RIVER RETREAT 2009: PREDICTION

 

Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, NC

 

River Retreat Ground Rules:

The goal of the River Retreat is to think.  If you attend, you are expected to read all the papers thoroughly.  If you are in charge of a session (name listed with a session), you are expected to lead or co-lead the discussion, and provide provocative ideas to dig deeply into the papers, and the underlying theory and concepts of those papers.  There are such things as stupid questions, and participants are encouraged to point out stupid questions and stupid comments with appropriate levels of sarcasm, scrutiny, and humor.  Remember, always, that the goal is ideas and concepts.

 

2009: PREDICTION

(from Scott) Prediction of future events and conditions in the environment is a central part of modern science.  We predict environmental phenomenon as a way to test our models and to guide environmental management decisions.  In testing models, a good (or bad) prediction informs the scientist of the accuracy (or deficiency) of a model.  However, when offering predictions to inform policy and management, a bad prediction can be economically, politically, and scientifically costly.  Offering effective predictions to environmental managers requires understanding what makes a prediction good (or bad), which is much more than the prediction ultimately being true (or false).  The purpose of this retreat is to discuss the role of prediction in river system science as it relates to environmental decision making.  We will review case studies in river geomorphology and ecology illustrating successful and less-successful predictions, discuss how and why these efforts succeeded or not, and what the implications where to environmental management.  Further, we will explore how the fields of river geomorphology and ecology differ in their approaches to prediction. 

 

Friday January 16

6:00 Arrive Coweeta; Dinner and beer (obligate bonding experiences)

 

Saturday January 17

8:30 – 10:00 Session 1: How and why do we predict in river system science? (Martin/Lauren) 

Postdiction, scenarios, projection, forecasting, and prediction, a trajectory of science and application.

Readings:

Oreskes N.  2000. Why predict? Historical perspectives on prediction in earth sciences. Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future. Island Press, Washington DC.

Kirkby, M.J., 1996. A role for theoretical models in geomorphology? The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology. Ed by Rhoads and Thorne, John Wiley and Sons.

Clark et al 2001 Ecological forecasts: An emerging imperative. Science 293:657-660.

Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis 2007 Chapter Nine: A promise unfulfilled, in: Useless arithmetic: Why environmental scientists can't predict the future.  Columbia University Press

 

10:00 – 10:30 Break

 

10:30 – 12:00 Session 2:   Prediction in river geomorphology/hydrology (Daisy/Joel/Chuck)

Readings:

Hooke 2003 Predictive modeling in geomorphology: An oxymoron?  In Prediction in Geomorphology. Geomorphology. Geophysical Monograph 135, Wilcock and Iverson eds. AGU publication

Gordon, Nancy. 1995. Court Case Section 6: Sediment Transport in Mountain Streams (30 pgs) in Summary of Technical Testimony in the Colorado Water Division 1 Trial. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-GTR-270.

 

Break out session.

 

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch Break (and pack for hike or whatever) 

 

1:00 – 2:30 Session 3: Prediction in river ecology (Scott/Jeff)

Readings:

Carpenter SR 2002 Ecological futures: Building an ecology of the long now.  Ecology 83(8):2069-2083.

Stow et al., 2008.  Comparison of estuarine water quality models for total maximum daily load development in the Neuse River Estuary. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 129:307-314.

Lamouroux et al 2006 Fish community changes after minimum  flow increase: testing quantitative predictions in the Rhone River at Pierre-Benite, France.  Freshwater Biology 51:1730-1743.

 

2:30-5:30 Break (Hike/Socratic Walk in the Woods)

 

5:30 – 7:30: Dinner and Pop-ups by students and post-docs

(very very brief research description; poetry is encouraged when appropriate)

 

8:00 – 9:30: Session 4: Cross-cutting Prediction : How to approach a complex problem from multiple disciplines. (Daisy/JR/Jeff)

Are we ready for it yet? What are the stumbling blocks

Readings:

Creutzburg, Brian R. and Charles P. Hawkins. 2008. What do J-NABS papers tell us about the state of knowledge in freshwater benthic science? JNABS 27(3):593-604.

Nilsson et al 2003 Ecological forecasting and the urbanization of stream ecosystems: Challenges for economists, hydrologists, geomorphologists, and ecologists. Ecosystems 6:659-674.

Power, M.E., et al., 1995. Hydraulic food-chain models. BioScience 45(3): 159-167.

Julian, J.P., et al. 2008. Basin-scale consequences of agricultural land use on benthic light availability and primary production along a sixth order temperate river. Ecosystems, 11:1091-1105.

 

Sunday January 18

8:30 – 10:00: Session 5: What do you do if you need a number? (Lauren/FrankMatt/Chuck)

What do we do when someone asks for a number, and what do we do when they just aren’t all that hot?

Readings:

Moran, Robert E. 2000.  Is this number to your liking? In Prediction: science, decision making and the future of nature. Sarewitz, Pielke and Byerly eds. Washington, D.C.; Island Press.

Haff, Peter K. 1996. Limitations on predictive modeling in geomorphology. in The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology. Ed by Rhoads and Thorne, John Wiley and Sons.

Jacobson and Galat, 2006.  Flow and form in rehabilitation of large-river ecosystems: an example from the Lower Missouri River. Geomorphology 77: 249-269.

 

10:00 – 10:30 Break

 

10:30-11:30 Session 6: Alternatives to deterministic modeling/prediction (JR/Allison/Autumn)

Kirchner et al., 2000. Fractal stream chemistry and its implications for contaminant transport in catchments. Nature 403: 524527.  
Camporeale and Ridolfi, 2006. Riparian vegetation distribution induced by river flow variability: A stochastic approach. Water Resources Research 42, W10415, doi: 10.1029/2006WR004933.  
Gisiger, 2001. Scale invariance in biology: coincidence or footprint of a universal mechanism? Biological Reviews 76: 161-209. (just read through beginning through section IV)

1130: Closing and look to the future

Group photo…

 

12:00: Non-UNCers GO HOME

UNC Research discussions and considerations

 

Monday January 19 (MLK Day)

Noon: go back to UNC