Preparing Aquatic Research for an Extreme Future: Call for Improved Definitions and Responsive, Multidisciplinary Approaches

Abstract

Extreme events have increased in frequency globally, with a simultaneous surge in scientific interest about their ecological responses, particularly in sensitive freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems. We synthesized observational studies of extreme events in these aquatic ecosystems, finding that many studies do not use consistent definitions of extreme events. Furthermore, many studies do not capture ecological responses across the full spatial scale of the events. In contrast, sampling often extends across longer temporal scales than the event itself, highlighting the usefulness of long-term monitoring. Many ecological studies of extreme events measure biological responses but exclude chemical and physical responses, underscoring the need for integrative and multidisciplinary approaches. To advance extreme event research, we suggest prioritizing pre- and postevent data collection, including leveraging long-term monitoring; making intersite and cross-scale comparisons; adopting novel empirical and statistical approaches; and developing funding streams to support flexible and responsive data collection.

Extreme event impacts on terrestrial and freshwater biota in the arctic: A synthesis of knowledge and opportunities

“…meta-analyses). Therefore, we support previous pleas that clear definitions of what constitutes extreme are needed (Smith, 2011;Aoki et al, 2022). Because extreme events and their impacts are research foci across disciplines (Broska et al, 2020) more precise definitions of extreme events will improve the application of ecological research within a multidisciplinary research context.…”

“…Hence, the total number of ecological impacts included in our mini-review (n = 69) was larger than the number of published studies (Figure 1 and Figure 2, Supplementary Table S1). Studying climate change effects on arthropods in the Arctic is a known research gap (Høye, 2020), but the reasons for the few published research articles of extreme event impacts on freshwater biota in the Arctic are unclear, especially given the large body of work done on extreme event impacts in aquatic systems elsewhere in the world (Aoki et al, 2022). It is possible that freshwater systems in the Arctic are generally studied less compared to terrestrial systems or that extreme events are less common in Arctic freshwater systems.…”

“…The impact of extreme events on ecosystems can be severe and long-lasting (Harris et al, 2018), with profound implications for species conservation and environmental management (Maxwell et al, 2019). Documenting, quantifying, and understanding the impacts of extreme events on species and their natural environment has become a prominent research focus, demonstrated by the sharp increase in the number of published research papers over the last 5 decades (Figure 1A) and numerous systematic reviews on the topic (Ummenhofer and Meehl, 2017;McPhillips et al, 2018;Aoki et al, 2022).…”

Extreme event ecology needs proactive funding

“…While useful for meta-analyses (eg Patrick et al 2022), such studies provide limited spatiotemporal inference and predictive capacity. Prioritizing the study of extreme events and empirically testing fundamental concepts in disturbance ecology is paramount (Aoki et al 2022). Although NSF is the logical US funding agency for supporting this type of work, we -the authors -are unaware of any funding model at NSF (or other US federal agencies) for proactive, coordinated, hypothesis-driven research at the spatiotemporal scales needed to effectively study future natural events.…”

“…Furthermore, the riskiness of planning for an uncertain future event may prevent favorable review in this funding category. EAGER, a special solicitation type, allows for higher-risk projects but is limited to 2 years and has a modest budget (up to $300K) that precludes a networked or Christopher J Patrick Reserve network, provide excellent data on spatiotemporal patterns in ecology, but these sites were not explicitly selected for this type of initiative (Aoki et al 2022). Likewise, ad hoc experimental networks borne out of LTER (eg NutNet, DroughtNet) are not coordinated to capture complex cross-site responses within regions experiencing dynamic and repeated exposure to extreme events.…”