Title  : IAIOES09 REPORT ON THE IAI WORKSHOP ON THE COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF
         TEMPERATE TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
Type   : IAI Newsletter
NSF Org: GEO
Date   : August 8, 1995
File   : iaioes09
THE INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR
GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH
 REPORT ON THE IAI WORKSHOP
ON THE COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF TEMPERATE
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
July 26-29, 1994
Durham, NC, USA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
        =09
=46OREWORD          1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY        4
I.  BACKGROUND ON THE BREADBASKET       9
 1. Ecosystems and Activities       9
 2. Importance of Rainfall       9
 3. North and South       10
II. THE NEED FOR RESEARCH      11    =09
 1. Losses in Food Production      11
 2. Grazing         13
 3. Loss of Biodiversity       13
 4. Atmospheric Gas Exchanges     14
III.  ISSUES, PRIORITIES, AND METHODOLOGIES  17=09
 1. Major Concerns       19=09
 2. Non-Specific Issues       19 =09
 3. Possible Approaches       19
 4. Methodology        20
IV. RESEARCH QUESTIONS      22     =09
=09
V. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES      24     =09
 1. Workshops        24
 2. Exchange and Communication     24
 3. Research Activities       24
 4. Policy Considerations      25
VI. EXAMPLES        26      =09
=09
VII. REFERENCES        30
APPENDIX 1: IAI Initial Scientific Themes   32
APPENDIX 2: Acronyms       33
APPENDIX 3: Workshop Participants =09
  35
=46OREWORD
  Special challenges faced the 26 scientists who met in a
workshop at Durham, North Carolina, in the United States July 26-
29, 1994, to discuss the effects of global change on temperate
terrestrial ecosystems.  The area they were considering for a
possible research agenda is large, extremely productive, and the
problems confronting it must be approached through a number of
scientific disciplines.  Participating were soil scientists,
meteorologists, wildlife specialists, social scientists, hydrologists,
and statistical specialists.  Despite their disparate viewpoints,
they agreed on research objectives outlined in this report.
  The workshop was convened by the Inter-American
Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), created in May of 1992
to address the need for advanced study of regionally significant
global change issues.  The IAI is designed to evolve into a network
of research facilities throughout the Americas which will augment
research capabilities and promote education and training within
the scientific fields most important to current and future global
change research.  At this writing, representatives of 16 nations
have signed the agreement establishing the Institute, recognizing
that no one nation can adequately study the complex
environmental mechanisms on this planet that tend to be global in
nature.  The signatory nations agree that a greater understanding
of these mechanisms may be achieved by the international
pooling of information.
  The agreement notes the importance of an evolving
scientific agenda that reflects an appropriate balance among the
biogeographic areas of scientific importance.  It also stresses the
need to address in an integral fashion the physical, economic, and
social issues relating to global change.  Seven broadly defined
research topics have been identified as priorities for special
focus.  To identify the most pressing scientific questions and
socio-economic issues within those seven priority topics, a group
of physical and social scientists met in Silver Spring, MD., in the
U.S. on March 5-6, 1992.  The resulting document, the Report of
the Scientific Experts, provides the basis for a series of seven
workshops on scientific program development, intended to
advance the science agenda of IAI.
=09
  The workshop on temperate terrestrial ecosystems was
the sixth held in the series.  The previous five were:  Oceanic,
Coastal, and Estuarine Processes in  Temperate  Zones
(Montevideo, Uruguay), High  Latitude  Processes  (Buenos Aires,
Argentina),
Ocean/Atmosphere/Land Interactions in the Inter-Tropical
Americas  (Panam=E1 City, Panam=E1), Tropical Ecosystems and
Biogeochemical Cycles  (S=E3o Jos=E9 dos Campos, Brazil), and ENSO
and Interannual Climate Variability  (Lima, Per=FA).  The final
workshop in the series was held in Guadalajara, M=E9xico, on
Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity.
=09 This report details possible plans for scientific
observational strategies, and suggests as well activities such as
further workshops, exchange visits, and development of
improved communication networks.  It is only a proposed guide to
action.  The next step, as stated in the science plan, is to develop
an implementation plan, a definite program for the topic.
Participants in this workshop wish to emphasize the need for
communication and cooperation between scientists in studying
this subject, which requires, perhaps more than others, a multi-
disciplinary approach.
  Most sincere thanks must be extended to all who
helped in the preparation of this report.  Special acknowledgment
must be given to the members of the Steering Committee for this
IAI theme. Those committee members were: Cynthia Rosenzweig
from Columbia University, USA; Ant=F4nio Rocha Magalh=E3es from the
Ministry of Planning, Brazil; Alejandro Castellanos from the
University of Sonora, M=E9xico; Walter Baethgen from the
International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), Uruguay; and
William Schlesinger from Duke University, USA, for their great
contribution to the development of a science agenda on the IAI
topic of Comparative Studies of Temperate Terrestrial
Ecosystems.
  Gratitude must be expressed to all those who helped
with the organization of this IAI workshop. Special
acknowledgment must be extended to the local organizing
committee for its excellent efforts in managing the complications
of an international workshop and to the  working group
chairperson and co-chairperson who coordinated discussions and
whose written reports and stimulating verbal contributions
utlimately led to the drafting and completion of this report. The
names of all participants, who made excellent contributions are
listed in Appendix 3.
  Additionally I would like to acknowledge with much
gratitude those individuals and  institutions whose contributions
allowed this workshop to occur. These include Dr. Robert Corell
(National Science Foundation), Dr. Luis Bevilacqua (FAPERJ, Brazil),
Dr. Michael Hall, James Buizer, Lisa Farrow and Claudia Nierenberg
(NOAA/Office of Global Programs) for their constant enthusiasm
and support during the development of this workshop. Finally, I
would like to acknowledge the commitment, dedication and
enthusiasm of my staff members, Raquel Gomes, Marcella Ohira
and D=E9lia Levandoski, without whose support in preparing this
publication would have been impossible to accomplish.
 Rub=E9n Lara Lara
 IAI Executive Scientist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  Perhaps none of the seven workshops better demonstrated
the problems and promise of international cooperation, for this
group faced differences not only in national priorities, but
research priorities as well.  Represented among the 26
participants were soil scientists, meteorologists, wildlife
specialists, social scientists, hydrologists, and statistical
specialists.  Nevertheless, at the end of four days this disparate
gathering agreed on a set of potential research objectives, and
the role the IAI might take in accomplishing them.
  Participants agreed that human activities may be
responsible for many of the potential impacts of climate change.
=46ossil fuel use in industry and transportation, and changing land
use have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere to extremely high levels, in proportions  that
historically  have  been  accompanied  by  warmer climate.  Other
introduced chemicals endanger both crop production and human
health.  Increased ozone from automobile exhausts, for example,
has reduced the annual soybean harvest in the USA by as much as
20 per cent.  The break-up of soils causes increased erosion and
the siltation of our streams, dirtied further by harmful chemicals
exuded by an expanding population.  Human growth also hastens
losses in biodiversity, that rich mix of plant and animal species
whose potential uses have barely been tapped.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
  The temperate regions of Northand South America are the
major grain-producing areas for a significant portion of the
world's population. The vast grasslands, forests, and deserts are
also the traditional home to a rich diversity of wild plant and
animal communities and of natural ecosystems.  The temperate
zones are also centers of managed and highly productive
activities, encompassing a reange of natural resources critical to
a nation's economy. Minor alterations to precipitation patterns
due to climate change could have devastating effects here,
particularly in desert areas. Therefore, large-scale and long-term
research projects are  needed to assess the effects of global
change on these ecosystems.
  Furthermore, critical to the maintenance of a healthy yet
productive environment in the temperate zones is the need to
establish and maintain workable linkages between the natural
and managed ecosystems.  Therefore, the relationship between
physical-biological systems and socioeconomic systems is a
critical area for research, and the development of sustainable
resource management is essential for creating public policy that
is viable in the context of global change.
ISSUES AND PRIORITIES
  The overall objective of a research agenda for temperate
terrestrial ecosystems should be to conserve and improve the
natural ecosystem integrity while retaining and improving human
well-being.  The agenda must be pursued in both North and South
America, with the recognition that societies within the region
may and will change, and that the goals of individual societies
may vary.  Costs of research must be measured against the
relative benefits it may bring to the society, socially and
economically.
  Two working groups were formed, one concentrating on
research objectives and the other on possible IAI activities.  The
research group agreed on five themes, with subtopics worthy of
investigation:
Land Use and Conversion
(1) How does land conversion affect the hydrologic cycle in terms of
quantity and quality of major river basins?
(2) How are greenhouse gas emissions affected?
(3) How does the expansion of agriculture onto arid lands affect
natural and socioeconomic systems?
Human Interactions
(1) How vulnerable are urban centers to global change (e.g. in
terms of water availability, air quality, transportation, etc.)
(2) What are the sensitivities of traditional and modern practices
to global change?  And what benefits can be incorporated into
socioeconomic adaptation and mitigation responses?
(3) What are the major socioeconomic consequences (e.g. human
migration and redistribution of wealth and productivity) of global
change on production systems, and what is the feedback of these
processes to global change processes?
Productive Systems
(1) What are the potential biophysical impacts and adaptations of
climate change on major agricultural systems, (e.g., highly produc-
tive agriculture, sustainable agriculture, grasslands).
(2) How will food security be affected by global change?
(3) What are consequences of global change on the preservation of
soil, water, air and biological resources?
Atmosphere-Hydrosphere
(1) How will increases in UV-B affect temperate ecosystems and
human health?
(2) How do the cumulative effects of atmospheric gases such as
acid precipitation, O3, SO2, NOx , CO2, and other greenhouse gases
 and hazardous air pollutants affect temperate ecosystems?
(3) How will global change affect the rate of contamination of
ground and surface water and its potential effects on natural and
productive systems and human health?
(4) How will changes in climate extremes and variability affect
temperate ecosystem functioning and responses?
Natural Ecosystems
(1) How will socioeconomic restructuring induced by global
change affect landscape patterns and biodiversity?
(2) What strategies are needed to conserve critical species and
habitats in a changing environment?
(3) How can natural ecosystems and genetic resources in tem-
perate regions ameliorate the effects of global change (e.g., carbon
storage)?
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE ROLE OF THE IAI
  In order to accomplish objectives suggested in the
preceding research questions, a number of regional activities are
recommended. To foster cooperation, IAI might act as facilitator
of these activities:
  The second study group proposed that the following
activities be instigated and guided by the Inter-American
Institute:
Workshops
(a) Discussion groups on data requirements, standardization of
methods, and definition of appropriate and useful indicators of
change.
(b) Interactions between researchers, policy makers, and those
who would be affected by global change.
(c) Identification of appropriate simulation models and their
appropriate use; comparison of model structures and the need
for local modifications.
Data Exchange and Communication
(a) Set up exchange visits,  such as working/study visits, visiting
scholar programs, and graduate courses.
(b) Extend the communication network, encouraging emplacement
of equipment where needed, facilitating use of Internet.
(c) Determine what research has been done, is being done, who
is doing it, whether or not it addresses IAI priorities.
Research Activities
(a) Support existing networks such as AMIGO, INTA, INIA, IFDC,
EMBRAPA, and groups with past experience in regional collab-
orative activities, such as EPA CC Project.
(b) Facilitate development of new networks and enlargement of
 existing networks with research groups pursuing common objec-
tives which are also IAI priorities.
(c) Identify (within networks) expertise and infrastructure for
ensuring efficient resource use (e.g., isotopes, CO2 effects, etc).
(d) Apply comparative techniques such as transects that include
natural and intensively managed systems, north and south, and
similar but distant systems such as the Pampas and Great Plains.
Policy Considerations
(a) Link in a concrete manner the human  components with the
ecosystem.
(b) Consider how transferable are specific management or policy
procedures between North and South America, or to specific
countries.
=09
I. BACKGROUND ON THE BREADBASKET
  The temperate regions of North and South America are the
major grain-producing areas for a significant portion of the
world's population.  Most of the world's beef and mutton from
which millions of people derive protein are also produced on
temperate rangelands.   In addition to human productivity, the
natural grasslands, forests and deserts are the traditional home
to a rich diversity of wild plant and animal communities.  Overall,
the region encompasses the following range of natural
ecosystems:
(1) Grasslands
(2) Arid lands (Deserts)
(3) Forests
(4) Ranching
(5) Aquatics
(6) Riparian
(7) Wetlands
(8) Estuaries
  The temperate zones are also centers of managed and highly
productive activities, encompassing a range of natural resources
critical to a nation's economy. Those activities include:
(1) Agriculture
(2) Fishing
(3) Forestry
(4) Mariculture
(5) Ranching
(6) Water management=09
  Rainfall and its drainage are extremely important in the
temperate zones.  Minor alterations to precipitation patterns due
to climate change could have devastating effects, particularly in
desert areas and drylands of South America which support large
human populations.  These areas include the deserts of the
southwestern United States, northern Mexico and the band of
temperate to tropical South American drylands--Monte, Chaco,
Cerrado, Caatinga--where water needs are met by utilizing rain
run-off or fossil water and much of it goes into agricultural
production.  Changes in land and water use brought about by the
demands of an increasing human population threaten to tip the
tentative balance of these systems.
=09
  Temperate zones of North and South America have some
similarities of land forms, climate, and ocean circulation.  These
similarities have inspired detailed research comparing
adaptations and ecological convergence between the two
continents, although global change will affect them in different
ways.  The rate of climate change is expected to be faster in
North America than South America as a result of different ocean-
to-land ratios in the two hemispheres.  On the other hand, the
rate of land use change may be faster in South America, where
populations are increasing more rapidly and the dependence on
natural resources and primary production may be stronger, in
addition to the existence of larger ecosystems that can be
converted to agriculture, mainly in the cerrados in South America,
which does not happen in North America.
  Critical to the maintenance of a healthy yet productive
environment in the temperate zones is the need to establish and
maintain workable linkages between the natural and managed
ecosystems.  Therefore, the relationship between physical-
biological systems and socio economic systems is a critical area
for research, and the development of sustainable resource
management is essential for creating public policy that is viable
in the context of  global change.
=09
II. THE NEED FOR RESEARCH
  For centuries, natural growth fed communities of animals that
had achieved a workable balance.  The tropical rain forests hosted
a greater variety of species, but in the temperate zones were
found the largest numbers of megafauna.  Just two centuries ago,
the mass of the American bison exceeded the weight of the
world's entire human population.  In arid lands, plant and animal
species adapted to high  temperatures and lack of moisture. In
areas of generous rainfall, the living mat of vegetation allowed
rainwater to seep slowly  through the soil providing clear and
relatively pure drainage to the sea.  As the vegetation died, it
recycled its fibers and nutrients into soil that grew deep, loose,
and rich, feeding even more life above ground.  The rich, fertile
resources and agreeable climate of the temperate zones
eventually brought an explosion of human population, along with
the changes in land and water use that now threaten the
productivity of the region.  Anticipated climate changes will
impact upon the massive food production on which much of the
world now depends. Changes in global climate, as predicted by
the GCM's could have profound implications for world agricultural
and livestock production (Bergthorsson, 1985; Oram, 1985; Parry
and Carter, 1985; Rosenzweig, 1985; Arthur and Abizadeh, 1988;
Rosenberg, 1988; Adams, 1989; Smith and Tirpak, 1989; Adams et
al., 1990; Schimel et al., 1990; Hunt et al., 1991; and Baker et al.,
1993).
Losses in Food Production=09
  From mid-century through 1981, food productivity increased
worldwide because more and more land was being successfully
planted to grain crops.  But grainlands reached a peak in 1981 and
have been declining since then (Figure 1), as land became
degraded or was converted to non-agricultural use.  Yields have
increased, but  the amount of cropland per person has declined
steadily from 1950 through 1993, and the decline is expected to
continue well into the next century (Figure 2) as population
continues to grow.
  Fig. 1. World Grainlands               Fig. 2. Grainlands per person
                      (USDA)                                (U.S. Bureau of
Census)
  For a time, farmers could outpace population growth by
adding fertilizer to increase yields, but those increases can no
longer be sustained.  Where grain yields are already high, the use
of additional fertilizer has little effect.  At the same time, some
countries in financial straits have stopped giving fertilizer
subsidies to their farmers.  As a result, fertilizer use, which
climbed steadily until 1989, has dropped steadily since then
(Figure 3).
 Supplies of water,
so essential to crop pro-
duction, also has become
more uncertain.  Irrigation
once seemed the hope
of dryland farming, but
silt filling reservoirs and
waterways poses costly
problems and a tenth of
all irrigated areas are
suffering from salinity,
which reduces yields.
Another 30 per cent is          Fig. 3. World Fertilizer Use, 1950-1993
moderately affected by                          (FAO, IFA)
salinization.  In the long term, areas that make up for inadequate
rainfall by tapping fossil water deep underground will exhaust
that source as well.  Fig. 4 shows areas in the United States
where groundwater decline causes concern.
=46ig. 4
                             (U.S. Natural Resources Inventory)
Grazing
  While grazing by wildlife has always been an important part
of natural systems, humans have substantially changed the
frequency, intensity, and extent of grazing.  When wildlife
overgrazed an area, it moved on to greener pastures, or moved
because of seasonal migration.  Limited by land ownership,
humans  concentrate herbivores in relatively small areas,
resulting in widespread changes in soils, plant composition, and
plant growth. With overgrazing, grasslands, savannas, and
woodlands are changed into communities dominated by
unpalatable species, ephemeral species with erratic productivity,
and/or sparsely vegetated, more compacted ground.  A reduction
of plant cover results in higher runoff, more erosion, less
infiltration, resulting in an overall drier climate with higher
summer and lower winter soil temperatures (Balling, 1988). The
altered landcover also changes the surface albedo due to the
decline in vegetation and on soil organic matter, thereby
disrupting the energy and water balance.
Loss of Biodiversity
  The advance of human populations has impacted on indigenous
species by changing grasslands and forests into croplands,
grazing, pastures and cities. The spotty remnants of natural
vegetation become islands of habitat, offering species little
chance of migratory movement, or opportunity to inter mingle
and enrich the gene pool.  The rapid and dramatic change in their
circumstances causes some species to be lost forever.
Extinctions have occurred many times, but the current losses are
occurring at a rate unmatched since the decline of the dinosaurs
some 65 million years ago.
  Like every species, ours is intimately dependent on many
others for its well-being.  Just how dependent, we have not yet
determined, for despite deriving almost countless benefits from
other species in terms of medicines, food availability, etc., we
have catalogued only a very small proportion of the total number
that coexist on this planet with us.  The most obscure may hold
great value.  When a fifth of the U.S. corn crop was eliminated by
a corn blight in 1970, cross-breeding with wild progenitors found
in Mexico allowed a blight-resistant hybrid to be developed.
Some analysts believe the greatest threat to human welfare
comes from the potential loss of the genetic variety found among
our pitifully few food crops and their wild relatives.
  The current decline in biological diversity may be most evident
in tropical rain forests, but nowhere can it be taken lightly.
Natural communities with fewer species are probably losing even
greater proportions of their varied life forms.  A number of
ecosystems in the temperate zones have been all but eliminated,
such as the tall-grass prairies and the old-growth hardwood
forests of North America.  Damage to wetlands has been severe in
industrial nations.  Canada contains one-fourth of the world's
wetlands and while its losses have been lower than in some
countries, its Atlantic salt marshes, prairie wetlands, and Pacific
estuarine marshes have all been reduced to a third of their
original extent.
Atmospheric Gas Exchanges
  The gas most commonly suspected of dramatically affecting
the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.  In the past 150 years
humanity has burned enough fossil fuels to increase the amount
of heat-trapping CO2 in the air by 25 per cent (Rosenberg, 1988;
Watson et al., 1990).  The U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that the continuing emissions
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are likely to raise
the planet's average temperature roughly 0.3 degrees Celsius per
decade, or l.5 to 4.5 degrees over the next century. This is in
comparison with past climate change which has never exceeded
1=B0 per 1,000 years.  A 3-degree warming would raise the earth's
temperature to its highest level, which has not happened in such
an elevated rate in the past 100,000 years, while a 4-degree
change would make Earth warmer than it has been for 40 million
years.
  But CO2 is not the only gas threatening changes that are little
understood.  Man made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),  once widely
used as refrigerants and spray propellants, have triggered a
depletion of atmospheric ozone, the protective gauze that
encircles the stratosphere of this planet and filters out much of
the harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun.  Although their use has
been greatly curbed by international agreement, the CFCs still in
the atmosphere will continue to damage the ozone for some time.
The effects of increased UV-B on certain forms of plant and
animal life, as well as human health, have yet to be fully
determined.  Meanwhile, increased tropospheric (surface) ozone,
primarily from vehicle exhausts, not only has reduced the annual
soybean harvest in the USA by as much as 20 per cent, but is also
a serious public health hazard. =09
=09
  Land conversions for human use can affect other gas
exchanges between ecosystems and the atmosphere.  Biomass
burning has probably already altered tropospheric ozone
concentrations in the tropics (Crutzen and Andreae, 1990).  On the
other hand, adding vegetation through crop production in
normally dry areas can have negative effects as well.    Arid lands
are significant sources of ammonia to the atmosphere due to the
prevalence of alkaline soils, which promote the production of
ammonia gas.  Ammonia is significant, as its atmospheric
transport and deposition are an important vector for nutrient
transport.  It is also the only atmospheric gas capable of
neutralizing acids derived from nitrogen dioxide and sulfur
dioxide, so it has a large effect on pH and pH-dependent reactions
in the atmosphere.  In addition, N2O is also as important as
ammonia in agricultural activities in temperate systems.
  Soils are a small but globally significant sink, or depository for
methane, one of the greenhouse gases.  But methane
consumption may be inhibited by high nitrogen availability
brought on by human fertilization of the soils (Steudler et al.,
1989).  The temperate zones are also a source  of methane,
primarily due to the production of methane in the guts of
termites and domestic cattle, although the balance between soils
as a sink and herbivores as a source is not known. Temperate
zone coniferous forests and grasslands contain organic-rich soils,
known to be the largest terrestrial sinks for carbon. Slight
temperature increases will set off a huge oxidation or burning of
this carbon by the microbial population.
=09
III. ISSUES, PRIORITIES, AND METHODOLOGIES
  The overall objective of a research agenda for temperate
terrestrial ecosystems should be to conserve and improve the
natural ecosystem integrity while retaining and improving human
well-being.  The agenda must be pursued in both North and South
America, with the recognition that societies within the region
may and will change, and that the goals of individual societies
may vary.  Costs of research must be measured against the
relative benefits it may bring to the society, socially and
economically.
  How do natural ecosystems respond to climatic change?
Because there is a vast area over which climatic variation can be
assessed, it is possible to design experiments that can determine
how populations presently respond to climatic differences.
Baseline studies would also establish the points of comparison for
future research that would continue into the period over which
climatic changes may become evident.  In South America
especially, baseline studies of ecosystem structure and function
are lacking in all large-scale terrestrial habitats.
  How do agricultural systems respond to climatic change?
Large-scale agricultural systems generally require considerable
human intervention to produce efficient yields.  Such intervention
may include application of pesticides, herbicides, nutrients,
water, etc.  The timing of harvest, the potential yield, possible
crop pests, the number of crops that may be harvested are
affected by climatic parameters.  Ecological studies of agro-
ecosystems should be established parallel with the studies of the
natural ecosystems discussed above.  Such parallel studies might
detect influences of climatic change on natural systems before
these changes are manifested on agricultural systems, and vice
versa.  Measurements of climatic factors such as the location and
intensity of the low level jet, high altitude jets, sunlight
intensity, precipitation changes, the frequency and intensity of
severe storms, cloud reflectivity, soil temperature and moisture,
humidity, albedo, and other climatological measurements should
be taken in areas where biological research is being carried out.
  The implications are vast.  Higher albedos and lowered
transpirations rates, associated with land degradation, reduce
rainfall. Large-scale irrigation can also affect
micrometeorological factors, although the effects on local or
regional weather patterns are poorly understood.  Can the
presence of irrigation modify local convective activity to a
measurable degree?  Similar questions arise with respect to
desertification.  How do changes in ratios of transpiration to
evaporation affect climate?  New measurement and remote
sensing techniques are becoming available that should facilitate
regional analyses, e.g., high-resolution radiometry.
  Do different organisms respond to climatic changes in
different ways and to different degrees?  Will insect pollinators,
for example, become adversely affected by small changes in
climate that may not affect the plant populations directly?  Will
soil fungi or bacteria be affected by increasing UV radiation and
will this influence the plant communities in some way that is as
yet unpredictable?  Will vertebrate and invertebrate primary
consumers, for example, respond to any nutrient deficiency in
plants that could be engendered by climatic effects on the
availability of greenhouse gases, on plant growth rates, or on the
growing season?
  Do drier habitats (e.g. deserts and semi-deserts) respond to
climatic changes more rapidly than grasslands?  If so, then a set
of long-term research sites established in drier areas could
provide the first biological indications of climatic change.  Since
climates could become wetter or drier, comparative research
sites in both natural and agricultural systems could provide a
multiple base from which climatic change could be detected.  Are
climatic effects manifested the same way in both the Northern
and Southern hemispheres?  Replicated experiments in both areas
could provide information on the global extent of these changes.
  What are the social costs of climate perturbations in the
drylands and grasslands of the Americas, given the number of
people supported by these areas?  Shifts in agricultural zones
could result in societal disruption for nations dependent on the
agricultural productivity of their grasslands and drylands.
Periodic droughts in the Caatinga, an extensive dry scrubland in
northeast Brazil,  have led to repeated migrations of the human
population into urban centers, sometimes tripling their
populations.  The Trans-Amazon highway was built in part to
respond to extreme poverty caused by this overcrowding.  The
resulting conversion of previously undisturbed rainforest may
have further climatic implications.
Major Concerns
1. What are the global change forcing functions important to the
region (e.g. demographic distribution, land use and conversion,
climate change)?
2. Where is each stressor expected to have greater impact?
3. What are the anticipated environmental consequences? Are they
reversible?  What are the levels of certainty?
4. What are the socioeconomic consequences?
5. What activities might exacerbate or ameliorate the situation?
6. Are there any surprises?
Non-Specific Issues
  Non-specific issues that should be addressed with additional
research include the following areas:
=09
(1) Sources and amounts of greenhouse gases produced.
(2) Monitoring of global change, establishing a historic and paleo
baseline.
(3) Effects of environmental stresses on economic systems (e.g.
agriculture, fisheries) and human welfare.
(4) Effects of human population increase and distribution on land
use patterns, ecological processes, and global change.
(5) Measures that can and should be taken to offset the effects of
global change on the production of goods.
(6) Identification of critical nodes which will ensure sufficient
connectivity to conserve faunal and floral populations.
Possible Approaches
  Due to the high probability that climatic change will be most
readily evident in areas of hydric limitation, the following sites
would be appropriate for long-term, replicated research.
=09
(1) The southern Great Plains, especially the mid-grass prairie
 (e.g. Oklahoma), where water availability for crops is at the
lower levels of acceptability.  Climatic change would be readily
apparent.  Both natural grasslands and extensive agricultural
 systems are here.
(2) The Sonoran Desert of southern Arizona or the Chihuahuan desert
of southern New Mexico, both with Mexico counterparts (these
deserts do not end at the border),  where climatic extremes
maintain a xeric-adapted biota and where human population
density is dependent on either rainfall or fossil water.
 (3) The Cerrado savannah of Brazil near Bras=EDlia, one of the most
important agricultural and ranching areas of Brazil, with a highly
predictable six-month dry season.  Changes should be very
apparent.
(4) The Caatinga scrublands of northeastern Brazil near Fortaleza
(mentioned above).
(5) The dry Chaco of northwestern Argentina in Salta or Tucum=E1n
provinces, where dry thorn forests are being  converted to
soybean plantations, irrigated by rainfall or runoff.
(6) The Argentine pampas (grasslands) in Buenos Aires Province, the
most agriculturally rich area in South America and the equivalent
of the southern Great Plains in North America.
(7) The Monte Desert near Mendoza Argentina, where extensive
agriculture is carried out through irrigation of runoff from Andean
ice packs and reservoirs of stored rain water.
Methodology
  The following considerations might be made in the process of
applying research:
1.What are the baselines?
Expand and coordinate activities to monitor the state and evolution
of key environmental and socio-economic parameters.
2. How healthy are current systems?
Define indicators for characterization.  For example:
--socioeconomic indicators (food availability and security);
--vulnerability indicators;
--soil organic matter dynamics;
--Relative net primary production;
--Biogeochemical balances (inputs and outputs of carbon, nitrogen,
 etc); and
--Water quality and availability.
3. Conduct coordinated field and lab experiments to identify and
understand processes relevant to land use changes., considering
the following areas of study:
--Erosion, wind and water.
--Mineralization.
--Carbon and nutrient recycling.
--Indicators defined above.
--Species composition and relative abundance. and
--Biochemical studies of native plant species (as in the case
   of alternative land use).
4. Conduct comparative studies (transects and/or similar systems in
distant locations) on the effects of climate change on the
following:
--Indicators defined above;
--Physiology and growth in different systems and response to =09
 hanging climate;
--Direct effects of CO2 on plant growth; and
--Trace gas exchange.
5. Calibrate, validate, and improve simulation models  (e.g. Spurr,
Century, IBJNAT, etc.
--Define data requirement;
--Standardize methodology across regions;
--Improve models' performance at regional scale; and
--Apply models to predict production risks, carrying capacity,
   etc.
  Data should be assembled which thereafter can be used by
economists and policy makers to predict possible future
scenarios.
6. Assess resource management implications considering
monitoring, experiments, and simulation results., e.g. nutrients,
water, social, economic, etc.
IV. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
   In proposing a research agenda for the study of
temperate terrestrial ecosystems, the workshop participants
provided the following specific examples of critical areas and
questions of concern.  The list is not exclusive:
1. Land Use/Conversion
(a) How does land conversion affect the hydrologic cycle in terms of
quantity and quality of major river basins?
(b) How does land use and conversion affect greenhouse gas
emissions (e.g. methane, CO2)?
(c) How does the expansion of agriculture onto arid lands affect
natural and socioeconomic systems?
2. Human Interactions
(a) How  vulnerable are urban centers to global change (e.g. in terms
of water availability, energy, air quality, food supplies,
transportation, natural disasters)?
(b) What are the sensitivities of traditional and modern practices to
global change?  What benefits can be incorporated into social and
economic adaptation and mitigation responses?
(c) What are the major socioeconomic consequences of global
change on production systems and the feedback of those
consequences to global change processes (examples might include
human migration or redistribution of wealth)?
3. Productive Systems
(a) What are the potential biophysical impacts and adaptations
 of climate change on the productivity of major agricultural
ecosystems, (e.g. highly productive agriculture, sustainable
agriculture, and grasslands)?
(b) How will food security be affected by global change?
(c) What are consequences of global change on the preservation of
soil, water, air, and biological resources?
4. Atmosphere and Hydrosphere
(a) How will increases in UVB affect ecosystems and human health?
(b) How do the cumulative effects of atmospheric gases (acid rain,
O3, SO2, CO2, air pollutants) affect temperate ecosystems?
(c) How will global change affect the rate of ground and surface
water contamination and what then might be the effects on
natural and productive systems and human health?
(d) How will changes in climate extremes and variability affect
temperate ecosystem functioning and responses?
5. Natural Ecosystems
(a) How will social and economic restructuring induced by global
change affect landscape patterns and biodiversity in temperate
ecosystems?
(b) What strategies are needed to conserve critical species and
habitats in a changing environment?
(c) How can natural ecosystems and genetic resources ameliorate
the effects of global change (e.g. carbon storage)?
(d) What is the level or scale of biodiversity that we should
realistically try to conserve? Which are the critical nodes that
should be protected in order to conserve floral and faunal
 populations (protected areas)?
=09
V. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
   In order to accomplish objectives suggested in the
preceding research questions, a number of regional activities are
recommended. To foster cooperation, IAI might act as facilitator
of these activities:
Workshops
 * Establish data requirements, standardization of methods, and
define appropriate and useful indicators of change.
 * Promote interactions between researchers, stake-holders, and
policy makers.
 * Discuss modeling in the following contexts:
 --identification of appropriate simulation models;
 --identification of appropriate use of models in different
systems;
 --comparison of model structures and the need for local
modifications.
Exchange and Communication
* Facilitate exchange visits of the following types:
--working/study visits;
--visiting scholar;
--graduate courses.
* Extend the communication network.
* Identify what has  been done, is being done, who is doing it;
  determine whether past/present work addresses IAI
priorities.
Research Activities
* Support existing networks (e.g. AMIGO, INTA, INIA, EMBRAPA,
IFDC) and groups of past experience in regional collaborative
activities (e.g. EPA climate change project).
* Promote the development of long-term sites for global change
studies. (e.g. facilitate development of new networks and
enlargement of existing ones with research groups pursuing
common objectives which are also IAI priorities).
* Identify (within networks) expertise and infrastructure for
ensuring efficient resource use (e.g. isotopes, CO2 effects,
etc).
* Apply comparative techniques, using transects that compare
natural areas and intensively managed areas, and North and
South.
* Compare similar systems in distant locations, such as the
Great Plains.
* Conduct studies on a broad geographic scale that includes and
compares the following paradigms:
--inter-hemispheric;
--intra-hemispheric;
--ecoregion;
--basin;
--watershed; and
--within watershed.
Policy Considerations
* Link in a concrete manner the human component with the
ecosystem.
* Consider how transferable are specific management or policy
procedures between North and South America, or to specific
countries.
VI. EXAMPLES
  Following are suggested frameworks for three IAI case
studies:
An Agricultural Adaptation
1. Background Information (Where are we now?)
   Existing assessments of potential adaptation by
agriculture to (global) environmental change have stemmed from
physical assessments of the expected impacts of altered
environmental conditions (e.g. climatic change, land
degradation,...) on selected agricultural properties (e.g. crop
yields, soil quality,...).  These studies have provided a foundation
and there has been considerable speculation about how farmers
and agricultural institutions might adapt to altered conditions
such as the use of irrigation to overcome enhanced moisture
deficits and/or the switch to varieties tolerant to a wider set of
climatic conditions.
2. A Framework to Advance Research
   It is now widely recognized that there are
several other questions that need to be addressed before issues
regarding agricultural adaptation to environmental change can be
addressed in a more comprehensive manner.  These include:
* Is the change or impact perceived by the farmer or agency?
* What indicators are used to perceive the change?
* How vulnerable is the farm or agency to the environmental
change
(rate, magnitude, frequency) and/or impact?
* What options for adaptation are available (actual vs.
perceived)?
* To what extent are these options sensitive to crop breeding
programs, agro-technology transfer, extension programs...?
* What is the capacity of the farm to respond and how is this
capacity
affected by farm credit, life cycle stage, etc.?
3. Roles for the IAI
 (a) Consolidate and assess existing impact assessments for the
Americas, identify regions and/or crops not yet considered,
 provide guidelines for interpreting this information (e.g.varying
assumptions, data inputs, models, etc.
 (b) Provide an assessment of other properties needing
investigation (nutrient cycling, etc.).
 (c) Organize an evaluation of previous impact models with the
intention of identifying a common pan-American impact
assessment methodology.
 (d) Questions identified in #2 have been addressed in part but
there is no accepted methodology.  IAI could convene a workshop
to review these methods and develop a set of guidelines to
ensure a consistent set of methods are applied to case studies.
 (e) Identify systems involving intensive to extensive
management, those involving small farms and industrialized
farms, and regions within the Americas to be used as case
studies.
 (f) Ensure the flow of information between the physical and
human dimensions of the adaptation field, and the communication
of the findings to decision makers.
 Pasture-Based Systems
 1. Background Information
    Transects are helpful in comparative studies of
pasture-based systems and some of these already exist for arid
and semi-arid areas. Existing programs include INTA, INIA,
EMBRAPA, and the IFDC network.
 2. A Framework to Advance Research
     Define and characterize the baseline information.
Indicators
 include soil organic matter, nutrient balances, and net primary
 production.  Create simulation models that develop climate
change
 scenarios and allow the evaluation of impacts on crop yields,
nutrients, ecosystem balances, income, and the direct effects of
increased CO2.
    Other parameters:
 * Define indicators which help to perceive impacts.
 * Identify vulnerable regions or systems.
 * Define the range of adaptive options, taking into consideration
possible technical barriers.
 * Assess capacity to adopt options (e.g. credit).
 3. Roles for the IAI
    Propose adaptive strategies, with possible changes in
land
 use or soil and crop management.
 Hydrologic Cycles
 1. Background Information
     How does land conversion affect the hydrologic
cycle in the temperate zone?  Individual studies exist but not in
all areas.  The question remains, how much can be generalized
across regions and how applicable are specific extant models to
other areas and scales.  Cooperative studies will facilitate land
use and socio-economic impacts in each area.  The following are
examples of existing networks and projects now underway:
 (a) GCIP/MAGS/LAMBADA (future Brazilian experiment)/SALSA
(proposed US-Mexico experiment);
 (b) NRBS; and
 (c) Long Term Ecologic Research Network (LTERN), NSF.
  2. A Framework for Research
     Baseline data is needed on local and regional
scales.  Baseline data monitoring includes satellite imagery, paleo
records, and stream flow.  Model validation and assessment of
model parameters is necessary across scales and region.  A
particular need exists for information in Mexico and South
America.  Training is needed in RS/GIS/ modeling and field
interfaces.  Also needed is translation of physical-biological
science to social and economic sciences and vice-versa.
=09
 3. Roles for the IAI
     Since watersheds cross political boundaries there
is a need
 for a regional facilitator of solutions.  Standardization, validation,
and
 assessment of model parameters needs to be done regionally.
     In addition, the IAI should serve as a strong
agent to facilitate the coordination and establishment of long-
term ecologic research sites in Mexico and the southern
hemisphere for comparative studies with existing long-term
study sites in the USA and Canada.
=09
VII. REFERENCES
Adams, R. M., 1989:  Global climate change and agriculture: An
economic perspective. Amer. J. Agric.Econ. 71,1272-1279.
Adams, R. M., Rosenzweig, C., Peart, R.M., McCarl, E. A., Glyer, J. D.,
Curry, R. B., Jones, J. W., Boote, K. J., and Allen, L. H., 1990: Global
climate change in U.S. Agriculture. Nature, 345,219-224.
Arthur, L. M., and Abizadeh, F., 1988:  Potential effects of climate
change on agriculture in the praire region of Canada. Western J.
Agrirc. Econ. 13,216-224.
Balling, R. C., 1988: The climatic impact of a Sonoran vegetation
discontinuity, Climatic Change, 13,99-109.
Baker, B. B., Hanson, J. D., Bourdon, R. M., and Eckert, J. B., 1993:  The
potential effects of climate change on ecosystem processes and
cattle production on U.S. rangelands, Climatic Change, 25,97-117.
Bergthorsson, P., 1985: Sensitivity of Icelandic agriculture to climatic
variations, Climatic Change, 7,11-127.
Crutzen, P. J., and Andreae, M. O., 1990:  Biomass burning in the
tropics: Impact on atmospheric chemistry and biogeochemical
cycles, Science, 250, 1669-1678.
Hunt, H. W., Trlica, M. J., Redente, E. F., Moore, J. C., Detling, J. K.,
Kittel, T. G. F., Walter, D. E., Fowler, M. C., KLein, D. A., and Elliot, E.
T., 1991:  Simulation model for the effects of climate change on
temperate grassland ecosystems, Ecol. Mod. 53, 205-246.
Oram, P. A., 1985:  Sensitivity of agricultural production to climatic
change, Climatic Change, 7, 129-152.
Parry, M. L., and Carter, T. R., 1985:  The effect of climate variations
on agricultural risk, Climatic Change, 7, 95-110.
Rosenberg, N. J., 1988:  Global climate change holds problems and
uncertainties for agriculture, In: Tutwiler, M. A. (ed.), U.S.
Agriculture in a global setting: An agenda for the future, National
Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Resources for the Future,
Washington, D.C., pp. 203-218.
Rosenzweig, C., 1985:  Potential CO2 induced climate effects on
Northern American wheat producing regions, Climatic Change, 7,
367-389.
Schimel, D. S., Parton, W. J., Kittel, T. G. F., Ojima, D. S., and Cole, C. =
V.,
1990:  Grassland biogeochemistry: Links to atmospheric processes.
Climatic Change, 17, 13-25.
Smith, J.B. and Tirpak, D. (eds), 1989:  The potential effects of global
climate change on the United States, Report to Congress, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (PM-221), Washington, D.C., 413 pp.
Steudler, P. A., Bowden, R. D., Melillo, J. M., and Aber, J. D., 1989:
Influence of nitrogen fertilization on methane uptake in temperate
forest soils. Nature, 341, 314-316.
Watson, R. T., Rodhe, H., Oeschger, H., and Siegenthaler, U., 1990:
Greenhouse gases and aerosols. In: Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J.,
and Ephraums, J. J., (eds.), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific
Assessment, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 1-40.
APPENDIX 1
IAI INITIAL SCIENTIFIC THEMES
* The Comparative Studies of Temperate Terrestrial Ecosystems;
* High Latitude Processes;
* Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions in the Intertropical
   Americas;
* Tropical Ecosystems and Biogeochemical Cycles;
* ENSO and Interannual Climate Variability;
* The Comparative Studies of Temperate Terrestrial Ecosystems;
* The Study of the Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity.
APPENDIX 2
ACRONYMS
IAI   Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research
USDA   U.S. Department of Agriculture
=46AO   Food and Agriculture Organization=09
IPCC   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change=09
UV-B   Ultra-violet B
GCM   General Circulation Model
AMIGO  Americas Interhemisphere Geo-biosphere
Organization
INTA   Instituto Nacional de Tecnolog=EDa Agr=EDcola
INIA   Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agr=EDcolas
EMBRAPA   Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisas Agr=EDcolas
IFDC   International Fertilizer Development Center
EPA   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
LAMBADA   Large Scale Atmospheric Moisture Balance of Amazona
   Using Data Assimilation
LTER   Long Term Ecological Research (NSF)
NSF      National Science Foundation
RS/GIS    Remote Sensing/Geographical Information System
NOAA    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA/OGP    NOAA/Office of Global Programs
APPENDIX 3
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Mario N. N=FA=F1ez
Secretar=EDa  de Ciencia y Tecnolog=EDa
Depart. de Meteorolog=EDa
Un. de Buenos Aires
Pabell=F3n II, Piso 2
Ciudad Universitar=EDa
Buenos Aires 1428
ARGENTINA
Tel. (54 1) 788 3572
=46ax (54 1) 788 3572
mnunez@cima.edu.ar =09
Graciela Odilia Magrin
Instituto de Clima y Agua, CIRN-INTA
1712 Castelar
Buenos Aires
ARGENTINA
Tel.  (54 1) 621 0125
=46ax  (54 1) 841 3032
mit@castelar.gov.ar
=09
Gustavo Maia Gomes
=46ederal University of Pernambuco
Rua Neusta Pierre, 134
Jardim Atl=E2ntico
Olinda, Pernambuco 53140-0908
BRAZIL
Tel. (55 81) 268 5274
=46ax (55 81) 227 4017
=09
Mike Brklacich
Carleton University,
Dept. of Geography=09
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, KIS 5B6
CANADA=09
Tel. (613) 788 2600 ext. 7553
=46ax (613) 788 4301
mbrklac@ces.carleton.ca
Donald MacIver
Atmospheric Environment Service
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin St.
Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4
CANADA
Tel. (416) 739 4391
=46ax (416) 739 4297
  =09
Henry Janzen
Agricultural Canada
Agricultural Canada
Jail Road, Lethbridge
Alberta T1J4B1
CANADA
Tel. (403) 327 4561 ext. 315
=46ax (403) 382 3156
janzen@abrsle.agr.ca
=09
Rick Lawford
Hydrometeorological Processes Division
National Hydrology Research Institute
11 Innovation Boulevard
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7N 3H5=09
CANADA
Tel. (306) 975 5775
=46ax (306) 975 5143=09
=46ernando Santib=E1=F1ez
Universidad de Chile
=46ac. de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales
Santa Rosa 11315
La Pintana, Santiago
CHILE
Tel. (562) 541 7703 ext. 226
=46ax (562) 541 7055
 =09
Doris Soto
Universidad Austral de Chile
=46acultad de Pesquer=EDas y Oceanograf=EDa Campus
Pelluco
Casilla 1327
Puerto Montt
CHILE
Tel. (56 65) 257 085
=46ax (56 65) 255 583
dsoto@valdivia.uca.uach.cl
Steve Bullock
CICESE=09
Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada Km. 107
Ensenada, Baja California
MEXICO
Tel. ( 52 617) 450 50 ext. 2820
=46ax  (52 617) 451 56
sbullock@cicese.mx=09
Roberto S=E1nchez
El Colegio de la Frontera
Environmental Studies Department
Abelardo Rodr=EDguez #21, Zona del Rio
Tijuana, B.C.
MEXICO
Tel. (52 66) 300 412
=46ax (52 66) 300 411
rsanchez@bestso.sdsd.edu
Alejandro E. Castellanos
C.I.C.T.U.S. Universidad de Sonora
Rosales Y Ni=F1os H=E9roes S/N
Hermosillo, Sonora 83000
MEXICO
Tel.-(52 621) 375 77
=46ax (52 621) 232 71
Eric Mellink
CICESE
Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada Km 107
Ensenada, Baja-California
Apdo Postal  2732
Ensenada, Baja-California
MEXICO
Tel. (617) 450 50
=46ax (617) 451 54
emellink@cicese.mx
=09
Walter Baethgen=09
International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)=09
Research and Development Division=09
J. Barrios Amorin 870 P. 3=09
Montevideo 11200=09
URUGUAY=09
Tel. (598 2) 423 357
=46ax. (598 2) 423 360
ifdc.uruguay@cgnet.com =09
Alejandro Mor=F3n
Instituto Nacional de Investigaci=F3n Agropecuaria INIA
 Estanzuela,
La Estanzuela
Colonia  CC 39173
URUGUAY
Tel. (59 85) 222 005
=46ax (59 85) 224 062
amoron@iniale.org.uy
Armando Rabufetti=09
INIA - Montevideo
Comisi=F3n Nacional sobre Cambio Global
Edificio Plaza Independencia, Oficina 34
Plaza Independencia, 776=09
Montevideo, CP 11200
URUGUAY=09
Tel. (59 82) 923 633
 =09
James Buizer
NOAA/Office of Global Programs
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1225
Silver Spring, MD  20910
USA
Tel. (301) 427 2089
=46ax (301) 427 2082
buizer@ogp.noaa.gov
Rub=E9n Lara Lara
IAI Office of the Executive Scientist
1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 1201
Silver Spring, MD  20910
USA
Tel.  (301) 589 5747
=46ax  (301) 589 5711
lara@ogp.noaa.gov
Marcella Ohira
IAI Office of the Executive Scientist
1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 1201
Silver Spring, MD  20910
USA
Tel. (301) 589 5747
=46ax (301) 589 5711
ohira@ogp.noaa.gov
=09
Diana Liverman
Pennsylvania State University
Dept. of Geography
302 Walker Building
University Park PA 16802
USA
Tel. (814) 863 7004
=46ax (814) 863 8018
   =09
Cynthia Rosenzweig
NASA/GISS=09
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
USA
Tel. (212) 678 5591
=46ax (212) 678 5638
cccer@nasagiss.nasa.gov
=09
Noel Grove
2114 St. Louis Rd.
Middleburg, VA 22117
USA
Tel.  (703) 687  5052
=46ax  (703) 687 5052
 =09
Donald Plucknett
Agricultural Research & Development International
7127 Little River Turnpike Suite 205A
Annandale, VA  22003
USA
Tel. (703) 354 5423
=46ax (703) 941 1936
  =09
Barry Baker
Ecosystem Research International, Consulting
305 W.Magnolia St. 261
720 Peterson Street
=46ort Collins - Colorado 80521
USA
Tel. (303) 493 4004
=46ax (303) 490 34006
barry@heavy.gpsr.colostate.edu
 =09
Alfredo Huete
University of Arizona
429 Shantz Bldg., # 38
Tucson, Arizona 85721
USA
Tel. (602) 621 3228
=46ax (602) 621 1647
swshuete@ccii.arizona.edu
William H. Schlesinger
Duke University
Department of Botany
Durham, NC  27708
USA
Tel. (919) 660 7406
=46ax (919) 660 7425
schlesin@acpub.duke.edu
 =09
Gay Bradshaw
USDA Forest Service
=46orest Sciences Lab.
3200 Jefferson Wasy
Corvallys, OR  97331
USA
Tel. (503) 750 7306
=46ax (503) 750 7329
bradshaw@fsl.orst.edu
 =09
Deborah Lawrence
Duke University
Department of Botany
P.O. Box 90339
Durham, NC 27708-0339
USA
Tel. (919) 684 3715
=46ax (919) 684 5412
dclawren@acpub.duke.edu
 =09
Maura Mack
Udall Center
University of Arizona for Studies in Public Policy
803/811 E. First Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85719
USA
Tel. (602) 621 9234
  =09
--========================_12413160==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul E. Filmer           |voice +1 (703) 306-1515
Program Director             |
&  Secretariat               |fax1  +1 (703) 306-0091
Inter American Institute for |fax2  +1 (703) 306-0372
      Global Change Research |fax3  +1 (301) 869-0873
National Science Foundation  |
4201 Wilson Boulevard        |INTERNET:pfilmer@nsf.gov
Arlington, VA 22230, USA     |
                             |
"Nunca dije tal cosa" - Borges
------------------------------------------------------
--========================_12413160==_--