# Presentation: 071917

## An Evaluation of the Biosphere 2 Center as a National Scientific User Facility

- A report to the DOE Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee
- Prepared by a Review Team comprised of members of the Global Change Subcommittee of BERAC, supplemented by additional experts
- Presented by Louis Pitelka
- University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
- May 1, 2003

## Biosphere 2 Center (B2C)in Oracle, AZ

## Background on B2C

- $150 million, glass-enclosed environmental mesocosm – 6200 m2
- Completed in 1991 as a demonstration project on human sustainability in a sealed environment
- Includes several terrestrial biomes (rainforest, desert, savanna, agricultural) as well as a tropical ocean with coral reef
- In 1996 Columbia University contracted with the owner to conduct research, education and public outreach activities on the site
- Columbia has approached DOE about providing funds to operate B2C as a national user facility for  climate change science (~$6 million/yr)

## Charge to Review Team

- “...to provide its collective comments and perspective on the potential of B2C as a user facility” by answering four questions:

## Questions for the Review Team

- 1) What are the potential values and uses of B2C as a user facility, and what are its scientific and operational limitations?
- 2) Would investing in B2C now be timely and appropriate for DOE/BER?  If not, is there a need for further assessment of the potential uses, limitations and strengths of B2C compared to other existing or potential facilities?

## Questions for the Review Team(continued)

- 3) How might BER seek independent input on the relevance, limitations, uses and value of B2C from members of the scientific community?
- 4) If DOE should consider providing core operating funds, what factors should DOE consider about timing, level, and sources of funding?

## Question 1 – Values & Uses

- Long-term experiments on large stature vegetation under controlled conditions
- Integrated, interdisciplinary research projects
- Closing the mass budgets (e.g., carbon, nitrogen)
- Scale-related measurements and modeling
- Coral reef ecology

## Question 1 – Scientific and Operational Limitations

- Sample size of one and memory effect
- Too many “legacy effects”
- Artificiality of biomes, including soil disturbance and litter decomposition
- Spatial heterogeneity of biomes and inherent physical limitations
- Sustained operation over long time periods
- Absence of critical data and analyses
- Conclusion: A facility in search of questions

## Question 2 (Advisability of funding now; need for further evaluation) 

- There is not now a compelling rationale for DOE/BER investment in the facility.  A stronger case needs to be made.
- Rec. #1 – BER should not fund the operation of B2C at this time.
- Rec. #2 – BER should not conduct any further investigations or assessments at this time.

## Question 3 (How seek further input from scientific community)

- Rec. #3 – Any further consideration by BER of funding for B2C should be done through an open, competitive RFP process through which other proposals for ecosystem research facilities are solicited and the strengths and weaknesses of B2C can be compared with those of alternative types of facilities. (This is appropriate mechanism for seeking community input and evaluation)

## Question 4 (Timing, level, and sources of funding)

- Rec. #4 – Any future funding for the operation and maintenance of B2C should not be taken from the current research budget of BER.
- Rec. #5 – Any further consideration by BER to provide support...should be conditional on obtaining new funding specifically targeted for national user facilities for research on ecosystems and global change.