Geology topics

Jean Ometto

Publications and source records attributed to Jean Ometto.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2020

Global challenges for nitrogen science-policy interactions: Towards the International Nitrogen Management System (INMS) and improved coordination between multi-lateral environmental agreements

Human interference with the nitrogen cycle has doubled reactive nitrogen inputs to the global biosphere over the past century, leading to changes across multiple environmental issues that require urgent action. Nitrogen fertilizers and biological nitrogen fixation have allowed benefits of increased crop harvest and livestock production, while in some areas there is insufficient nitrogen to fertilize crops. Whether in excess or deficit, nitrogen losses from its inefficient use are causing a combination of freshwater and marine pollution, air pollution, alteration of climate balance, stratospheric ozone loss, biodiversity loss and reduction of soil quality. The resulting nitrogen pollution affects human health, well-being and livelihoods. Scientific efforts have begun to bring these issues together. However, there is still a high degree of fragmentation between research on the different benefits and threats of reactive nitrogen and between the respective policy frameworks, especially at the global scale. We argue that a more joined-up approach to managing the global nitrogen cycle is needed to develop the ‘gravity of common cause’ between nitrogen issues and to avoid policy trade-offs. We describe how a coherent system for science evidence provision is being developed to support policy development through the ‘International Nitrogen Management System’ (INMS). There is now a matching challenge to bring together the multiple policy agreements relevant for nitrogen as a foundation to address synergies/trade-offs and to set priorities. Based on review of existing frameworks, we outline the concept for an Interconvention nitrogen coordination mechanism. This could make a major contribution to multiple Sustainable Development Goals by stimulating the next generation of international nitrogen strategies: maximizing the benefits of efficient nitrogen use, while minimizing its many environmental threats.

Book chapter↗

USGS2020

Biological nitrogen fixation across major biomes in Latin America: Patterns and global change effects

Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) supports terrestrial primary productivity and plays key roles in mediating human-induced changes in global nitrogen (N) and carbon cycling. However, there are still critical uncertainties in our understanding of the amount of BNF occurring across terrestrial ecosystems, and of how terrestrial BNF will respond to global change. We synthesized BNF data from Latin America, a region reported to sustain some of the highest BNF rates on Earth, but that is underrepresented in previous data syntheses. We used meta-analysis and modeling approaches to estimate BNF rates across Latin America's major biomes and to evaluate the potential effects of increased N deposition and land-use change on these rates. Unmanaged tropical and subtropical moist forests sustained observed and predicted total BNF rates of 10 ± 1 and 14 ± 1 kg N ha −1 y −1 , respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these forests sustain lower BNF rates than previously thought. Free-living BNF accounted for two-thirds of the total BNF in these forests. Despite an average 30% reduction of free-living BNF in response to experimental N-addition, our results suggest free-living BNF rate responses to current and projected N deposition across tropical and subtropical moist forests are small. In contrast, the conversion of unmanaged ecosystems to crop and pasture lands increased BNF rates across all terrestrial biomes, mostly in savannas, grasslands, and dry forests, increasing BNF rates 2-fold. The information obtained here provides a more comprehensive understanding of BNF patterns for Latin America.

Science of the Total Environment↗

USGS2017

Synthesis centers as critical research infrastructure

Demand for the opportunity to participate in a synthesis-center activity has increased in the years since the US National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) opened its doors in 1995 and as more scientists across a diversity of scientific disciplines have become aware of what synthesis centers provide. The NSF has funded four synthesis centers, and more than a dozen new synthesis centers have been established around the world, some following the NSF model and others following different models suited to their national funding environment ( http://synthesis-consortium.org ). Scientific synthesis integrates diverse data and knowledge to increase the scope and applicability of results and yield novel insights or explanations within and across disciplines (Pickett et al. 2007 , Carpenter et al. 2009 ). The demand for synthesis comes from the pressing societal need to address grand challenges related to global change and other issues that cut across multiple societal sectors and disciplines and from recognition that substantial added scientific value can be achieved through the synthesis-based analysis of existing data. Demand also comes from groups of scientists who see exciting opportunities to generate new knowledge from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration, often capitalizing on the increasingly large volume and variety of available data (Kelling et al. 2009 , Bishop et al. 2014 , Specht et al. 2015b ). The ever-changing nature of societal challenges and the availability of data with which to address them suggest there will be an expanding need for synthesis. However, we are now entering a phase in which government support for some existing synthesis centers has ended or will be ending soon, forcing those centers to close or develop new operational models, approaches, and funding streams. We argue here that synthesis centers play such a unique role in science that continued long-term public investment to maximize benefits to science and society is justified. In particular, we argue that synthesis centers represent community infrastructure more akin to research vessels than to term-funded centers of science and technology (e.g., NSF Science and Technology Centers). Through our experience running synthesis centers and, in some cases, developing postfederal funding models, we offer our perspective on the purpose and value of synthesis centers. We present case studies of different outcomes of transition plans and argue for a fundamental shift in the conception of synthesis science and the strategic funding of these centers by government funding agencies.

BioScience↗