Search for: All records

We evaluated whether teaching the public about the “critical zone”–the Earth’s outer skin, critical to all life— via a digital serious game can affect adults’ systems thinking about the environment and support policies to protect the environment. An experiment (N = 152) compared the effects of playing “CZ Investigator” versus viewing a static website on systems thinking about the Food-Energy-Water (FEW) nexus and support for relevant public policies. The serious game had the strongest effects on our outcomes of interest for those participants with less past science education. For these individuals, the serious game, relative to the static website, increased perceptions of the strength of interconnections across food, energy, and water systems ( p < .01) and support for policies that regulated human impacts on the environment ( p < .01). Mediation analysis revealed that increases in systems thinking explain increases in policy support. This group of users also indicated that the game was easier, more enjoyable, and more effective for learning than the website. Mediation analyses also revealed that perceived learning effectiveness was a stronger mediator than ease and enjoyment effects of the game on systems thinking and policy support. These results are valuable for environmental education because understanding interconnections within complex systems is vital for solving environmental problems, particularly for learners with less background in science. 

The critical zone (CZ), the dynamic living skin of the Earth, extends from the top of the vegetation canopy through the soil and down to fresh bedrock and the bottom of groundwater. All humans live in and depend on the critical zone. This zone has three co-evolving surfaces: the top of the vegetation canopy, the ground surface, and a deep subsurface below which Earth’s materials are unweathered. The US National Science Foundation supported network of nine critical zone observatories has made advances in three broad critical zone research areas. First, monitoring has revealed how natural and anthropogenic inputs at the vegetation canopy and ground surface cause subsurface responses in water, regolith structure, minerals, and biotic activity to considerable depths. This response in turn impacts above-ground biota and climate. Second, drilling and geophysical imaging now reveal how the deep subsurface of the CZ varies across landscapes, which in turn influences above-ground ecosystems. Third, several mechanistic models providing quantitative predictions of the spatial structure of the subsurface of the CZ have been proposed.

Many countries now fund networks of critical zone observatories (CZOs) to measure the fluxes of solutes, water, energy, gas, and sediments in the CZ and some relate these observations to the histories of those fluxes recorded in landforms, biota, soils, sediments, and rocks. Each U.S. observatory has succeeded in synthesizing observations across disciplines; providing long-term measurements to compare across sites; testing and developing models; collecting and measuring baseline data for comparison to catastrophic events; stimulating new process-based hypotheses; catalyzing development of new techniques and instrumentation; informing the public about the CZ; mentoring students and teaching about emerging multi-disciplinary CZ science; and discovering new insights about the CZ. Many of these activities can only be accomplished with observatories. Here we review the CZO experiment in the US and identify how such a network could evolve in the future. Specifically, we recognize the need for the network to study network-level questions, expand the environments under investigation, accommodate both hypothesis testing and monitoring, and involve more stakeholders. We propose a hubs-and-campaigns model that promotes study of the CZ as one unit. Only with such integrative efforts will we learn to steward the life-sustaining critical zone now and into the future. 

Abstract. The critical zone (CZ), the dynamic living skin of the Earth, extends from the top of the vegetative canopy through the soil and down to fresh bedrock and the bottom of the groundwater. All humans live in and depend on the CZ. This zone has three co-evolving surfaces: the top of the vegetative canopy, the ground surface, and a deep subsurface below which Earth's materials are unweathered. The network of nine CZ observatories supported by the US National Science Foundation has made advances in three broad areas of CZ research relating to the co-evolving surfaces. First, monitoring has revealed how natural and anthropogenic inputs at the vegetation canopy and ground surface cause subsurface responses in water, regolith structure, minerals, and biotic activity to considerable depths. This response, in turn, impacts aboveground biota and climate. Second, drilling and geophysical imaging now reveal how the deep subsurface of the CZ varies across landscapes, which in turn influences aboveground ecosystems. Third, several new mechanistic models now provide quantitative predictions of the spatial structure of the subsurface of the CZ.
Many countries fund critical zone observatories (CZOs) to measure the fluxes of solutes, water, energy, gases, and sediments in the CZ and some relate these observations to the histories of those fluxes recorded in landforms, biota, soils, sediments, and rocks. Each US observatory has succeeded in (i) synthesizing research across disciplines into convergent approaches; (ii) providing long-term measurements to compare across sites; (iii) testing and developing models; (iv) collecting and measuring baseline data for comparison to catastrophic events; (v) stimulating new process-based hypotheses; (vi) catalyzing development of new techniques and instrumentation; (vii) informing the public about the CZ; (viii) mentoring students and teaching about emerging multidisciplinary CZ science; and (ix) discovering new insights about the CZ. Many of these activities can only be accomplished with observatories. Here we review the CZO enterprise in the United States and identify how such observatories could operate in the future as a network designed to generate critical scientific insights. Specifically, we recognize the need for the network to study network-level questions, expand the environments under investigation, accommodate both hypothesis testing and monitoring, and involve more stakeholders. We propose a driving question for future CZ science and a hubs-and-campaigns model to address that question and target the CZ as one unit. Only with such integrative efforts will we learn to steward the life-sustaining critical zone now and into the future.

 

Abstract. Long-term environmental research networks are one approach toadvancing local, regional, and global environmental science and education. Aremarkable number and wide variety of environmental research networks operatearound the world today. These are diverse in funding, infrastructure,motivating questions, scientific strengths, and the sciences that birthed andmaintain the networks. Some networks have individual sites that wereselected because they had produced invaluable long-term data, while othernetworks have new sites selected to span ecological gradients. However, alllong-term environmental networks share two challenges. Networks must keeppace with scientific advances and interact with both the scientific communityand society at large. If networks fall short of successfully addressing thesechallenges, they risk becoming irrelevant. The objective of this paper is toassert that the biogeosciences offer environmental research networks a numberof opportunities to expand scientific impact and public engagement. Weexplore some of these opportunities with four networks: the InternationalLong-Term Ecological Research Network programs (ILTERs), critical zoneobservatories (CZOs), Earth and ecological observatory networks (EONs),and the FLUXNET program of eddy flux sites. While these networks were foundedand expanded by interdisciplinary scientists, the preponderance of expertise andfunding has gravitated activities of ILTERs and EONs toward ecology andbiology, CZOs toward the Earth sciences and geology, and FLUXNET towardecophysiology and micrometeorology. Our point is not to homogenize networks,nor to diminish disciplinary science. Rather, we argue that by more fullyincorporating the integration of biology and geology in long-termenvironmental research networks, scientists can better leverage networkassets, keep pace with the ever-changing science of the environment, andengage with larger scientific and public audiences.