Notes from "Agriculture Working Group" on developing proposed study

PARTICIPANTS IN THE GROUP

Alphabetical,

in the form: name, location, phone, fax, e-mail

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

FORM OF STUDY

An agroecosystem LTER emphasizing a comprehensive managed ecosystem, using currently available "natural process-focused" ecosystems (e.g., Kanza Prairie), involving multiple disciplines and focussing on both basic ecological questions and application of principles to production systems.

PARTICIPATING STATES (initial)

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota (at initial discussions) Colorado, ¤Montana, Texas, Wyoming (potential for later inclusion)

PARTICIPANTS (persons, organizations, institutions)

RESEARCH AND OPPORTUNITY

[Needs to be fleshed out, or removed, based on other parts of text. Suggestion: Ken Cassman make first decisions on handling this matter.]

OUTCOMES

JUSTIFICATIONS

POTENTIAL FUNDERS

NSF, NASA, USDA, EPA, USGS including BRD and private industry (e.g., Space Imaging Eosat) USDA Special Grant, developed and discussed in authorization kinds of ways (as contrasted to "pork barrel" appropriations-focused ways, could be a good way to go. Caveat emptor: The ESCOP/NASULGC budget process may work against this approach if a rapid-response, early term funding decision is desired. Similarly, the USDA Fund for Rural America Centers Grant program could also be a good possibility.

STRENGTHS

Strong remote sensing infrastructures (see posters). Specific strengths in certain crops, in aggregate. Strong linkages with basic biologies. Multi-state participation.

WEAKNESSES

Weak modeling expertise at some, if not all, universities. However, potential for substantial strength on a regional basis. Weak models for robust predictions of plant and crop performances. Challenge in organizing, managing, executing, and sustaining such a broad, multidisciplinary project over the large regional area . . . But soluble through expected strong, collaborative leadership.

COMPETITORS/SUPPORTERS

Competitors: Private industry: need to take broader perspective to link their efforts part of more fundamental understanding. Transform competitors into collaborators. Fundamental science community through lack of understanding. Potentially, near-by states and other land-grants across country. Lockheed and DOE national labs and NASA national labs are competitors.

Supporters: Space grant directors as potential adjunct supporters. Commercialization components within NASA (EOCAP, with commercial spin) also can be supporters. ARS as active partners, and also NRCS.

NEEDED ACTIONS

Back to Conference Main Page.