Importance of Natural Resources

Katharine Suding’s MacArthur Address ESA 2019: Resilience, Recovery and the Ecology of Change

(gentle music) – Katharine Suding is a
leader in community ecology. She applies empirical and
theoretical approaches to address both fundamental
and applied problems faced by ecological communities
in today’s changing world. Her presentation is entitled Resilience, Recovery, and
the Ecology of Change. Please help me welcome
our MacArthur lecturer, speaker, Dr. Katie Suding. (audience applauding) Thank you so much. – Thanks. Thank you, it’s great to be here today. It’s an honor, it’s such a pleasure to follow in MacArthur’s footsteps. I hope today I can exemplify his influence on transforming ecology, particularly by linking
ecological theory to patterns of natural history, as well
as translating those linkages to problems in resource
management and conservation. What I wanna start out with,
though, are thanks. It is amazing to have this sort of honor and there’s no way that
I could have done it without a lot of people. One thing that is great about ecology and ESA as a society is
its collaborative spirit. And it’s the people, it’s working with people, debating, getting inspired, working with such a diverse group that really makes me
excited to do this work and to contribute every day. I’d like to first thank my mentors, Deborah Goldberg, Kay
Gross, Scott Collins, Richard Hobbs, Tim Seastedt, for giving me such
inspiration and such advice to follow in their footsteps. I couldn’t have done this without you. I also wanna thank my peers that do such excellent
work, especially my peers in other disciplines
that have just allowed me to ask naive questions
and been eager to explore new territory with me. And lastly, most importantly, I’d like to thank all
the students and postdocs that I have mentored, it’s
been a pleasure to work with you. They are amazing group of people, and I am so proud of all
their accomplishments. All of what I say today, all of it, has been inspired by work with them. I want to end by thanking funding agencies and community partners in allowing me to be able to translate
fundamental science to community, locally-engaged work. And just one last thanks,
and then I’ll move on. But I also want to thank my family. I think that most people understand that even something that you like so much, there are times where uncertainty arises, and you ask, is this
really what I want to do? And it’s great to be
surrounded by people who say, “are you kidding, you love this.” And I really do love it, and I really do thank my family for all their support. I particularly want to thank my father, a geologist who took me
into the field every summer as a kid, an unfailing supporter,
who died a couple weeks ago. I hope, I hope, that I
can pass on that same spark of curiosity in the natural world to my kids, as well as to anyone
else who crosses my path. I want to start today
pointing out something that is clear to everyone in this room. The environment is changing, and it’s changing due to human impact. This is a problem that is not new to us. It was highlighted by Peter Vitousek in his MacArthur lecture 16 years ago. It is past debate, and
it is happening now. And as John Oliver says, to
even debate about climate change is like asking, “Do owls exist?”, “Which number is bigger?”, or
my favorite, “Are there hats?” I am going to start with
the idea that the climate is changing, and the biggest, the biggest challenge facing us, facing us as a discipline is the ecological
consequences of that change. We are living in a very different world than the one that MacArthur worked in. Patterns of natural
history distorted in ways that I’m sure he didn’t anticipate. Our discipline moving past assumptions of equilibrium that he largely worked in, and facing an
uncertain, fairly scary future, that I’m sure he wouldn’t
have ever imagined. We know, we know that we are
entering new, unknown territory The great magnitude of
the environmental changes that are occurring, changes more rapid than we ever have experienced in the past, and a mix of several compounding
drivers: climate, land use, invasive
species, extreme disturbances. But as we enter this new
territory in ecology, we have been working on the issues about how the environmental
template and drivers affect biotic interactions
for decades, and we do have a lot of baseline understanding to know, or to at least expect,
what we should anticipate. For instance, responses of ecological systems should, we anticipate, and we
actually know in many cases, be a mixture of responses at the genetic, at the physiological, at the
population, at the community, and at the ecosystem levels. And all these responses
simultaneously will yield how an ecosystem will
respond to environmental change. We also know that the
changes ahead of us are going to hit,
and are hitting, all the ecosystems that we work in across all of the places that we work. Wild landscapes,
managed landscapes working landscapes, cultural landscapes, and urban landscapes. It’s going to affect everything we
work on, everywhere we work. And it’s not surprising that when you look at
papers published in ecology over the last several years, over 50%, over 50% of the papers
address topics related to the ecological consequences of environmental change. We’re working on this problem a lot. It is clear it is
one of the most challenging problems our discipline will face
in our lifetime. I want to contrast this, though, with how our science is being translated to
environmental management. We are largely translating our science in a very static manner. For instance, when we
talk about restoration and we study recovery of degraded systems, it’s largely based on assumption
of a historic baseline some time in the past,
or on reference systems, some baseline in the present. When we are dealing with these references,
when we measure recovery, it’s usually towards one single site at one single time point. We’re trying to hit a target with little spacial or
temporal variation allowed. Resilience has been increasingly used in environmental management
as a way to make sense of all these environmental changes, but only insofar as
resilience meaning stability and the ability to absorb change. A recent review about
management recommendations in forests related to climate change found that 86% of all
management recommendations were to maintain existing
patterns and processes. And while the human side
of the climate change coin has adopted ideas about
adaptation and adaptive capacity, there’s been few
recommendations in the natural, ecological sciences side, and when those
recommendations are made, they are rarely implemented due to high uncertainty and high risk. Do we really know what
we’re doing in these cases? Do we really know enough to intervene and to make those
recommendations a success? I want to point out now
that we’re in this area that put me a bit at unease. We are dealing with this idea that the environment is changing, and changing rapidly,
but we aren’t translating our recommendations to effective, sustainable management. And this, I think, stems from our translation of science and how we’re dealing with change. On one side, often our management goals are to keep ecology as
unchanged as possible, thinking about resilience as
the ability to absorb change, and thinking about recovery
back to a single reference. But we know, we know from decades of work, and much current work, that ecological change is to be expected, that in a natural, a self
sustaining, healthy system, you should expect turnover
in genotypes, species, functional groups, and that those processes are key to maintaining diversity, Change is key to understand diversity, if we are able to preserve,
maintain, or restore it. So there’s a disconnect here. It’s interesting that people studying ethics and philosophy have also identified this
disconnect in ecology. And they point to a couple reasons why, the roots of the disconnect. And one thing that they point to is if we really start talking about ecological change,
and managing for change in ecological systems, then
we release the constraint of historical baselines or
benchmarks in our science. And once we release that,
we can go rudderless, and we open up us to the
possibility of “anything goes.” What is good change? What is bad change? How do we navigate, how do we understand what trajectory different
systems might be going on? And I think this is a key for our discipline in the next decade: it is not change, or
whether our systems have changed, but the challenge is the many flavors of change, how we describe change, how we measure change, how we detail different trajectories and
identify the control points on those trajectories, where we can modify and
guide ecological systems towards certain outcomes versus others. This is what I will focus on today. It is a monstrous challenge, and one that’s pretty intimidating, and it is going to take a lot of tools and
skillsets of a large amount of people to really get this done. I want to talk today about my experiences in my work with some of my colleagues in making progress in terms of the ecological consequences of environmental change as a place to start. One reason I got interested
in ecology in the first place is the web of interactions
that ecological communities are characterized for, by the complexity, by all these interesting
different organisms that are all interacting together and making this system what it is. And I imagine that many of
you also who are interested in ecology, got interested in ecology are similar, with similar interests. And I’ve been spending
the last several decades thinking about this ball of interactions, if you want to describe it that way, and thinking about what external drivers could do to this ball of interactions. How these external
drivers kick the ball, whether it is a humongous
boot down the field, or whether it’s a sustained dribble, and what are the ecological
consequences of all those kicks to this ball of interactions? You can think about this ball
as many different components, depending on what you study, individuals, genotypes, species, resources that are flowing to different
compartments of an ecosystem, and the lines connecting these components as interactions, both positive and negative. There are many ways that
these external drivers can affect this ball of
interactions, or this community. One of the simplest ways, and one of the ways that we
largely oftentimes assume will happen is that external drivers will affect all components of the system, interactions are really not that important, and then those translate pretty simply to an ecological response. But there are other ways and outcomes. One is that the external drivers can change, cause responses in a system, but the internal dynamics of the system compensate, moderate
those kicks to the system, and consequentually, the biotic system really doesn’t change all that much. Another way that these external drivers can have consequences is through
really surprising effects where the direct effects
on particular components within a system are changed and moderated by interactions, and other components of the system are the most responsive. There’s a lot of different
scenarios that could happen, my lab and I have tried to to better understand
how these complex systems respond to these external drivers. The approach we have taken has been to use a combination of long
term observational data with experimental approaches that manipulate both the external drivers as well as the internal
structure of the communities. And then population modeling, using both experimental data and long term observational data. These approaches have
allowed us to determine, or to better see, the direct effects of these environmental drivers, as well as the environmental dependence of all the internal dynamics that we study so much in ecology: growth rate when rare,
invasions, feedbacks, negative frequency dependence,
density dependence. I want to share with you a couple of the results
that we have found. In the serpentine grassland in California, we have found that species
are responsive to rainfall when they are rare, but this response is heavily moderated
at the population level due to strong negative
frequency dependence. Interactions with conspecifics, intraspecific interactions,
moderate these rainfall effects and result in actually very
muted responses of these species to rainfall. And in fact, the species that
respond the most strongly to rainfall in this community are ones that actually don’t respond that strongly to rainfall
when they are rare, but ones that have very weak
negative frequency dependence, and this response translates
to population dynamics. In alpine tundra, we have
found that the dominant species strongly respond to
environmental change drivers, through experimental manipulations, but the subordinate and rare species really don’t see those external drivers, rather they are responding to whatever the dominant species are doing. When we remove the dominant
species from this system we find that a mixture of
negative and positive interactions with the dominant species
allow for the structuring of the community, and this maintains the super high diversity. In the Carrizo Plains we
studied a record drought that occurred in 2014, 2015. This record drought was
super stressful on the system. It caused vegetative cover to be reduced to about 12%, an amazingly extreme event. And yes, this caused a
decline in most species. But we found, surprisingly, that rare species actually
increased due to this event, that they actually increased
in this very harsh, harsh environment, due
to competitive release. Because their abundance
and their interactions were so strongly structured
by the other species, and because those other
species did poorly, the rare species actually did better. In native grasslands in California we found that strong feedbacks through the soil community
stabilize the native plant community and allow it to be strongly resilient to external drivers like
increased nitrogen inputs. And so they are able to persist way beyond what you’d
imagine, or what you’d predict based on direct environmental
nitrogen effects. This creates a path dependence of recovery versus response or hysteresis, where these native grasslands are able to maintain their
identity and structure at nitrogen levels far
beyond what you’d expect, but if you were going to
start a native grassland from low abundances, that
would only be possible at very, very low nitrogen inputs. In California rangelands that are comprised mostly
by two functional groups, annual forage grasslands
and annual forbs, we found that competitive variability actually allows the
rarer group, the forbs, to persist, and this is due
to competitive nonlinearities where these forbs are
competitively released in some climate situations, in this case in particular
early season drought. And so it’s climate variability that allows for persistence of both functional groups in this system. And then lastly across all these studies that I talked about,
we find again and again that the responses that we’re seeing in the ecological
community are not just due to the current climate conditions, but there is all sorts of
temporal lags in response. To give you one example, in California annual grasslands, we find that the response to the rainfall in a given community
is dictated about half to the current year’s
conditions, and half, half of the response is temporally
lagged at least one year, so last year’s rainfall. This is due to several mechanisms, like seed bank regeneration dynamics, and actually just fundamentally
different response rates with species with
different life history traits. So thinking about this, I got interested in ecology due to these types of interactions, and looking at them very mechanistically I find that it is the variations in the way these
interactions are organized among species that translates to how these systems are responding
to external drivers. And even though this was anticipated, and really, really
drove my passion to study in these ecological communities, time and time again I
found it so surprising, amazing, that these internal dynamics can be so strong and matter
so much in our ability to translate how these
environmental changes will affect ecological response. It is amazing. The biological organization
within a system can be as important, and sometimes we find even more
important, than any impact of the external driver itself. What amazing, what amazing
complex systems that we study. It is just great. So let’s just take a step back and talk about what I
was focusing on earlier today, that we’ve been doing this work to try to
translate it to management and what we should do in situations for conservation, for restoration. And does this information help? Is it helpful, does it help
correct some of this disconnect that I pointed out before? And I will say yes, I think it does, at least a little bit. Let me give you some examples. In the native California grasslands, we are able to work with
managers to identify areas with low nitrogen
inputs with the best ability to restore these grasslands, as well as areas with really
high nitrogen availabilities that unfortunately we have
to think about alternative futures, and really can’ figure out ways to reestablish native grasslands. And we also have worked with manager
in these intermediate zones of nitrogen inputs, thinking
about the importance of maintaining established grasslands, maintaining those soil
feedbacks, because they are key, key to the persistence of this system. And then another example
in California rangelands, being able to work with ranchers and understand that the coexistence between these different functional groups, forbs, and the annual forage grasses actually might matter to ranchers. It might matter to
ranchers not in those years that are great forage years, where the annual grasses do wonderfully, but will matter to ranchers in the years with early season drought, where the grasses don’t do well. It is these years
that they need to keep, maintain the forbs, the
other functional groups, in the system in order to
stabilize forage production for their economic benefit, and to be able to feed their cattle. So yes, we have been able
to translate a little bit. But stepping back even further, I don’t think we’re translating enough. And I want to bring up this quote from philosopher Donald Schon, who talks about the
challenges of translating science, technical knowledge
to societal problems, and I will just read part of what he says. “In the very topography
of professional practice, “there’s a high, hard
ground overlooking a swamp. “On the high ground, manageable problems “lend themselves to solutions “through use of research
based theory and technique. “In the swampy lowlands,
problems are messy and confusing. “The irony of this situation
is that the problems “on the high ground tend to
be relatively unimportant “to individuals or society at large, “however great their
technical interests might be, “while in the swamp, in
the swamp lies problems “of greatest human concern. “The practitioner is
confronted with a choice, “shall she,” so pardon
my little edit there, “remain on the high
ground where she can solve “relatively unimportant problems “according to her standards of rigor, “or shall she descend do the swamp “of important problems
where she cannot be rigorous “in any way she knows how to describe?” On reflection, and thinking
about how to address this grand challenge about what are the ecological consequences of all these environmental changes that
are hitting our system, I’ve been walking around the swamp, maybe getting my feet wet, but not really, really diving in, and I
think we all should consider wading into this swamp,
really getting deep, really thinking about translating,
to really solve these problems. And if that’s uncomfortable, lets form a team, form a team with people that do wade in the swamp. To think about
how we might do this, and how we might be able to translate all our knowledge about
these complex systems a little bit better, to
address the societal problem of environmental change, I’ve come up with a
couple recommendations. And I find these a
little bit insufficient, I have to say, but at
least it might be a start. I’d like to start with four probably insufficient recommendations. And I’m gonna describe these
in terms of these four terms, uncertainty, flexibility, ecological integrity,
and adaptive capacity. So when you think about this
problem that we’re facing, this problem of translating environmental changes
to ecological responses and then being able to suggest good policy alternatives
or management techniques to address those, we’re dealing with a multi-layered problem. For instance, for climate change, climate models, down
scaling climate models to our local situations,
translating those climate effects and exposure to different
parts of the landscape that have different
resource availabilities and resource limitations, then also translating, once again, to how these different changes in resource limitation and stress affect the ecological interactions that we know to be so important, and then lastly how those
effects might be translated to effects on policy and
chances in human behavior, that will certainly loop back to every one of these other components. That is a lot, a lot of
translation to go through, and I want to argue, and I’ve
been thinking about this a lot, that this is inherently highly uncertain, and that we should think about how much, how much we should take time
to only do mechanistic work and only really focus on one
aspect of many, and how much time we should say, hey I think there’s something happening, but I’m okay with some uncertainty, because this is an
inherently uncertain problem. Bill Sutherland in a 2006 Tansely lecture said “the ability to predict consequences “of a given change would lead ecology “to be taken more seriously.” And while I groan a
little bit about the statement, I think he hits home a point that if we’re saying, we
just need more information and more information, and
we’re never going to be able to make a prediction, even
acknowledging and communicating the high uncertainty, then we’re doing the rest of the world a disservice. We really need
to know when it’s okay to go down a trail, even
if it’s super, super foggy. We need to know about when to act, when there’s too much risk to act, and so thinking about risk as a component that we should be studying, and how much analysis we need to eliminate unwanted risk, but then also acknowledging just because there’s high uncertainty doesn’t mean that we should not act. We should suggest,
and we should innovate, and we should experiment. Flexibility directly relates to this idea about uncertainty, that
due to all these dynamics that we’re finding in ecological systems, particular with this unprecedented rate of environmental change, nonlinearities, nonstationarity in environmental factors, feedbacks, highly interactive systems, we expect strong path dependence, multiple trajectories
that could take place in any of the systems
that we are studying. To actually use that
as a template of our study would be highly prudent, to not
expect that we should know exactly which one, but think
about these trajectories of change together as a
suite of possibilities heading into the future. When we do this there are ramifications to how we manage and how we set policy. One of the ways to address the concern that if we start acknowledging change, and ecological systems will change, we will need to stop the “anything
goes” phenomena by having regulation
and policy to form very rigid, rigid standards, right? Because we don’t want the
anything goes scenario to ensue. So then adding on that we need to be flexible in our policies, we really need to guide with rigorous quantitative ways to understand these trajectories of change. I want to give you one example where we find that this kind
of rigidity in management and policy is actually
affecting how we are able to navigate this new territory, this new world of ecological change. When we work with ranchers
across the Western United States, and we talk to them about
how they’re adapting to climate change and
drought in particular, one of the things they repeatedly, repeatedly bring up is how they would like to be able to adapt,
they’d like to be able to change up their grazing
practices, but on public land, they’re unable to, because
of regulations and rules that federal agencies have put into place, and put into place for
very good reasons, right? Put into place to enable good
stewardship of public lands. But this is not really working right now if the ranchers have to start
changing their practices, and start having to adapt
to more climate variability with seasons starting or ending later, with systems being able to
support more, less cattle. And so having that flexibility, and really giving the
science so that the managers can formulate the
flexibility in the policy really, really is key. And lastly I have to say
that if we’re gonna advocate more flexibility and navigate that, we have to also advocate for more and more monitoring frameworks. It is the only way that
we’ll be able to know how these ecological systems are changing, and also advocate for rigorous, repeated analysis of
those responses to change. Third, I wanna bring up this term ecological integrity, a term that has been used in several papers trying to inform international
restoration standards for some of the work done
by the United Nations, and really struggling to figure out what are we meaning, how
do we manage a system, and what is success? Mark Sagoff, another philosopher, describes this kind of disconnect between how the policy,
international policy, documents describe biodiversity success and how we measure it, and he says, “It is difficult to know
what environmental protection “is supposed to protect, and hard to know “what can be counted as
ecological gains or losses.” Based on the words that are reflected in international biodiversity goals. For instance, sustainability
manage and protect, maintain ecological integrity, keep impacts within
safe ecological limits, safeguard ecosystem health,
strengthen resilience. And I think all of us in this room, we have a general feeling
what is meant, we do. We have this impression, we
kind of know what they mean. But it’s super hard to quantify this. In a recent
review by Donahue in 2016 looked at measures of ecological
stability, for instance, they found that we are focusing on just a single metric,
often largely biomass, but we’re missing the quantification, the multidimensional
quantification of changing nature. And I think that’s really important, given about what
I’ve been talking about, about how important a system response is this web of interactions,
and how that is changing. And if you think about
what these words are that are being used in
international policy documents, ecological integrity,
sustainability, ecosystem health, those are all measurements
that are referring to this multidimensional complex system. Other disciplines have hit this as well, hit this need to be able
to quantitatively translate these ideas about complexity to use in physics, in information
theory, and economics, so we can borrow from these fields. We can translate, we can
translate how an ecological system is responding to these changes through multidimensional metrics. And for instance, just as an example, we can order systems based
on their spatial patterns, their temporal patterns,
patterns with interactions across different components, from disordered systems to ordered systems using such metrics as Shannon entropy, and interestingly it’s
likely that a sweet spot in the middle is
what we we are referring to when we were referring to self sustainable ecological integrity in
terms of our systems. So it is a high level of complexity that is not highly ordered, order is something that
we know we need to avoid and characterizes a lot of
strongly human structured systems as well as highly disordered. And lastly I want to end
with an idea about how we can continue
mechanistic work but think about a little
bit different component of mechanism, and that is
through adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity has been an
idea related to resilience, but really carried forth in
thinking about human societies and how humans will adapt to change. And here’s a definition from
the IPPC report in 2001. “The ability of a system to
adjust to climate change, “to moderate potential damages, “to take advantage of opportunities, “and to cope with the consequences.” So a very human-centered definition, but I think there’s a lot of potential to think about ecological
systems in this same light. We might not know the future direction that environmental change
will take ecological systems, but we can think about
building these systems up and what it takes to build
up the adaptive capacity, so they’re able to deal with
whatever the future holds, whether it’s resilience building, whether it’s vulnerability reducing, or whether it’s transformation enabling. And we don’t have to
decide, but we can develop ways to look at mechanisms that enable the system’s adaptive capacity. One of the central tenets
in adaptive capacity that has high relevance to ecology is something called response diversity, where instead of thinking
about taxonomic diversity, think about functional responses and make sure that there are a lot, a lot of different trajectories the system will be able to
take through genetic turnover, species turnover, changes
in ecosystem function, and it’s this idea about making sure systems have high response diversity that might be key, key to
ensuring adaptive capacity and the ability of our systems to persist in light of environmental change. One way to operationalize this is thinking about functional traits, and borrowing ideas from
evolutionary biology, such as adaptive landscapes, so thinking about phenotypes,
connecting to fitness, and thinking that there’s a lot of different directions where different traits and
the components of a community could be reflective in
different adaptive trajectories. Some trajectories
might not be adaptive, and some trajectories might be neutral. Better understanding this through the lens of functional traits. We are working on thinking
about adaptive capacity and talking to managers
about how to manage for this, and I want to just give you
two quick examples of that. You think of adaptive capacity in place, how to make the system right here be more able to adapt to
whatever the future holds. And we’re working with
the city of Boulder, thinking about seed banks and grasslands as perhaps the place that
we should be monitoring and we should be looking
for response diversity, and maybe we should be intervening and thinking about how we can augment that response diversity in the seed bank, just in case, whatever changes ensure in
the future. You can also think about
adaptive capacity in space, and Claire Kremen and Adina Merenlender have done some really
important work on this aspect, thinking
about the importance of diversifying managed landscapes, cultural landscapes, urban landscapes, everywhere, so that
species have the ability to move in space and have
that ability to adapt as the environment changes. So I know that it’s probably
just the starting of a step, but I urge people with
different skill sets, and different ways of looking at things to consider, consider these ideas, and consider whether they
are ways to move forward, and really making
meeting this challenge of knowing that ecological
systems will change, and navigating that change. Thinking about the different
trajectories of that change, quantifying it, and thinking
about control points in those trajectories that we
might be able to intervene, to guide ecosystem change
one way or the other. So uncertainty, flexibility,
ecological integrity and other metrics, adaptive capacity is perhaps a really powerful mechanism. And I want to end today
with kind of a vision, a vision over the next decade or two. I really hope that society starts looking more and more to ecology to start answering questions about a future, future vision of change. I’d like them to look, and
I’d like them to be able to feel like they have enough answers from our science, so they are okay saying “Okay, our ecological systems will change, “and these are the ways, possibility, “about how they will change,” and that they feel secure and confident that they can guide change
in as far as they can, and that they are not,
they are not accepting this anything goes scenario. They are still being
good stewards of the land, and we are still managing
our important natural systems in a prudent, safe way. And maybe another way to put it, a little bit more closer to home, here’s a picture of Boulder
in the early 1900’s. We can document a lot of ecological change that has occurred on this landscape right outside campus, from then to now, in the grasslands, in the forests. We understand pretty well the mechanisms behind those changes, but
what I am being asked right now from city planners and ecologists that work in Boulder systems is what is this going to look like in 2050 when the climate of Boulder is predicted to be like Albuquerque? And I can give some, I
can give some solutions, and maybe they are a little bit helpful, that the systems, the
biological structures of the ecological
systems that they work in are really strong, the
interactions are very important, and likely those interactions are gonna dictate a lot of
the trajectory of change. We know there might be some surprises, but we’re also pretty sure that the systems are not going to
look just like Albuquerque’s. We certainly should manage them for that type of turnover. We also can help them think
about adaptive capacity, and how they might be able to monitor and use their monitoring frameworks to better assess how change is occurring, and where we can intervene, particularly if there’s
dramatic, undesirable change. But I hope, I hope over the next decade, we will be able to be even more helpful, and be able to speak more about how we quantify this change, how we describe it, and how we really provide solutions knowing that the system, yes, will change. Understanding the ecological
components of change well enough to be able to say, you don’t have to manage to keep everything intact, you can successfully manage to guide, to guide these trajectories. And I want to end with just one last hope. I hope that people
are willing to jump in and think about the marsh, and think about the translation about our science from the high ground traveling between the
high ground and the marsh, and the marsh being a
lot of these questions that I think really face us, really face us in the next
decade. Thanks a lot. (audience applauding)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *