Tag Archive: policy

Using long-term data sets to trace the impacts of environmental policy

Salmon Pond, one of the bodies of water in our study. Photo by me.

Salmon Pond in Maine, one of the bodies of water from our study.

Just before I became a staff scientist at NEON, I and colleagues from the University of Colorado, Environmental Protection Agency, and University of Maine took a new a look at some long-term data to help answer a question that has been perplexing scientists for several decades: Why is the amount of dissolved organic matter (the stuff that gives water that brownish-yellowish tint) increasing in lakes and streams of the northeastern United States and Europe? Our study contributed to growing evidence suggesting that it’s a symptom of recovery from acid rain. It also highlighted the ability of environmental policy to impact ecosystem function and the importance of long-term monitoring initiatives, like NEON, to help society ensure basic ecosystem services like clean air and water.

Dissolved organic matter (DOM) forms from decomposing plants or from microbe secretions. It’s a hodgepodge of carbon-containing compounds that’s present in all natural waters and plays a critical role in many important processes within the environment, including serving as a microbial food source, maintaining the pH of aquatic ecosystems, and binding trace metals and pollutants. Changes in DOM have the potential to profoundly affect ecosystem function across large areas of the landscape.

Scientists have proposed numerous causes for increasing DOM including rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, climate warming, nitrogen deposition, and changing hydrology. However, several recent studies have concluded that increasing DOM is linked to changes in soil chemistry resulting from a decrease in acid precipitation facilitated by the Clean Air Act and Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the legislation that defines the Environmental Protection Agency’s responsibilities for protecting and improving our nation’s air quality.

My colleagues and I tested the hypothesis that increasing DOM is a sign of ecosystems recovering from acid precipitation. To do so, we used long-term lake and atmospheric chemical records and applied a new method, fluorescence spectroscopy, to re-analyze archived water samples collected from a series of lakes in Maine (mapped below) between 1993 and 2009.


View Maine Lakes from DOM/acid sensitivity study in a larger map

Fluorescence spectroscopy works by shining light through a water sample to collect data about the wavelength and intensity of the light emitted after passing through the water. This information can be used to determine the chemical composition and characteristics of DOM within the sample.

We used data from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program and the EPA’s New England Long Term Monitoring Program to look for regional trends in acid deposition. The data revealed that sulfate deposition (a major contributor to acid precipitation) declined significantly across the region of this study between 1980 and 2010 (below), while DOM increased in the majority of lakes over the same time period.

Sulfate deposition declined in all the study lakes during the 30-year study period, in all likelihood due to the Clean Air Act.

Sulfate deposition declined in all the study lakes during the 30-year study period. Click on the figure to see it full-size at the journal website.

After establishing that DOM increased while sulfate decreased, we were ready to re-analyze the archived samples we had obtained. Analyzing the samples using fluorescence spectroscopy and a measure called the Fluorescence Index (FI) allowed us to discern whether the DOM in archived samples was derived from terrestrial (think of leaves decomposing on the ground) or microbial (leached or secreted from microbes) sources.

Detecting changes in the source of DOM was critical to understanding if declining sulfate and acid rain are responsible for increasing DOM concentrations. Soil organic matter dissolves better under less acidic conditions; meaning that as these ecosystems recover from acid rain, terrestrial DOM production may increase. Eventually, this terrestrial DOM may make its way into streams and lakes resulting in a shift of the DOM signature to a more terrestrial FI.

Terrestrial DOM has a lower FI than microbial DOM. So, if decreased acid precipitation is leading to greater terrestrial DOM production, which is in turn being transported to surface waters, then archived lake samples would demonstrate a declining FI (i.e. more terrestrial) over time, right (see conceptual figure here)? And that’s exactly what we found.

The conclusions of our research support the hypothesis that increasing DOM in these lakes is the result of a decline in acid rain and subsequent ecosystem recovery due to the Clean Air Act. More importantly, these changes in DOM illustrate that the policy decisions we make, or don’t make, have the ability to alter atmospheric chemistry and the concentration of pollutants and impact ecosystem function.

This work also illustrates the importance of publicly funded long-term monitoring initiatives in providing data to inform current and future policy decisions. NEON will provide researchers and the public with data sets capable of answering similar questions but with many more variables, over longer time-scales and much greater geographic areas. An unprecedented, continental scale observatory like NEON will provide future researchers and the general public a framework for understanding changes in parameters ranging from atmospheric, aquatic and terrestrial chemistry to the spread of infectious disease. Furthermore, the thousands of data streams NEON plans to collect will allow us to forecast important ecological changes and may one day be used by future generations to answer questions that don’t even exist yet.

Many thanks to my co-authors Dr. Gretchen Oelsner, Dr. Diane McKnight, Dr. John Stoddard, and Dr. Sarah Nelson for their contributions to this work. We currently have another grant underway to further study the relationship between DOM and sulfate, but more about that later!

More information about this work in Chemical and Engineering News

Permanent link to this article: http://www.neonnotes.org/2012/03/using-long-term-data-sets-to-trace-the-impacts-of-environmental-policy/

Dr. Taylor goes to Washington

I stare intently at the Senior Congressional Legislative Assistant seated opposite me. He stares back, his eyes equally intent. I wet my lips and slowly repeat my question to let him know that he’s not getting off the hook that easily. A small bead of sweat trickles down his forehead. Suddenly, he slams his hands down on the table between us and exclaims “Yes! Yes, we will contact you if we have any questions about climate science!” I heave a sigh of relief and walk from another Congressional office knowing that I am making progress toward changing the dialogue surrounding climate science on Capitol Hill.

In reality, the Second Annual Climate Science Day on Capitol Hill was filled with much less drama and was far more enjoyable. NEON collaborated with twelve other scientific societies to bring climate scientists to Washington and facilitate communication with policy makers. NEON sponsored six of the thirty participating scientists and also took a lead role in organizing the event. While the expertise of the scientists spanned a breadth of climate science disciplines, we all descended on the Capitol armed with one message: “please talk to climate scientists about climate science.” It seemed like a very simple and obvious message, but it was surprising how critical it really was.

Meet and Greet in Senator Udall's office for 2012 Climate Science Day on Capitol Hill. Left to Right:  Jack Hess, Geological Society of America; Ellen Klicka, American Meteorological Society; Amy Braverman, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Senator Mark Udall (D-CO); Dr. Taylor, I presume; Rachel Gallery, University of Arizona; Brian Wee, alias Charlie Chan. Photo from Mark Udall's staff.

Meet and Greet in Senator Udall’s office for 2012 Climate Science Day on Capitol Hill. Left to Right: Jack Hess, Geological Society of America; Ellen Klicka, American Meteorological Society; Amy Braverman, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Senator Mark Udall (D-CO); me; Rachel Gallery, University of Arizona; Brian Wee, NEON. Photo from Mark Udall’s staff.

The day before the actual event at the Capitol, we visited the American Association for the Advancement of Science for a briefing on what we should expect. While I prepared myself for a tedious afternoon, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was very engaged by the discussion. Ed Maibach, Director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, gave an excellent presentation about the challenges of communicating climate science in a policy forum, while a panel of four different Congressional staffers (two Democratic and two Republican) discussed the different perspectives of their parties and their bosses. For the most part, their messages focused on the fact that the climate is not a hot topic right now as Congress is focused on the upcoming budget and this year’s election.

As regular NEON blog readers will know, communicating climate science is something about which I’m quite passionate but, as I quickly learned, communicating with policy makers is a whole new ball game.

Climate science is often obfuscated by ad hominem attacks and can get very confusing for a non-scientist. Take this same topic to Capitol Hill and it can often find itself mired in partisan politics, so much so that each side of the Senate floor sent their own video presentation to the most recent UN Climate Change talks in Durban, South Africa.

Regardless of their political views and party positions, all of the politicians that I met did uniformly have one thing in common: they genuinely cared about the well-being of their constituents. This fact allowed us to find the common ground necessary to facilitate real communication: discussing the impacts of climate change in their community resonated with everyone that I met.

As you can imagine, Capitol Hill is a very busy place and many different people/groups/organizations are vying to get the attention of our legislators. At the previous day’s briefing, we were told to expect that our meetings would be short and staffers/legislators would most likely be distracted. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. Everyone we met was very engaged and several people spoke to us for close to an hour. BlackBerrys were always turned off and the dialogue was very polite and respectful. From both sides of the aisle, our message of “please talk to us” was well received and appreciated.

In fact, one Republican team that has been known to not be very supportive of climate science was very happy to speak with us. They discussed their concerns about impacts in their community and the struggle to decipher fact from fiction in the climate science debate. Our offer to assist them in their understanding by providing knowledge and professional comments on studies in their region was genuinely welcomed. In fact, our message of “please contact us with questions” has already resulted in some follow-up dialogue which we hope to cultivate.

Amid the often emotional debates of Capitol Hill, we managed to make a connection with our legislators. Making ourselves available as resources appears to be the key to enhancing climate science communication with policymakers. I’ve already requested to participate in next year’s Climate Science Day – and I encourage all other climate scientists to do so as well.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.neonnotes.org/2012/02/dr-taylor-goes-to-washington/