Long‐term research in ecology and evolution: a survey of challenges and opportunities

Abstract

Long‐term research in ecology and evolution (LTREE) is considered fundamental for understanding complex ecological and evolutionary dynamics. However, others have argued for revision of LTREE efforts given perceived limitations in current research priorities and approaches. Yet most arguments about the benefits and failings of LTREE could be argued to reflect the views of only the limited number of scientists who have authored reports on the field, and not the wider community of ecological and evolutionary scientists. To more systematically and quantitatively assess the views of the community on LTREE contributions and future activities, we conducted and here report the results of a survey of ecological and evolutionary scientists at primarily U.S.‐based institutions, completed by 1,179 respondents. The survey objectives were to (1) identify and prioritize research questions that are important to address through long‐term, ecological field experiments and (2) understand the role that these experiments might play in generating and applying ecological and evolutionary knowledge. Almost 80% (n = 936) of respondents said that long‐term experiments had contributed “a great deal” to ecological understanding. Compared to other research approaches (e.g., short‐term, single‐site, modeling, or lab), there was overwhelming support that multi‐site, long‐term research was very important for advancing theory, and that both observational and experimental approaches were required. Respondents identified a wide range of research questions for LTREE to address. The most common topic was the impact of global change (n = 1,352), likely because these processes play out over many years, requiring LTREE approaches to fully understand. Another recurrent theme was the potential of LTREE approaches to build evolutionary understanding across all levels of ecological organization. Critical obstacles preventing some scientists from engaging in LTREE included short‐term funding mechanisms and fewer publications, whereas the longer‐term value for advancing knowledge and an individual's career were widely recognized. Substantive advances in understanding ecological and evolutionary dynamics then seem likely to be made through engagement in long‐term observational and experimental research. However, wider engagement seems dependent on a more supportive research environment and funding structure, through increased institutional acknowledgment of the contributions of long‐term research, and greater program support during the establishment and maintenance of research.

Complex long‐term dynamics of pollinator abundance in undisturbed Mediterranean montane habitats over two decades

“…, Kuebbing et al. ). Reports on long‐term ecological data have proliferated in recent years, mostly aimed at detecting directional trends in population, community or ecosystem features in response to current environmental changes.…”

“…On the lowermost segment of this gradient, ecological studies have traditionally concentrated on daily or seasonal dynamics, and investigations spanning more than a few years were scarce until relatively recent years (Weatherhead 1986, Magnuson 1990, Swanson and Sparks 1990, Herrera 1998. This situation has changed over the last two decades, following increased recognition of the importance of long-term data for gaining a better understanding of ecological processes, and also as a consequence of raised societal concerns about the magnitude and future impact of accelerating anthropogenic changes (Knapp et al 2012, Robertson et al 2012, Kominoski et al 2018, Kuebbing et al 2018. Reports on long-term ecological data have proliferated in recent years, mostly aimed at detecting directional trends in population, community or ecosystem features in response to current environmental changes.…”

Applying science to pressing conservation needs for penguins

“…Also, it is difficult to find funding for long‐term studies (Birkhead ; Kuebbing et al. ). Governmental institutions should strive to maintain long‐term research that goes beyond tracking abundance to include monitoring of ecological processes and other factors key to effective penguin conservation (e.g., as done by the Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division [Trivelpiece et al.…”

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

“…In our own field of evolutionary biology, it is impossible to generate robust insights into many fundamental questions (e.g., natural temporal fluctuations in selection) within short time frames (Clutton‐Brock & Sheldon, ). Indeed, the longest running field studies in evolutionary ecology are some of the most productive (Clutton‐Brock & Sheldon, ; in particular their box 3), and there is a growing consensus that long‐term research in ecology and evolution offers unique and important insights (Hughes et al., ; Kuebbing et al., ). Despite the clear value of long‐term studies, there is a real concern that funding schemes will push biological research away from long‐term field‐based work in natural populations towards laboratory‐based research with model organisms, simply because the time frame and feasibility of laboratory‐based research provides a better fit to current funding schemes (see also Kuebbing et al., ; Neiman, Meirmans, Schwander, & Meirmans, ).…”