presentation to the biological and environmental research advisory committee december 3, 2002 by...

Presentation to the

Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee

December 3, 2002

by

David Reichle

1

An Evaluation of the Department of Energy’s Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE) Experiments as Scientific User Facilities

2Presentation to the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory CommitteeDecember 3, 2002


What are FACE Facilities?

Environmental research facilities to conduct controlled CO2 enrichment, and other manipulative experiments on intact

ecosystems under natural environmental conditions.



FACE – Environmental Research User Facilities

• FACE evolved from experimental projects to user facilities

• Enable research on intact ecosystems under natural environmental conditions

• Consist of controlled CO2, O3 fumigation experiments• Collectively constitute a distributed user facility

across different geographic ecosystems• Allow long-term, continuous measurements on

ecological processes and responses

Purpose: To study the response of ecosystems and ecological processes to environmental change



Questions Asked by BER in the FACE Review

• Are the BER-funded FACE facilities considered to be and recognized as scientific user facilities?

• Are the BER-funded FACE facilities effectively operated?

• Does a distributed FACE network offer significant opportunities for scientists?

• Can the FACE facilities be enhanced to attract more users?

• Can FACE sites be enhanced as a distributed user network?



FACE User Facilities

Site Ecosystem Type No. Rings Experimental Variables

Duke Loblolly pine7

CO2 – ambient +200

umol mol-1, daytime fumigation

Oak Ridge Sweetgum6

CO2 – 560 ppm,

daytime fumigation

Nevada Desert9

CO2 – 550 ppm, 24-

hr. fumigation

Rhinelander Aspen, birch12

CO2 – 560 ppm,

daytime fumigation, variable O3



Rhinelander USDA USFS Research Station



Research Measurement at a Duke FACE Ring



FACE Review Process

• Briefing by DOE/BER Program Managers• Site letter and questionnaires• Reading of documents and websites• Site visits with managers and operators• Discussions with PIs• Review of operations and user interactions



Advance Information Requested from Each Site

1. Names and institutional affiliations of users, dates of involvement, and nature of the collaboration

2. Information on user satisfaction and user feedback3. Statistics on proposals approved and/or declined;

description of user policy and proposal review/approval procedure

4. Listings of publications with user coauthors identified with work funded by DOE and work funded by other sources indicated

5. Summary to date of DOE core funding and extramural funding that supported users



Evaluation of the FACE Sites as User Facilities



Evaluation of the FACE Sites as User Facilities (cont.)



Key Findings

FACE user facilities• Are highly instrumented and calibrated ecosystems• Are accessible and valuable to the user community• Provide facility and infrastructure support• Provide long-term continuity in measurements and data

availability• Could attract and accommodate more users• Should better track users and user satisfaction• Should better coordinate operational and experimental

protocols• Would improve performance as a network with a

coordinating committee



Scientific Users at the FACE Facilities

Scientific users are those doing research and excludes those responsible for core operations.

(a) 1994 – June 2002, (b) April 1996 – May 2002, (c) 1997 – May 2002, and (d) data for 1997 – October 2002.

SiteScientist

PIsTech. &

RAsPostdoc-

toralsGrad Stud.

Total Research

Users

Dukea 65 5 20 34 124

Nevadab 33 19 15 29 96

Oak Ridgec 35 10 3 11 59

Rhinelanderd 50 11 6 7 74



Publication Productivity from the FACE Facilities

(a) published and in press, (b) 1994 – June 2002, (c) April 1996 – May 2002, (d) 1997 – May 2002, and (e) 1997 – October 2002

SitePeer-

Reviewed Publications a

Symposia/ Book Chap.

BooksTechnical Reports

Theses TOTAL Presentations

Duke(1994-2002)

125b 16 0 0 12 153 240

Nevada(1996-2002)

32c 3 0 0 4 39 57

Oak Ridge(1997-2002)

20d 2 0 0 1 23 37

Rhinelander(1997-2002)

42e 17 2 4 2 67 16



Recommendations to DOE/BER

• Establish Cross-Site FACE Coordinating Committee• Separate operational and research funding• Ensure adequate and appropriate support staff• Coordinate and promote FACE with other federal

bodies



Recommendations to the FACE Facility Coordinating Committee

• Provide program integration and coordination• Ensure formal user groups for each facility• Track users and monitor user satisfaction• Standardize core operations and measurements• Measure science productivity and impact• Contribute to strategic planning

presentation to the biological and environmental research advisory committee december 3, 2002 by...

Documents