Dear HB COS colleagues:
I have attached an early draft of the LTER proposal prepared by me and Peter with contributions by the writing team and several other individuals. This draft will be the main subject of discussion at the Oct 7 COS meeting, so please read it prior to the meeting.
Note on grad students and postdocs: We have not automatically send this to all grad students and postdocs, but they are welcome to attend the Oct. 7 meeting. If they plan to come, you can forward a copy of this message to them with the draft proposal.
Please RSVP to the meeting invitation at this link if you plan to attend: https://goo.gl/wP2Q2K. This goes for your students and postdocs also!
Several points to keep in mind while reading the draft:
1) We know this is a rough draft and needs editing, smoothing, and shortening. We are not primarily interested in editorial comments on this version (but if you feel compelled, send them to me and I would be happy to look at them for preparing the next draft.) We would like the discussion to focus on content .
2) Here are some questions to keep in mind while you are reading:
· Not everything we do in the project can be in the proposal due to space limitations. But does the balance in the proposal reflect the balance of effort in the project?
· The LTER RFP (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15596/nsf15596.pdf ) emphasizes conceptual models. Do we have enough in the proposal and are they appropriate? Should we develop others?
· The RFP also emphasizes the link between long-term data and new questions. Does this come through in the proposal? How can we beef that up?
· Figure 1 shows linkages between vegetation, biogeochemistry, hydrology and food webs. Are we doing enough of this linkage and does it come through in the proposal?
· Much of the new research proposed is “We will continue measuring X...” Long-term measurements are what we do, but this will not be sufficient. We have to emphasize new measurements or analyses. If you wrote one of these sections, consider how to do
that.
· Quantitative models are discussed within each section. Should there be one larger section on models that explains their purposes, or is it better to keep them associated with the individual sections of the proposal?
· Some sections have questions and others have hypotheses. We need to be consistent. Which is better?
If you will not be at the Oct 7 meeting but have comments or suggestions on the content of the draft, please send them to me.
Thanks, and I look forward to seeing you on Oct. 7.
Gary
Gary M. Lovett
Senior Scientist
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Box AB, 2801 Sharon Turnpike
Millbrook, NY 12545 USA
Phone 845-677-7600 x132
Fax 845-677-5976
Email LovettG@caryinstitute.org
Website http://www.caryinstitute.org/people_sci_lovett.html
From: hubbardbrookcos-bounces@lists.sr.unh.edu [mailto:hubbardbrookcos-bounces@lists.sr.unh.edu] On Behalf Of John BATTLES
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:32 PM
To: HubbardBrookCOS@lists.sr.unh.edu
Subject: [HubbardBrookCOS] October COS meeting
Dear Colleagues,
We are meeting Wednesday October 7, 2015 at the Cary Institute. The topic is a strategic discussion of the LTER Renewal Propsoal.
Below is the link to the agenda (with housing information) for our October COS meeting.
So we can get ahead count for refreshments please RSVP at the link below.
Regards,
John & Pam
--
John J. Battles
UC Berkeley
137 Mulford Hall #3114
Berkeley, CA 94720
(510) 643-0684