Undid Stales	/ Office of the Administrator	SAB-6C-88-006
Environmental Protection	Science Advisory Board	November 1985
Agency	Washington, DC 20460
SERA Report of the
Forest Effects
Review Panel
Review of the
Forest Effects Research
Program of the
Office of
Research and Development

-------
//
REPORT OF THE
FOREST EFFECTS REVIEW PANEL
REVIEW OF THE AGENCY'S
cr^wcr* poi««;v*i»c dpcp&dtu oiyY!D&u
ruKEibi yrrliLlo KroriARuA rRXawn
S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Washington, D.C.
November 1985

-------
///
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the
Environmental Protection agency's Congressionally established Science
Advisory Board, a public group providing advice on scientific issues.
The Board is structured to provide a balanced, independent, expert
assessnent of the scientific issues it reviews, and hence, the contents
of this report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency nor of other agencies in the Executive
Branch of the Federal governoent.

-------
/ V
U.S. Environmental Protection fcjency
Science Advisory Board
FOREST EFFECTS REVIEW PANEL
Cochaizmen
Or. Allan Legge, Kananaskis Centre for Envirormental Research,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Dr. William Smith, School of Forestry and Envirormental Studies,
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Mqnbers
Or. Dale Cole, College of Forest Resources, university of Washington,
Seattle, Washington
Dr. Robert Goldstein, Envirormental Assessment Department, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California
Cr. David Hyink, Weyerhauser Company, Taccraa, Washington
Dr. Hank Shugart, Department of Envirormental Sciences, University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
Dr. Peter Sumners, Air Quality and Inter-Envirormental Research Branch,
Atmospheric Environnent Service, Downs view, Ontario, Canada
Executive Secretary
Mr. Robert Flaak, U.S. Environmental Protection agency, Science Advisory
Board, Washington, D.C.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	•		 1
A.	Research Program Organization 		1
B.	Research	1
C.	Integration 		 2
II. INTRODUCTION 	 3
III. FOREST EFFECTS RESEARCH PROGRAM REVIEW	3
A.	Docunent Review 	 3
B.	Research Program Organization 	 3
C.	Research Program Design and Development	4
D.	Role of Modeling 	 5
E.	Field and Laboratory Research: Dose Response Considerations	6
F.	Research Field Locations	6
G.	National Vegetation Survey			7
H.	Porest/Ecosystenv/Atrosphere Interactions	7
I.	Air Quality Research and Monitoring 	8
J. Forest Effects Research Program Research Plan Docuoent	9
K. Emphasis and Priorities 	 10

-------
1
I. EXECUTIVE StMMARY
Hie Science Advisory Board's Forest Effects Review Panel has examined
the research plan for forest dieback/decline at three different levels:
1) the organization of the research program, 2) specific research designs
and plans, and 3) integration of research results. The Panel's overall
assessnent is that the current research plan, unless modified, is unlikely
to achieve the three major goals stated for the Forest Effects Research
Program. Further, the process of generating and integrating the research
will require stable and sustained funding over a period lasting from five
to ten years.
A.	Research Program Organization
Many of the current managers of the research program serve in an
acting capacity in which they possess a limited knowledge of the field of
forest dieback/decline and a limited authority to formulate and execute
program plans and decisions. The Panel concludes that it is essential
to have permanently appointed managers who are aware of the science and
are conmitted to the success of the program. Program managers who have
the responsibility to implement research plans should possess a comparable
degree of authority to carry out this responsibility.
The Panel recaranends a separate organizational design for the Forest
Effects Research Program to distinguish its mission and performance' from
those of the other agencies participating in the program. A separate
organizational approach should also facilitate research planning, infor-
mation exchange and evaluations of the program accountability and success.
The research organization and plan should explicity require research
managers and investigators to exchange their views and research results
on a continuing basis. One mechanism for such exchanges is periodic
workshops. Workshops should also provide useful information on the need,
if any, to modify the research plan.
The Panel has received no indication as to how Requests for Proposals
(RFP) would be solicited. Issuance and funding of RFPs before the actaini-
strative structure and research plan are finalized would be a serious
mistake.
B.	Research
The Panel applauds the plan's broad scope and its particular erqphasis
on defining mechanistic linkages between causes and effects, development
of mathematical models and evaluation of forest responses along a hierarchy
of ecological levels. Areas that deserve specific emphasis include the
following:
• Whole plant physiology (previous plant effects research placed an
unbalanced emphasis on leaf physiology).

-------
2
•	Below-ground plant and soil processes, including root dynamics
(in the past, research overly concentrated on above-ground
processes).
•	An ecosystem approach to the research effort (past research
typically focused on specific ecosystem canponents without
provision for integration).
•	Development of theories regarding plant strategies to handle
stress, allocate reserves, and allocate energy (previous
research was totally empirical) .
•	Plant growth allocation strategy and responses (to expand previous
work that emphasized photosynthesis, yield responses and visible
injury).
•	Coupling plant dynamics of all nutrients, including water (past
research overly concentrated on carbon dynamics or treating
dynamics of individual nutrients in isolation).
•	Forest stand dynamics (not generally included in research conducted
to date).
•	Atmospheric depositional monitoring and meteorological monitoring
coordinated with field effects research (these activities were
previously conducted out of phase or not at all).
C. Integration
The Panel's major recminendations for integrating research results
include the following:
•	That research sites have concurrent meterological monitoring,
atmospheric deposition monitoring and effects research.
•	That research be conducted in areas subject to differing amounts of
pollutant deposition in order to provide results along a pollution
gradient that will address the problem of "no control" and to pro-
vide model validating opportunities.
•	That workshops and other forms of ccramunication be stressed in
recognition of the multidisciplinary nature of the research.
•	That both laboratory (controlled environment) and field studies be
conducted. These studies should be designed to complement one
another. Dose-response considerations are important in both the
laboratory and field situations, and experimental designs should
explicitly simulate natural conditions.
• That the research program have a unifying theme, such as "response
of forests to interacting atmospheric pollutants and other stresses".

-------
3
II.	INTRODUCTION
In response to requests by the Deputy Administrator and the Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development, the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
has reviewed a number of the Environmental Protection Agency's research
programs each quarter of the fiscal year. These officials have requested
SAB review of the research program assessing forest dieback/decline. The
Board accepted this request, and created a Forest Effects Review Panel to
evaluate this program.
On July 16-17, 1985, the SAB's Forest Effects Review Panel met to
review the jointly sponsored O.S. EPA/U.S. Forest Service research program
that investigates the iiqpacts of air pollutants upon American forests.
This Panel, like all SAB review groups, consists of independent outside
scientists who, due to their particular scientific expertise, were
especially assembled to advise the Adoinistrator. The panel was cochaired
by Dr. Allan Legge and Dr. William Smith.
The focus of the review was a 202-page June 6, 1985 "Green Book",
formally entitled, The Forest Effects Research Program. A team of four-
teen scientists and" research managers from the two agencies, academia,
and industry prepared the Green Book, which describes, in very general
terms, vrfiat research EPA and the Forest Service will carry out and/or
sponsor and why. In contrast to other SAB panels conducting research
reviews, the Forest Effects Review Panel reviewed proposed research,
much of it conceptual, rather than ongoing or completed research. As a
result, the Panel's comments are sonewhat broader and less detailed,
sinoe less detail was available for review. At its meeting, the Panel
members had the opportunity to hear and question scientists from the
U.S. EPA, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement (NCASI5 and to discuss their findings with one another.
This report presents the Panel's major findings and recommendations. It
will be discussed personally with the Deputy Administrator by the Panel
cochairmen.
III.	FOREST EFFECTS RESEARCH PROGRAM REVIEW
A. Docunent Review
The Forest Effects Research Program (FERP) doament outlines a very
ambitious research effort. Because of the general nature of this document,
the Panel members conclude that they can only make general ccranents at
this time.
BHrniiiirrh Dvwmiii OfTfJini 7X^4 An
The FERP dociznent was presented to the Panel by research managers,
many of whan were uneasy with the scientific issues and plans they were
presenting. Several of these managers function in an acting role which,
as a result, creates a limited degree of managerial authority to make
program plans and decisions. Thie Panel members believe it is absolutely

-------
4
essential for a research program of the size and scope proposed by the
FEHP to have permanently appointed managers in place at the beginning of
the program who are aware of the science and are both dedicated and
ccraniitted to the success of the program. If this is not done, the program
will flounder frcm lack of guidance, coordination, and integration and
will, therefore, not meet its objectives on time or on budget. The EtHP
doctment clearly identifies the many organizations that will potentially
participate in the research program. Since most of these organizations
have different mandates, it is essential that an organizational structure
be created at the outset of the research program that challenges the
participating organizations in a positive manner to ensure their long-
tetm, mutual cooperation. Mutual cooperation will help ensure program
success. This does not mean to isply, however, that the organizational
structure should be rigid. A large and/or cwerly ccmplex management
structure, however, is also not the solution. U» structure should be
kept small and relatively single to more clearly delineate the roles and
responsibilities of research managers, ensure effective ooimunication
and measure accountability for achieving research results. Program
managers who have the responsibility to inplement research plans should
possess a comparable degree of authority to carry out this responsibility.
As appropriate during the oourse of the research program, the
structure must be allowed to evolve, we recanmend that a distinction
be made between the organizational structure of the participating agencies
in FERP and the FERP management structure to ensure that the latter's
mission- is clearly identified and separable from the missions of the
participating agencies.
The Request For Proposal (RFP) process was another area of concern.
The Panel was not given any indication as to how this process would
function. It is our understanding that seme HFPs have already been
issued and projects funded. Should this be the case, it has been done
without a well-defined administratis structure and agreed upon research
plan. Coordination is essential to prevent unwanted duplication and
emission. It is not clear how research will be integrated and coordinated
for the RFP process.
It is unclear at this point how program integration will be achieved.
As it presently stands, the program is not tied together. An efficient
management structure will only provide a portion of the necessary program
integration. Meetings among the principal participants to allow formal
and informal information exchange would help. More thought and planning
is needed in this area.
C. Research Program Design and Development
The research program is currently developed around a list of ten
hypotheses to explain reported forest dieback/decline. The Panel finds
that this list is neither canprehensive nor integrated. Many of the
hypotheses are not mutually exclusive (as assumed in the document), and
sane are of questionable scientific importance. It is doubtful that

-------
5
sane hypotheses could be tested experimentally. The Panel believes that
this approach is inherently weak. It recarmends instead that the program
managers adopt a more unifying or synthesized theme, such as "response
of forests to interacting atmospheric pollutants and other stresses".
Such an approach will greatly assist in program integration and will
lead to information that will be applicable not only to immediate air
pollution concerns but also to many other problems, such as predicting
responses to carbon dioxide/climate change and nuclear winter scenarios.
D. Role of Modeling
The program should make use of models to help provide a unifying or
synthesizing theme and to project the consequences of possible effects of
pollutants over longer space and time scales. The investigators have
recognized both the hierarchical nature of the ecosystem with which they
are dealing and differences in individual tree/physiology models and
stand/tree population models. The Panel ccnmends the awareness of
ecological scales in the design of this program.
As described in the FERP document, the models are to be used primarily
to project the consequences of certain effects. The Panel encourages
this logical application of the models. An additional use of models is
to predict a priori the response of the ecosystem and then to test whether
this prediction holds true. This latter, hypothetical-deductive approach .
is not strongly in evidence and .could considerably increase the scientific
content of the program.
The Panel believes that the formation of the modeling team represents
a critical element in the success of the program. Research managers should
make every effort to develop this team with a wide range of expertise—
particularly in stand dynamics, basic ecology of forests, soils, macro-
and micraneteorology, and atmospheric chemistry and deposition, we
reccnaerd, therefore, that the modeling team be assenbled as soon as
possible, since the use of models will strongly enhance program integra-
tion.
The process given the most enphasis in the program is tree growth as
the integration of a spectrum of morphological, physiological, and
biochemical responses to pollutants and other stresses. For this reason,
the Panel recommends efforts toward development of a model of individual
tree responses. This model could became an invaluable tool to synthesize
results, to provide reasonable effects estimates for a stand sinulation
model and to guide the design of sampling schemes for micrometeorological
effects. The need for this model is sufficiently great and the problem
is sufficiently difficult that the work should begin early in the program.
It would be appropriate to fund alternative model development in this
area to incorporate more ideas and approaches to this difficult problem.
These models should be developed in the context of scaling-up the conse-
quences of snaller-scale, tree-level responses to the stand and ecosystem
levels.

-------
6
By shifting the modeling process forward in the research program
- schedule, missing information that is often needed in modeling projects
can be collected early in the research program. This would also force
sense early synthesis in anticipation of developing the data collection
efforts. This synthesis also could guide the greenhouse, chamber, and
field studies in collecting data that could be designed to larger scales.
while the idea of using "conceptual models" in the initial parts of
a research program is useful to frame ideas and to organize research
program priorities, the process of developing and, particularly, in
validating a quantitative model is a powerful test of the completeness
of the research plan that is under development.
E.	Field and Laboratory Research: Dose-Response Considerations
Dose-response considerations are important for both field and
laboratory research. The coordination and integration of these efforts
is essential in assessing forest dieback/decline. Generating dose-response
data in the laboratory can elucidate mechanisms of toxicity? researchers
should exercise similar care to obtain dose-response data in field studies
so that each type of research canplements the other. The research plan
should develop a balanced approach to laboratory and field studies, *
recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each.
The FERP document provides little detail concerning the modeling of
exposure. The Panel recommends that the diurnal timing and intensity and
the meteorological timing and intensity of exposure be considered. Since
plants function in modal diurnal patterns and aerial toxicants are deliver-
ed in diurnal patterns, the exposure of the toxicant to the organism should
be explicitly stated. Because meteorological patterns tend to vary on a
3-4 day cycle, air quality and deposition monitoring should consider that
period instead of some arbitrary period of sample integration. The Parol
recannends that program planners design an explicit mechanism to jointly
plan and evaluate meteorological monitoring, deposition monitoring and
terrestrial effects studies.
F.	Research Field Locations
The concentration of initial work in southeastern ccnmercial forests
arid in eastern spruce-£ir ecosystems is understandable on both political
arid economic grounds. The Panel recanuends that EPA and the Fbrest
Service should also conduct research along adequate gradients of pollutant
concentration to validate models. They should include locations which
form both an elevational and latitudinal gradient. The question of
adequate reference locations should also be addressed. Research managers
should also consider expanding the initial research effort to include less
polluted areas of the country to study portions of the western coniferous
forest and the Eastern deciduous forest.

-------
7
The PERP proposal aims to explain pollutant impact on forest growth
but only makes limited mention of forest stand dynamics. One of the over-
all objectives of the research program is to determine whether exposure
of forest ecosystems to air pollutants produces an economic impact on
the forest industry. Therefore, stability measures of forest systems
under air pollutant stress should be emphasized, because they can provide
an early warning of potential growth inpact and of changes in quality of
the forest canmunity.
G.	National Vegetation Survey
A great deal of background information on forests exists as a result
of the National Vegetation Survey. The usefulness of this data base has
largely been overlooked in the FERP doctment. As the foundation of any
future work using the National Vegetation Survey, existing data should
be intensively and ccroprehensively analyzed to characterize the conditions
(both past and present) of the forest. These data would prove very useful
to the FERP. This effort should be preceded by a workshop composed of
an interdisciplinary teas of scientists representing the perspectives of
data oollection, analysis, interpretation, as well as potential users of
the analytical results, e.g., assessment. The objective of the workshop
would be to review the characteristics of existing data and to develop a
consensus plan for analysis. This plan should be subjected to an indepen-
dent peer review. Results of subsequent data analysis should be published
in a timely fashion in the refereed literature.
The workshop will benefit not only existing efforts of data analysis
but would also promote discussions on such subjects as the efficacy of
dendrochronological techniques for estimating changes on forest growth.
Development of the plan to analyze existing data as well as the analysis
itself will undoubtedly be useful in redesigning Forestry Inventory and
Analysis (FIA) or designing long-term monitoring projects to eliminate
deficiencies in existing data. A more comprehensive, systematic, and
long-term forest growth and health monitoring strategy should be a goal
(and legacy) of this research program.
H.	Forest/Ecosystem/Atmosphere Interactions
The FERP document en^hasizes atmospheric depos it ion-canopy inter-
actions, while paying less attention to the effect of deposition on soil
acidification, aluminum toxicity, loss of fine roots and nutrient
leaching. This initial emphasis on gaseous air pollutants is correctly
placed in that less is known about their impact on forest ecosystem
behavior. In addition, the forest canopy is far more susceptible to
direct effects than is the well-buffered soil system. The potential of
most soils to shift significantly in pH due to atmospheric inputs over
either a short or long period of time is minimal. Soil processes, such
as respiration, decomposition leading to the production of organic acids
and nitrification, are all acidifying in their reactions at rates that
can be significantly higher than acidification through atmospheric
deposition. The relative contribution of these natural acidification
processes should be recognized in this forest effects program.

-------
8
Planners of this program should recognize, however, that the forest
canopy-atmospheric depositional processes should not be examined in
isolation from other ecosystem-related processes, including those below
ground. For exanqple, canopy changes due to deposition can potentially
affect carbon allocation, fine root development, and nutrient uptake and
cycling. Special attention should be given to soils and soil-depositional
interaction where sulfates and nitrates are in excess or potentially exceed
the adsorption/immobilization capacity of the soil. Under these conditions,
the soil oould experience leaching losses and may, if continued over a long
period of time, lead to a decrease in site productivity, a consequence of
greater significance than changes in growth due to a pollutant damage to
the canopy.
I • Mr Quality Research and Monitoring
The relationship between air quality/deposition monitoring and
forest effects research is very loose as described in the FE1P document.
The term deposition support program is used, which has the connotation of
being seme of add-oii activity in which data will be collected and
handed over to the forest researchers. This clearly should not be the
case, and the monitoring program, to be successful and responsive to the
needs of effects research, must be an integral part of the Research
Cooperatives program.
The section on monitoring covers a large number of pollutants to be
measured and gives seme indication of the time resolution required, but
these are not specifically related to the hypotheses to be tested or the
modeling needs. A sunnary table is necessary to show these needs more
clearly.1
The question of the time scales over which various pollutant and
other environnental factors stress the forests and the time resolution
of the monitoring required to study these stresses is still unanswered.
More discussion of what is known about this issue is required before a
monitoring system is designed.
Program managers need to recognize that the relationship between
time scales and biological system responses to atmospheric deposition will
not be resolved in the short term. The hierarchical approach to research
fran physiological effects to whole stand dynamics will require different
time resolutions for each level. The monitoring needs, therefore, should
also be stratified according to these levels.
1A good start was made at the EPA/fcGF Workshop on "Atmospheric Deposition
and its Impact on High Elevation Mountain Forest Systems" held in Albany,
New York, April 5-7, 1984. The report of this meeting is entitled
Atmospheric Deposition to Mountain Forest Systems; Warkshop Proceedings,
April 1984 by V.A. Wohnen and is available from the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia as PB84-246412 or EPA-600/9-84-023.

-------
9
The document provided no information on how the monitoring data
might be used to test the specific hypotheses proposed. This emission is
of less significance if the approach is modified as recainended. Because
of the large variability of the pollution doses and other meteorological
parameters, it may be impossible to generate sufficient data in a reason-
able time to test hypotheses using the "traditional" statistical approaches.
Since models will be extensively used in this program, they should
be driving the monitoring needs in terms of: 1) the input meteorological
and pollution data required, and 2) the data necessary to test or validate
the models. Since these models are not yet developed, the monitoring
system should be as flexible as possible. Seme essential parameters can
probably be identified immediately but others may have to await the
initial model development. As the important dose-response time scales
be cane evident frcra the initial experimentation and model development,
they should determine the monitoring needs.
The program plan places insufficient emphasis on the natural
environmental measurements required, changes of which can also produce
stresses on the forest. Changes in standard meteorological variables,
such as wind speed, temperature (extremes), rainfall, and solar radiation
are all important and can often act as predisposing or inciting factors
that outweigh any pollutant stresses. Thus, if hypotheses are to be
tested and accepted or rejected, then equal weight must be given to the
monitoring of natural environmental factors as well as pollution
parameters. The intensive research sites must collect all the needed
meteorological and pollution measurements on-site because of the risks
and possible errors involved in interpolating fran nearby sites, especial-
ly where elevations differ significantly.
To ensure that the monitoring program and the data interpretation
are fully integrated into the program, full-time dedicated micrcmeteoro-
logist and atmospheric chemistry staff members are essential in the Gor-
vallis integration group and possibly in each of the Research Cooperatives.
The team developing the quantitative models under Goal 3 must include an
expert in micrcmeteorology and forest canopy-atmospheric interactions in
addition to the biological experts.2
J. Forest Effects Research Program Research Plan Docunent
While we think highly of many aspects of the research plan, we were
disappointed in the docunent describing the plan. If the sole purpose of
this docunent were to explain the plan to the Panel, we certainly would not
^Goal 3 is described on page 43 of the FERP Document as: "Develop and
test quantitative models to predict changes in forest ecosystems over
time and to extrapolate fran site-specific research results to regional
effects of air pollutants."

-------
10
recommend a revision at this time. However, if there are plans to publish
or circulate this dociment, then we strongly recommend major revisions.
The document is highly repetitious and lengthy. It could easily be re-
duoed to a fraction of its present size while losing nothing of substance.
In addition, sections II and III are technically superficial and weak.
There are too many citations of unpublished work or secondary sources.
The discussions of the hypotheses are technically superficial, and the
figures used to illustrate thera are vacuous. The sections fail to relate
their subject matter to either the mainstream of air pollution effects
or plant sciences research.
K. Etaphasis and Priorities
The research plan mentions many of the factors whose emphasis we
consider important; however, since we cannot be sure which factors will
ultimately be emphasized when the plan is implemented, we wish to point
out the factors we consider most important. We strongly applaud the
plan's broad scope and its emphasis on defining mechanistic linkages
between causes and effects, development of mathematical models and evalu-
ation of responses along a hierarchy of ecological levels of organization.
In addition, however, we point out the need to en^hasize as well whole
plant physiology (previous* plant effects research has placed an unbalanced
eophasis on leaf physiology); below-ground plant and soil processes in-
cluding root dynamics (in the past, researd* has overly concentrated•on
above-ground processes); an ecosystem approach to the research effort
(past research has typically focused on specific ecosystem ccmponents
without provisions for integration); development of theories regarding
plant strategies to handle stress, allocate reserves, and allocate energy
(previous research has been totally empirical); plant growth allocation
strategy and responses (to expand previous work that emphasized photosyn-
thesis, yield responses and visible injury); coupling plant dynamics of
all nutrients, including water (past research has overly concentrated on
carbon dynamics or treating dynamics of individual nutrients in isolation);
forest stand dynamics (not generally included in research conducted to
date); and atmospheric depositional monitoring and meteorological monitor-
ing coordinated with field effects research (these activities were previous-
ly conducted out of phase or not at all).

-------