The Refuge System has definitive research needs. Research projects must have credible and defensible designs and modes of data analysis; results must be reported. Research should be backed by appropriate and consistent data acquisition protocols and data management systems. A deliberate research agenda complements science-based wildlife and habitat management and inventory and monitoring.
The Refuge System must commit to framing research targets with assumption-driven priorities, and ensure direct applicability to refuge management needs. Projects must be underpinned by peer reviewed, transparent designs and modes of data analysis. Rigor will remain appropriate to the priority of the issue and project scale. Refuge System scientists must routinely and transparently identify, challenge and articulate assumptions made with respect to management decisions. Those assumptions greatly influencing modeled outcomes, possessing high uncertainty, and substantially influencing decisions should be captured and elevated as research priorities.
National wildlife refuges serve as outdoor laboratories, providing opportunities for collaborations spanning multiple spatial scales. If the Refuge System identifies priority management-oriented research needs, it can encourage partnerships and the leveraging of funds. Additional collaboration with U.S. Geological Survey research centers and co-op units, climate science centers, universities and other research institutes is needed. Enhancing wildlife refuge facilities and infrastructure, such as bunkhouses and office space used to support research, can help entice partnerships.
Recommendation: Articulate and direct research applicable to wildlife refuges to meet the Refuge System’s research needs.
Land Management Research Demonstration Areas are places where new habitat management techniques and approaches are developed, implemented and showcased. Although they have received limited funding, they have been successful as centers of excellence in restoration and management science. They deserve national level support to encourage cross-regional and even continental and international-level research and to continue to build demonstration capacity that delivers findings to other wildlife refuges, partners and the public.
Recommendation: Review the operations of Land Management Research and Demonstration wildlife refuges, which have been established to increase research and strengthen the demonstration of science.
Recommendation: Support Land Management Research and Demonstration wildlife refuges that have been established and establish at least one Land Management Research and Demonstration wildlife refuge in each Landscape Conservation Cooperative to increase research and strengthen the demonstration of science.
Comment below and/or move on to next section of Chapter 3 - Communication, Collaboration, and Contribution in Science
3 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Quote: “Enhancing wildlife refuge facilities and infrastructure, such as bunkhouses and office space used to support research, can help entice partnerships.”
Comment: In Alaska adequate research is guided by adequate funding. Biological programs on Alaska Refuges operate at a complex level out of necessity. Many projects are supported by aviation or marine vessels so logistics are expensive and necessary. The above quote may apply to some lower 48 refuges but it is not the most pressing need in Alaska. The pressing need is adequate funding to fund logistical expenses.
Quote: “Land Management Research Demonstration Areas are places where new habitat management techniques and approaches are developed, implemented and showcased. Although they have received limited funding, they have been successful as centers of excellence in restoration and management science.”
We have two LMRD areas in Alaska that are not being showcased due to inadequate funding. If this statement is applicable to lower 48 refuges please provide examples.
The LMRD program was established with the last refuge visioning process – Promises. By design, the LMRD program can articulate and direct research applicable not only to management of National Wildlife Refuges, but other federal, state and private lands as well. The LMRD program is ecosystem based; each LMRD biologist focuses on and highlights a single ecosystem. This provides an excellent opportunity to work with our partners and interfaces well with LCCs. I agree with both the LMRD recommendations and it is good to see that we are not trying to completely reinvent the wheel, but are looking back at existing programs. LMRD has received very little support and “limited funding” may be a bit too generous. Fully implementing the LMRD program would go a long ways in filling the refuge systems science needs.
Refuge managers have need for management as well as research data needs. Where does management data collection fit with the research conducted by whatever entity (BBS?) within or outside FWS? This section (almost) seems like a researcher’s plea for “more research” before we can answer the question facing the land manager today. Yes, the decisions on NWRS lands need to be scientifically based, but not to the extent that all stated problems/needs have to be farmed out to someone else with other priorities for the limited available resources. Very little gets done that way. There are data needs that need to be met by others and those that are best met by NWR and other FWS biologists.