaching and we booked two hotel rooms to house our field team – comprised of Research Experiences for Undergraduate students, Salisbury students, Laura and me.  It worked out that we had three women and three men and we used two rooms: a ‘boys room’ and ‘girls room’. But when it came to sharing the costs, I put in for one room on the Water Resources grant and listed only Laura and myself, since we were Principal Investigators on the grant. Laura was reimbursed for the other room through Salisbury University. What caught Bob’s attention was the apparent shared hotel room between me and Laura and he called to clarify, since he did not want us to be doing anything illicit on the grant that he administered. We had a good laugh over this initial confusion, but it illustrates the attention to detail that Bob gave to the programs that he administered.

The event was attended by Drs. Brit Kirwin, Chancellor of the University System of Maryland, Joanne Broughman, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Wallace Loh, President of University Maryland, Mary Ann Rankin, Provost of University of Maryland, and Jayanth Banavar, Dean of the College of Computer, Mathematical and Natural Science. From UMCES, President Don Boesch, Vice President for Education Ed Houde, Horn Point Director Mike Roman attended. In addition, Rita Colwell, Emeritus Professor and former National Science Foundation Director attended and Board of Regents Pat Florestano was also there. Jayanth Banavar was the Master of Ceremonies and he was supported by Ken Paynter, MEES Director and Debbie Morrin-Nordlund, MEES Assistant Director. Jayanth unveiled a nice portrait of Bob Menzer that will be permanently on display at the center.

Ribbon cutting at Menzer center dedication ceremony. Left to right: Drs. Jayanth Banavar, Pat Florestano, Don Boesch, Brit Kirwin, Rita Colwell, and Mary Ann Rankin.

Although Bob protested that “too much fuss” was being made over him, it was nice that his contributions historically and recently were celebrated by a very nice event. Too often in academic life, we neglect to recognize those who make substantial contributions in many different ways to the research and education enterprise. Many of the people I spoke with lamented this reality and were glad that, at least in this case, we did the right by making “too much fuss” over Bob Menzer, a class act.

Sara Lee and Bob Menzer at the unveiling of Bob’s portrait.

References

Murray, L, Dennison WC, Kemp WM. 1992. Nitrogen versus phosphorus limitation for growth of an estuarine population of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.). Aq. Botany 44: 83-100.

In some cases, scientific synthesis is not the end product, rather it can be the start of a science application effort. In a case study to demonstrate the use of scientific synthesis which led to a science application effort, I will recount our efforts regarding global seagrass trajectories. Beginning in 2005, Tim Carruthers, Bob Orth and I initiated a seagrass synthesis effort through the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). When we created a NCEAS Seagrass Trajectories working group to develop and analyze global seagrass trajectories, we were encouraged to assemble a diverse group of scientists. This diversity of age, gender, geography and institutional affiliation proved extremely beneficial. The younger scientists made excellent contributions, and having diverse scientists enhanced our global analyses. Our team included Ainsley Calladine, Tim Carruthers, Carlos Duarte, Jim Fourqurean, Ken Heck, Randall Hughes, Gary Kendrick, Jud Kenworthy, Suzanne Olyarnik, Fred Short, Michelle Waycott, and Susan Williams.

Global Seagrass Trajectory Working Group, sponsored by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. Left to right standing: Jud Kenworthy, Ken Heck, Randall Hughes, Fred Short, Ainsley Calladine, Suzanne Olyarnik, Susan WIlliams, MIchelle Waycott, Gary Kendrick, Jim Fourqurean, Carlos Duarte. Left to right sitting: Bob Orth, Bill Dennison, Tim Carruthers.

Another feature of the NCEAS experience was one that we emulated in SESYNC–having the center in a small, accessible city with hotels, restaurants, coffee shops and pubs in close walking distances. This promotes an immersive experience and our group developed several social interactions that enhanced our group cohesion: brainstorming at a pizza parlor taking notes on paper plates, making a BYO tapas dinner in the hotel, and taking a mid-week field trip to break up the week. I also enjoyed meeting many of the spouses of the team who joined us in Santa Barbara, and in one case, Randall Hughes missed one of the working group meetings and brought along her baby at the next meeting to show is why she was unable to attend.

Seagrass conceptual diagrams depicting key ecosystem services and major loss mechanisms (Orth et al., 2006; Bioscience 56: 987-996).

We began our synthesis process by taking stock of what we collectively knew about the status of seagrasses globally (Orth et al., 2006). We next assembled a global seagrass trajectories data set. We analyzed the data set that we had accumulated and wrote various synthesis papers which we published in a variety of scientific journals. The most important thing that we learned was that there was accelerating seagrass loss globally (Waycott et al., 2009). We also began to realize that seagrasses were not being considered as important as more charismatic ecosystems like tropical rain forests and coral reefs (Duarte et al., 2008). Thus, by the end of our NCEAS experience, we decided that we needed to address this ‘charisma gap’ of seagrass ecosystems. This got us thinking about how we have gone from ‘charismatic megafauna’ (e.g., pandas, whales, manatees) to ‘charismatic ecosystems’ (e.g., tropical rain forests and coral reefs), and that we need to expand the list of ‘charismatic ecosystems’ to include seagrasses.

Decadal trends in seagrass extent assessed in global seagrass trajectories database (Waycott et al., 2009; PNAS 106: 12377-12381).

One of our post synthesis actions was to put seagrasses onto the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list of threatened species (Short et al., 2011). We also investigated the use of high definition video to give people insights into the ‘secret life’ of seagrasses. Other efforts have included various seagrass fact sheets, brochures and videos.

Comparison of media reports per scientific paper of seagrasses, salt marshes, mangroves and coral reefs (from Duarte et al., 2008; Estuaries and Coasts 31: 233-238).

As a result of our effort to make seagrasses more ‘charismatic’, IAN Press has 100 publications (books, newsletters, brochures, report cards, posters, reports and presentations) in which seagrasses are featured. There are 128 vector graphic symbols of different seagrasses in the IAN Symbol Library. There are 95 photos in the IAN Image Library as well. These web resources are freely available for use and many of our seagrass colleagues have been using the seagrass symbols and diagrams.

In a recent follow up synthesis effort with the Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS), we created a seagrass song and video: Seagrass Blue Carbon Blues in an attempt to expand our dissemination of seagrass issues. The song includes concepts of water quality influence on seagrasses, the need for seagrass conservation and the role of seagrasses as ‘coastal canaries’ of water quality.

The scientific synthesis that we conducted at NCEAS was crucial for the various applications that followed, but synthesis alone was not sufficient in our view. The use of scientific synthesis to create new knowledge combined with various applications of that new knowledge is what we consider the major achievement of our efforts. I hope that other synthesis groups consider expanding their efforts beyond the creation of new knowledge into applications of that knowledge.

References

Duarte CM, Dennison WC, Orth RJ, Carruthers TJB. 2008. The charisma of coastal ecosystems: Addressing the imbalance. Estuaries and Coasts 31: 233-238.

Orth RJ, Carruthers TJB, Dennison WC, Duarte CM, Fourqurean JW, Heck KLJ, Hughes AR, Kendrick GA, Kenworthy WJ, Olyarnik S, Short FT, Waycott M, Williams S. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56: 987-996.

Short FT, Polidoro B, Livingstone SR, Carpenter KE, Bandeira S, Bujang JS, Calumpong HP, Carruthers TJB, Coles RG, Dennison WC, Erftemeijer PLA, Fortes MD, Freeman AS, Japtag TG, Kamal AHM, Kendrick GA, Kenworthy WJ, LaNafie, Nasution IM, Orth RJ, Prathep A, Sanciangco JC, van Tussenbroek B, Vergara SG, Waycott M, Zieman JC. 2011. Extinction risk assessment of the world’s seagrass species. Biol Conservation 144: 1961-1971.

Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyarnik, S, Calladine A, Fourqurean JW, Heck KJL, Hughes AR, Kendrick GA, Kenworthy WJ, Short FT, Williams SL. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. PNAS 106: 12377-12381.

The Integration and Application Network (IAN) was created to facilitate scientific synthesis as part of science applications. In many respects, the linking of integration with application is crucial, and IAN projects tend to use synthesis in order to create effective applications. The IAN approach to synthesis is similar to the previous blogs (Parts 1 & 2 of this series) in many ways: identifying the issue, assembling the data, analyzing and interpreting the data, drawing inferences and communicating the findings. The differences in the IAN approach versus the approach taken by the various synthesis centers and the scientific syntheses targeted for scientific audiences is that the IAN approach is to rapidly produce public friendly synthesis products (books, brochures, newsletters, websites) rather than the more deliberate peer review papers. IAN scientists do produce peer review publications, but as a secondary product as a means of disseminating frameworks and approaches, rather than reporting data.

Scientific communication has important differences from science writing. In science communication, the focus is on societal context and examples, rather than scientific references. In addition, science communication is aimed at a wide audience, a much broader audience than focusing on peer scientists. The extensive use of color graphics also distinguishes science communication, and the text attempts to minimize jargon, acronyms and other literary devices that narrow the audience. The focus in science communication is on conclusions and the recommendations that can be explicitly linked to these conclusions. In science writing, the focus is more on the results and interpretation of those results.

IAN-led synthesis involves typically bringing together relevant experts in a series of workshops to storyboard the science communication product(s), and then have the team of Science Integrators and Science Communicators work with a variety of scientists to produce the final products. While synthesis papers from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis have an average of 6 authors, the various IAN synthesis products have dozens of authors. In fact, the most recent IAN Press book, Tropical Connections, has 157 authors. This inclusive authorship is characteristic of IAN Press publications.

Tropical Connections from IAN Press has 157 authors.

When we teach science communication courses through IAN, many of the exercises and approaches that we espouse involve synthesis activities. For example, the development of active titles–short declarative statements that capture the essence of an issue–is a synthesis exercise. The creation of conceptual diagrams involves synthetic thinking, and choosing symbols and defining relationships in a diagram prioritizes and synthesizes at the same time. Developing storyboards–layouts of text and visual elements to support a thesis–is very synthetic by nature. Choosing which photographs, diagrams, maps, graphs and tables to combine with text, and how to arrange these different elements onto either printed or electronic products is a synthetic process.

Storyboard on butcher paper through to the final product.

One of the tools that IAN has pioneered is the use of environmental report cards to communicate environmental status and trends to wide audiences. The report cards that IAN produces are underlain by scientific data, with indicators, thresholds, combined indices and report card scores or grades used to synthesize large data sets. The transparency of the report cards relies on the availability if the underlying data and the methods of calculating report cards. The synthesis process involves working with various experts to choose indicators, set thresholds and develop calculation methodology.

Chesapeake report card map 2011

Interdisciplinary synthesis is a crucial part of IAN activities, since the focus on environmental solutions typically involves input from many different disciplines. While synthesis within various disciplines can deepen an understanding of the topic, and is very worthwhile, environmental issues typically span different disciplines, necessitating an interdisciplinary approach. There are some key elements of the IAN approach to interdisciplinary synthesis. 1) The production of conceptual diagrams that incorporate the best scientific understanding of an issue or ecosystem relies on input from multiple disciplines. 2) Interdisciplinary storyboard workshops provide a mechanism to gather relevant concepts and supporting information from a variety of experts. 3) A focus on the science communication product drives a highly collaborative process, with the limited ‘real estate’ of the layout helping to prioritize the key scientific elements of different disciplines into a single, integrated product.

The business model of IAN that has developed is also quite different than that of typical scientific research organizations, with implications on the form of scientific synthesis that IAN produces. Instead of relying on responding to requests for proposals or applying for large foundation grants, IAN grants and contracts are typically initiated by an organization or agency with a need for science communication products which require synthesis. IAN staff respond, sometimes quite rapidly, to these requests and produce draft synthetic publications with best available information. Further iterations of the publications involve increasing numbers of reviewers and improved versions of graphical elements (e.g., photographs, figures and maps). This business model gives IAN new challenges in a variety of settings globally, requiring an immersive learning experience working with scientific experts to generate synthetic products.

IAN staff at the UMCES Annapolis Office

At our annual UMCES Faculty Convocation organized by the Appalachian Laboratory faculty senators Drs. Katia Englehardt and Matt Fitzpatrick, we discussed scientific synthesis and asked ourselves the following 4 questions: 1) How do we approach synthesis?, 2) How does UMCES facilitate synthesis?, 3) What are the challenges to doing synthesis within UMCES? and 4) What needs to change to become better in synthesis? We had Drs. Walter Boynton, Keith Eshleman and Mike Wilberg lead this discussion with the UMCES faculty, with Bill Dennison facilitating. The results of this discussion are summarized here.

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science faculty discussion in scientific synthesis at Appalachian Laboratory.

1) How do we approach synthesis?

Walter Boynton addressed the question of how to approach synthesis with an example in which the nitrogen loading rates of different estuaries were compared by an interdisciplinary team. The ecologists and hydrologists generated the loading rates, but it was the physical oceanographers who developed a relationship with residence time that created an important insight (Nixon et al., 1996). Walter also emphasized the importance of ‘positive criticism’ in which ideas were not squashed and a team effort is generated. He provided additional examples of follow on analyses and publications that stemmed from the original synthesis effort (e.g., Fisher et al., 2006). Walter pointed out that the rich data resources in the Chesapeake region have been underutilized. He also stressed that synthesis is needed to address the complex issues in coastal regions like anoxia/hypoxia and harmful algal blooms while land use changes and climate change are being manifested. Walter has done such a great job of employing synthesis throughout his career that Bill Dennison’s short answer response to the question “How do we approach synthesis?” is simply “Emulate Walter”. As a footnote, Walter’s long time collaborator Michael Kemp could not attend the convocation due to knee surgery, but he would have been included in the emulation statement.

In discussing the approach to synthesis, several points emerged. The power of doing interdisciplinary synthesis was reiterated, but the value of doing synthesis within a discipline was also stressed (ala Sidauskas et al., 2009). For example, both Keith Eshleman and Mike Wilberg recently completed disciplinary syntheses in atmospheric nitrogen deposition affects on forest stream nitrate and Chesapeake Bay oyster abundance, respectively (e.g., Eshleman et al., in review; Wilberg et al., 2011). The methods of creating immersive opportunities using both in person and virtual meetings were discussed. The importance of having good data sets and rigorous data analyses was emphasized. The technique of developing comparisons was also cited as a powerful synthesis approach.

2) How does UMCES facilitate synthesis?

Keith Eshleman addressed the question of how UMCES can facilitate synthesis by emphasizing the approach that doing synthesis was simply part of doing science. Keith pointed out that he only began doing synthesis in earnest when he was a mature scientist, but that provoked a discussion of whether or not synthesis could be done by less mature scientists. The value of involving young scientists in synthesis was noted, but maturity is often needed for researchers to extend their thinking beyond their research experiences and disciplines. The strategic job hires employed by UMCES to recruit scientists who had both the technical and social skills to be good synthetic scientists was also noted. A distinction was made between a literature review (e.g., the introduction of a thesis/dissertation) and a synthesis in which new patterns and paradigms emerge. Keith emphasized the academic freedom provided by UMCES allowed for synthesis opportunities. An often overlooked aspect of scientific synthesis is that it can be FUN. The piecing together of disparate data and the revelations that can emerge from synthetic analyses can be exhilarating. These positive feedbacks can make synthesis efforts immersive and all-consuming.

3) What are the challenges of doing synthesis at UMCES?

Mike Wilberg talked about the importance of using models, from conceptual model frameworks to mathematical models, in developing synthesis. He also emphasized the astonishing amount of data that is available both within UMCES and in the broader scientific community–often not properly archived or readily available. Mike gave examples of when he was criticized on proposals in which the time he had allotted to doing synthesis without new data creation was not valued. The tradeoffs of generating several standard research papers vs. one synthesis paper, in terms of time and effort, were discussed. The increased impact factor of synthesis papers partly countered the numbers of papers, and the relative ranking of being a lead author on a synthesis effort vs. someone along for the ride further emphasized the importance of ‘quality’ vs. ‘quantity’. The reward systems for synthesis and institutional support for conducting synthesis need to recognize these quality vs. quantity distinctions.

4) What needs to change in order to be better at synthesis?

This discussion, led by Bill Dennison, came up with several specific recommendations, as well as some general principles. The recommendation of using small seed money grants to initiate synthesis efforts was seen as a way to foster the collaborations that could lead to synthesis proposals and papers. A recommendation for quantitative training in synthesis techniques (e.g., statistical analyses, meta-data analyses, spatial analyses) for faculty staff and students was made. The goal of developing a synthesis course was discussed as an important goal, with an initial effort to develop a course initiated by Michael Kemp and Walter Boynton as a MEES seminar in the 2013 fall semester. The use of in person gatherings using central locations like the UMCES Annapolis Office/SESYNC or IMET in Baltimore, combined with virtual sessions using interactive audio or audio-visual approaches was suggested as well. Bill Dennison noted that in developing scientific applications, there is a heavy reliance on scientific integration as a precursor to application, thus the Integration AND Application Network naming convention. He pointed out the many examples of scientific integration (e.g., IAN Press).

Panel discussion of synthesis facilitated by Bill Dennison (standing), with Walter Boynton, Keith Eshleman and Mike Wilber at 2013 UMCES faculty convocation.

Overall, the discussion on scientific synthesis proved to be fruitful and it will continue to be a central part of UMCES. The emphasis in the discussion was on how to do synthesis better and more often, not on whether or not it was worthwhile or needed. Although said in jest by Walter Boynton, the concept of developing a ‘Synthesis Addiction’ within UMCES was embraced. The entrainment of senior as well as younger scientists into the discussion was also encouraging. It was also highlighted that a similar discussion on science applications would be a worthwhile topic at next year’s UMCES faculty convocation.

References

Eshleman KN, RD Sabo, KM Kline. In review. Surface water quality is quickly improving due to declining atmospheric N deposition resulting from U.S. NOx emission controls.

Fisher TR, JD Hagy, WR Boynton, MR Williams. 2006. Cultural eutrophication in the Choptank and Patuxent estuaries of Chesapeake Bay. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51: 435-447.

Nixon SW, JW Ammerman, LP Atkinson, VM Berounsky, G Billen, WC Boicourt, WR Boynton, TM Church, DM Ditoro, R Elmgren, JM Garber, AM Giblin, RA Jahnke, NJP Owens, MEQ Pilson, SP Seitzinger. 1996. The fate of nitrogen and phosphorus at the land-sea margin of the North Atlantic Ocean. In: Nitrogen Cycling in the North Atlantic Ocean and Its Watersheds, Ed. RW Howarth, pp. 141-180.

Sidlauskas B, G Ganapathy, E Hazkani-Covo, KP Jenkins, H Lapp, LW McCall, S Price, R Scherle, PA Spaeth, DW Kidd. Evolution 64: 871-880.

Wilberg MJ, ME Livings, JS Barkman, BT Morris, JM Robinson. 2011. Overfishing, disease, habitat loss, and potential extirpation of oysters in upper Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 436: 131-144.

Authors

Bill Dennison, Walt Boynton, Katia Englehardt, Keith Eshleman, and Mike Wilberg