Ostroumov S.A., Dodson S., Hamilton D., Peterson S., Wetzel R.G. Medium-term and long-term priorities in ecological studies // Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. 2003 (May). 96: 327-332. http://scipeople.com/publication/67759/; Abstracts in Eng. and Italian (p. 332). Bibliogr. 20 ref. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14595906 ; PMID: 14595906 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Research priorities in ecology and environmental sciences for the future are formulated. The priorities for both fundamental and applied ecology are proposed. The list of priorities includes 50 items. The priorities are relevant to terrestrial, aquatic, and general ecology. The list of priorities is helpful when grant proposals are being prepared, evaluated, and selected for funding. KEY WORDS: priorities, fundamentals, ecology, environmental sciences, biospheric sciences, life and biomedical sciences, geosciences, ecosystems, biosphere, organisms, levels of life systems, man-made impacts, anthropogenic effects, terrestrial and aquatic, research topics MEDIUM-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRIORITIES IN ECOLOGICAL STUDIES short title: PRIORITIES IN ECOLOGICAL STUDIES S. A. Ostroumov1, S. Dodson2, D. Hamilton3, S. Peterson4, R. G. Wetzel5 1 Department of Hydrobiology, Moscow State University, Moscow 119991; [current address: Laboratory of Physico-Chemistry of Biomembranes, Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russian Federation]; 2 Zoology-Birge Hall, University of Wisconsin, 430 Lincoln Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA; 3 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand; 4 US EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA; 5 Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. 1.Introduction 2. The list of priorities in ecological research 3.Conclusion Abstract: Research priorities in ecology and environmental sciences for the future are formulated. The priorities for both fundamental and applied ecology are proposed. The list of priorities includes about 50 items. The priorities are relevant to terrestrial, aquatic, and general ecology. The list of priorities is helpful when grant proposals are being prepared, evaluated, and selected for funding. Keywords: ecology, environmental sciences, priorities, fundamental problems, topics for grants, scientific policy 1.INTRODUCTION We have only "one biosphere to disturb, to manage, to cherish, to understand, to love" (Margalef [1997]). As we enter the 21st century, we seek to formulate research priorities to complement current efforts for better understanding and unraveling the complexity of ecological processes that occur in the biosphere. “Where shall ecology go, ... and which will be the battlefields of ecology?” (Lindström et al., [1999]). Many authors contributed to analysis of the fundamental problems and priorities of modern ecology (e.g., Bezel et al., [1994]; Rigler and Peters [1995]; Reynolds [1997]; Mooney [1998]; Alimov [2000]). The goal of this paper is to continue formulating the priorities in ecological studies in order to optimize the effort of researchers in this fundamentally important area of science. 2. THE LIST OF PRIORITIES IN ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH The list of priorities given below is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to highlight those research areas we consider to be the most important toward solving critical ecological problems over the next decade and beyond. The list of research items is not in order of importance. Variants of some priorities are given as the variations in wording may become important in future. The list of the priorities follows: 1. Interactions among ecosystems; 2. Variability and boundaries of ecosystems; 3. Stability of ecosystems; 4. How changes at the level of population translate themselves into changes at the level of the ecosystem; 5. How changes at the level of ecosystems and biomes translate themselves into changes at the level of the biosphere; 6. Microevolution and macroevolution of ecosystems; 7. Prognoses of ecosystem behavior and change; 8. Links between ecology, genetics, and evolution; 9. Information flows within and among ecosystems including chemical and other means of transmitting information; (another variant: Information pathways within and between ecosystems including chemical and physical transmissions); 10. Biochemical ecology; molecular ecology; 11. Ecological fundamentals of bio/phytoremediation; 12. Ecological fundamentals of maintaining multi-species artificial ecosystems; 13. Links between physiology/behavior of organisms and biogeochemistry; 14. Biological/ecological processes that influence or control the stability and sustainability of the biosphere; 15. Further characterization of the chemical and physico-chemical parameters of ecosystems; 16. Further characterization of very slow and very fast matter/energy fluxes in ecosystems; 17. Principles and methods for distinguishing between trends and noise in quantitative characteristics describing ecosystems along the axis of time; 18. Determination of the effects of population changes at an ecosystem level; 19. Determination of the effects of ecosystem changes at the biosphere level; 20. Criteria for evaluating and ranking ecological hazards; 21. Biomanipulation limitations and management of ecosystems; 22. Fundamentals of preserving the stability of the biosphere: scientific basis, economics, ecological ethics; (another variant: Scientific foundations, economics, and ethics for preserving biospheric stability ); 23. Functional boundaries of ecosystems ; 24. Controls and maintenance of stability of ecosystems; 25. Ontogeny and evolution of ecosystems; 26. Functional indicators of ecosystem behavior and change; 27. Chemical and physical (energetic) fluxes within and between ecosystems; 28. Control mechanisms regulating flux rates (biogeochemistry); 29. Role and importance of biodiversity in muting flux variations; 30. Effects of major ecosystem alterations on biogeochemical resiliency of the biosphere; 31. Quantitative criteria for evaluating ecological degradation and restoration; 32. Indicators of ecological condition; 33. Methods for determining the relative effects in multi-stressor environments; 34. Methods for prioritization of resource types requiring intervention; 35. Identity and characterization of ecosystems; 36. Ecosystem stability and resilience; 37. Extrapolation from population level to ecosystem level effects; 38. Extrapolation from ecosystem to biosphere level effects; 39. Prediction of ecosystem behavior and changes; 40. Remediation of ecosystems (including bioremediation, phytoremediation); 41. Cultivation of multi-species artificial ecosystems; 42. Methods for determining quantitative trends in ecosystem condition over time with known confidence; 43. Field data and field experiments to clarify the degree to which there are wide-spread effects of anthropogenic chemicals on species diversity; 44. Composition of communities, and on ecosystem function; 45. Bridges between the laboratory toxicology results and effects on community and ecosystem aspects of the aquatic habitat; 46. Getting more data on use and distribution of anthropogenic chemicals; 47. Studying subtle effects of anthropogenic chemicals on aquatic ecology using long-term, large scale field experiments; 48. Interactions across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, particularly at the land-water margin; 49. Resilience of ecosystems to natural and anthropogenic related stresses; 50. Separating natural ecosystem variability from anthropogenic related changes. 3.CONCLUSION In the previous part of the paper, a list of priorities in ecological studies was formulated that included 50 items. Some of those priorities are close to each other and represent different wording of almost the same research topic. However, we decided to give various forms of similar priorities as sometimes even slight variations in wording are of importance. We realize that there are many opinions on setting priorities in ecological and environmental studies (see also Yablokov and Ostroumov, [1991]; Likens [1992]; Rand [1995]; Ehrlich [1997]; Rozenberg et al., [1999]; Zakharov, [1999]; Ostroumov, [1986]; [ 2000]; Dobrovolsky and Nikitin, [2000] ; Vernadsky, [2001];Wetzel, [2000]; [ 2001]) and what is given here inevitably reflects the experience and expertise of the individuals who co-authored the text above. We hope the list will help initiate further ideas and discussion. Also, we hope the list will help in preparing, evaluating and selecting new research proposals. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank colleagues who read earlier drafts of the list for comment, encouragement and contributing their ideas. We give our thanks to Dr. K. J. Wilkinson, and Dr. N. van Straalen for comments and criticism. REFERENCES Alimov A.F. [2000]. Elements Of Aquatic Ecosystem Function Theory. Nauka Press, St.Petersburg: 178 p. Bezel, V.S., V.N. Bolshakov and E.L.Vorobeichik [1994]. Population Ecotoxicology. Nauka, Moscow. 81 p. Dobrovolsky, G.V. and Nikitin, E.D., [2000] . Sokhranenie pochv kak nezamenimogo komponenta biosfery (Conservation of Soils As an Indispensable Component of the Biosphere). Nauka, Moscow. 185 p. Ehrlich P. [1997]. A world of wounds: ecologists and the human dilemma. Ecology Institute, Nordbünte. 210 p. Likens G. [1992]. The ecosystem approach: its use and abuse. Ecology Institute, Nordbünte. 166 p. Lindström J., P. Lundberg , E. Ranta , and V. Kaitala [1999]. Oikos, 50 years of ecology. Oikos. 87: 462-475. Margalef R. [1997]. Our Biosphere. Ecology Institute, Nordbünte. 176 p. Mooney H.A. [ 1998]. The globalization of ecological thought. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe: 156 p. Ostroumov S. A. [1986]. Introduction to Biochemical Ecology. Moscow Univ. Press, Moscow. -176 p. Ostroumov S. A. [2000]. Biological Effects of Surfactants in Connection with the Anthropogenic Impact on the Biosphere. MAX Press, Moscow. – 116 p. Ostroumov S.A. [ 2002]. Polyfunctional role of biodiversity in processes leading to water purification: current conceptualizations and concluding remarks. Hydrobiologia. 469: 203-204. Rand, G.M. (Editor) [1995]. Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology. Taylor and Francis, London. 1125 p. Reynolds C.S. [1997]. Vegetation processes in the pelagic: a model for ecosystem theory. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe: 374 p. Rigler F.H., and R.H.Peters. [1995]. Science and Limnology. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe: 240 p. Rozenberg G.S., D.P. Mozgovoi, and D.B. Gelashvili [ 1999]. Ecology: Elements of Theoretical Constructs of Modern Ecology. Samara Center of Academy of Sciences, Samara. 397 p. Vernadsky, V.I. [2001]. Biosphere (Biosfera). Publishing House Noosphere, Moscow. 244 p. Wetzel R. G. [2000]. Freshwater ecology: changes, requirements, and future demands. Limnology 1:3-9. Wetzel, R. G. [2001]. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. Academic Press, San Diego. 1006 pp.. Yablokov A. V., and S.A.Ostroumov [1991]. Conservation of Living Nature and Resources: Problems, Trend, and Prospects. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. 272 p. Zakharov V. (Ed.). [1999]. Priorities for Russia’s Environmental Policy. Center for Russian Environmental Policy. Moscow. -96 p.
Ostroumov S.A., Dodson S., Hamilton D., Peterson S., Wetzel R.G. Medium-term and long-term priorities in ecological studies // Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. 2003. 96: 327-332