[Back to Detailed Agenda]
|
| Chair: Richard Birdsey
|
Discussion Questions:
- Are NASA's research contributions to NACP optimal for addressing NACP priority questions and for making the best use of NASA's unique capabilities? If not, what should be done?
- Should the individual, NASA-funded, PI-led studies in NACP be more closely integrated? If so, how would this best be done?
- Are interactions with investigators supported by other agencies adequate to achieve NACP goals? If not, what can be done?
- How can we act to ensure the quality and compatibility of the many remote sensing data products being produced under NACP? And how can "validation" be coordinated?
- Is the focus on "Intensives" still useful? If so, what should be the next priority?
- How can we prepare for productive scientific interactions at the January NACP workshop?
|
|
|
|
--- Please forward any additional comments to the relevant Program Manager at NASA Headquarters. ---
|
NACP discussions are continuing at:
http://www.nacarbon.org/cgi-nacp/twiki/bin/view.pl/DiscussionForum/WebHome
Note that an NACP website account is required to participate. Log in at www.nacarbon.org and follow the directions to retrieve an existing account or create a new one. Contact nacp_support@mail.nacarbon.org for assistance.
– submitted by Peter Griffith at 2006-09-01 12:32:07 |
In later thinking about the question "Are NASA's research contributions to NACP optimal for addressing NACP priority questions and for making the best use of NASA's unique capabilities?", one item that stands out to me with a potential "No" answer has to do with the remote sensing science that NASA Terrestrial Ecology has been supporting for some time now under the heading of "Functional Types".
The missing element of that research effort that can negatively impact NACP is discovering the conceptual and empirical linkage(s) of plant canopy properties (such as LAI, VI, LUE, nitrogen content, water stress, etc.) derived from remote sensing to closely related soil properties over a landscape scale.
In other words, despite all the past effort put into mapping out canopy LUE or nitrogen content from (hyper)spectral satellite data sets supported by NASA, there is still very little understanding from a soil science/management perspective about why one area of a study plot differs from another in the "Functional Types" targeted in the satellite data analysis.
From what I have seen in the field at NACP (and many other) study areas, it is often soil nutrient status or drainage conditions that are determining what plants are growing where and how well they are growing, but the remote sensing work supported by NASA-NACP does not yet seem to be well focused on understanding how those type of landscape factors are impacting carbon fluxes and stocks. This weakness can continue to compromise our ability to scale-up from landscape to regional carbon budgets in NACP.
– submitted by Christopher Potter at 2006-08-26 10:16:29 |
|
|
|
+ QUESTIONS? CONTACT US
|
