Biogeosciences Perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) Science

Abstract

This article is composed of three independent commentaries about the state of Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) principles in the American Geophysical Union Biogeosciences section, and discussion on the opportunities and challenges of adopting them. Each commentary focuses on a different topic: (a) Global collaboration, technology transfer, and application (Section 2), (b) Community engagement, community science, education, and stakeholder involvement (Section 3), and (c) Field, experimental, remote sensing, and real‐time data research and application (Section 4). We discuss needs and strategies for implementing ICON and outline short‐ and long‐term goals. The inclusion of global data and international community engagement are key to tackling grand challenges in biogeosciences. Although recent technological advances and growing open‐access information across the world have enabled global collaborations to some extent, several barriers, ranging from technical to organizational to cultural, have remained in advancing interoperability and tangible scientific progress in biogeosciences. Overcoming these hurdles is necessary to address pressing large‐scale research questions and applications in the biogeosciences, where ICON principles are essential. Here, we list several opportunities for ICON, including coordinated experimentation and field observations across global sites, that are ripe for implementation in biogeosciences as a means to scientific advancements and social progress.

Full text

Abstract This article is composed of three independent commentaries about the state of Integrated,
Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) principles in the American Geophysical UnionBiogeosciences section,
and discussion on the opportunities and challenges of adopting them. Each commentary focuses on a different
topic: (a) Global collaboration, technology transfer, and application (Section 2), (b) Community engagement,
community science, education, and stakeholder involvement (Section 3), and (c) Field, experimental,
remote sensing, and real-time data research and application (Section 4). We discuss needs and strategies for
implementing ICON and outline short- and long-term goals. The inclusion of global data and international
community engagement are key to tackling grand challenges in biogeosciences. Although recent technological
advances and growing open-access information across the world have enabled global collaborations to some
extent, several barriers, ranging from technical to organizational to cultural, have remained in advancing
interoperability and tangible scientific progress in biogeosciences. Overcoming these hurdles is necessary to
address pressing large-scale research questions and applications in the biogeosciences, where ICON principles
are essential. Here, we list several opportunities for ICON, including coordinated experimentation and field
observations across global sites, that are ripe for implementation in biogeosciences as a means to scientific
advancements and social progress.
Plain Language Summary Biogeosciences is an interdisciplinary field that requires multiscale
global data and concerted international community efforts to tackle grand challenges. However, several
technical, institutional, and cultural hurdles have remained as major roadblocks toward scientific progress,
hindering seamless global data acquisition and international community engagement. To bring a paradigm
shift in biogeosciences, there is a need to implement integrated, coordinated, open, and networked efforts,
collectively known as the Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) principles. In this article, we
present three related commentaries about the state of ICON, discuss needs to reduce geographical bias in
data for enhancing scientific progress, and identify action items. Action items are primarily people-centric
DWIVEDI ET AL.
© 2022 The Authors. This article has
been contributed to by U.S. Government
employees and their work is in the public
domain in the USA.
This is an open access article under
the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
Biogeosciences Perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated, Open,
Networked (ICON) Science
D. Dwivedi1 , A. L. D. Santos2 , M. A. Barnard3 , T. M. Crimmins4 , A. Malhotra5,
K. A. Rod6, K. S. Aho7 , S. M. Bell8 , B. Bomfim9 , F. Q. Brearley10, H. Cadillo-Quiroz11 ,
J. Chen12 , C. M. Gough13 , E. B. Graham6,14 , C. R. Hakkenberg15 , L. Haygood16,17 ,
G. Koren18 , E. A. Lilleskov19 , L. K. Meredith20 , S. Naeher21 , Z. L. Nickerson7 ,
O. Pourret22 , H.-S. Song23,24 , M. Stahl25 , N. Taş1 , R. Vargas26 , and S. Weintraub-Leff7
1Earth and Environmental Sciences Area, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2Department of
Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Paraná, Polytechnic Center Campus, Curitiba, Brazil, 3Institute of Marine
Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead City, NC, USA, 4School of Natural Resources and the
Environment, USA National Phenology Network, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 5Department of Earth System
Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 6Earth and Biological Sciences Directorate, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA, 7National Ecological Observatory Network, Battelle, Boulder, CO, USA, 8Institute of
Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, Spain, 9Climate
and Ecosystems Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA, 10Department of Natural
Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK, 11School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ, USA, 12Department of Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI,
USA, 13Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA, 14School of Biological Sciences,
Washington State University, Richland, WA, USA, 15School of Informatics, Computing & Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona
University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 16Department of Geosciences, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA, 17Boone Pickens
School of Geology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA, 18Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development,
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 19Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Houghton, MI, USA,
20School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 21Department of Surface
Geosciences, GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 22AGHYLE, UniLaSalle, Beauvais, France, 23Department of
Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA, 24Department of Food Science and
Technology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA, 25Department of Geosciences, Union College, Schenectady,
NY, USA, 26Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
Key Points:
• Biogeosciences needs Integrated,
Coordinated, Open, Networked
(ICON) principles to address
multiscale global problems and
reduce geographical bias in scientific
progress
• Much potential exists for emphasizing
people-centric capacity building,
involving relevant stakeholders within
an ICON framework
• Globally coordinated experimental
and field data provide challenges
and opportunities for scientific
advancement in biogeosciences
Correspondence to:
D. Dwivedi,
ddwivedi@lbl.gov
Citation:
Dwivedi, D., Santos, A. L. D., Barnard,
M. A., Crimmins, T. M., Malhotra, A.,
Rod, K. A., etal. (2022). Biogeosciences
perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated,
Open, Networked (ICON) science. Earth
and Space Science, 9, e2021EA002119.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EA002119
Received 5 NOV 2021
Accepted 15 FEB 2022
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization: D. Dwivedi, A. L. D.
Santos, M. A. Barnard, T. M. Crimmins,
A. Malhotra, K. A. Rod, K. S. Aho, S.
M. Bell, B. Bomfim, F. Q. Brearley, H.
Cadillo-Quiroz, J. Chen, C. M. Gough,
E. B. Graham, C. R. Hakkenberg, L.
Haygood, G. Koren, E. A. Lilleskov, L. K.
Meredith, S. Naeher, Z. L. Nickerson, O.
Pourret, H.-S. Song, M. Stahl, N. Taş, R.
Vargas, S. Weintraub-Leff
10.1029/2021EA002119
COMMENTARY
1 of 8

Earth and Space Science
DWIVEDI ET AL.
10.1029/2021EA002119
2 of 8
1. Introduction
Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) science aims to enhance synthesis, increase resource effi-
ciency, and create transferable knowledge (Goldman etal.,2021). In particular, ICON science is an approach to
designing and carrying out research activities encompassing four components:
1. Integrating processes across traditional disciplines
2. Coordinating consistent protocols across systems to generate interoperable data across systems
3. Openly exchanging ideas, data, software, and models, and
4. Promoting networks and collaborations that benefit and provide resources toward common scientific goals
synergistically
Biogeosciences is an inherently interdisciplinary field that needs ICON to address grand environmental chal-
lenges, including anthropogenic climate change and its effects on abiotic and biotic systems. Tackling multiscale
global problems requires reducing geographical bias in data collection and scientific progress. Integrating biol-
ogy, chemistry, and Earth sciences, the biogeosciences address human impacts on the biophysical and chemical
properties of terrestrial and aquatic systems around the globe. However, a variety of hurdles prevent ICON
implementation in biogeosciences. As part of a collection of commentaries spanning ICON in the geosciences
(Goldman etal.,2021), this article evaluates the state of ICON in biogeosciences and focuses on three aspects
surrounding global collaborations, stakeholder engagement, and data research and application in biogeosciences.
2. Global Collaboration, Technology Transfer, and Application
2.1. The Need for ICON in Biogeosciences
Many pressing grand environmental challenges, including climate change and nutrient deposition, are global in
scope and transcend political boundaries (Figure1). These challenges are linked to local-to-global ecosystem
processes (e.g., carbon or nitrogen cycling) that require distributed observations across spatial scales. Too often,
measurements and networks are defined within political boundaries and concentrated in high-income countries,
leading to geographical biases (e.g., Stell etal.,2021). Appropriately addressing these grand challenges requires
research to be conducted across countries in a coordinated way. However, participation costs can be prohibitive,
especially for developing countries. Given this barrier and the heterogeneity of methods available in biogeo-
sciences, we must develop strong instrumentation and protocol coordination for characterizing biogeochemi-
cal pools and fluxes, data archiving, and researcher training (e.g., Hubbard etal., 2018, 2020; Varadharajan
etal., 2019). Overall, tackling biogeosciences grand challenges requires concerted actions that are integrated,
coordinated, open, and networked. Below, we briefly describe several hurdles toward implementing the ICON
principles and discuss the path forward for pioneering global biogeosciences.
2.2. Major Challenges
Grand challenges in the field of biogeosciences are global and require international collaborations to address
them. Integrated and coordinated efforts are needed for success, but organizational and cultural challenges
for global collaborations present barriers to interoperability (Villarreal & Vargas,2021). Organizational barriers
relate to challenges regarding institutional responsibility and authority, as well as the inequality of resources
(Mirtl etal.,2018; Vargas etal., 2017). Cultural barriers relate to how scientists perceive the world and their
relationships and collaborations. Differences in cultural norms, institutions, education, socioeconomic status,
modes of communication, language, infrastructure, and technology complicate collaboration between scholars
from different regions, institutes, or subdisciplines. Recent decades have witnessed an enthusiasm for collaborat-
ing in education and research, as most scholars recognize the importance of joint efforts in seeking solutions for
global environmental issues. Therefore, open and networked efforts are also needed to address grand challenges
in the field of biogeosciences. However, cultural barriers can hinder networking, and institutions may prioritize
and include but are not limited to: longer-term funding priorities to institutionalize capacity and reduce entry
costs, engagement of local stakeholders across the globe, incentivization of collaborations, and development of
training and workshops for capacity building.
Methodology: D. Dwivedi, A. L. D.
Santos, M. A. Barnard, T. M. Crimmins,
A. Malhotra, K. A. Rod, K. S. Aho, S.
M. Bell, B. Bomfim, F. Q. Brearley, H.
Cadillo-Quiroz, J. Chen, C. M. Gough,
E. B. Graham, C. R. Hakkenberg, L.
Haygood, G. Koren, E. A. Lilleskov, L. K.
Meredith, S. Naeher, Z. L. Nickerson, O.
Pourret, H.-S. Song, M. Stahl, N. Taş, R.
Vargas, S. Weintraub-Leff
Supervision: D. Dwivedi, A. L. D.
Santos, K. A. Rod
Visualization: D. Dwivedi, A. Malhotra,
S. M. Bell, J. Chen
Writing – original draft: D. Dwivedi,
A. L. D. Santos, M. A. Barnard, T. M.
Crimmins, A. Malhotra, K. A. Rod, K.
S. Aho, S. M. Bell, B. Bomfim, F. Q.
Brearley, H. Cadillo-Quiroz, J. Chen,
C. M. Gough, E. B. Graham, C. R.
Hakkenberg, L. Haygood, G. Koren, E.
A. Lilleskov, L. K. Meredith, S. Naeher,
Z. L. Nickerson, O. Pourret, H.-S.
Song, M. Stahl, N. Taş, R. Vargas, S.
Weintraub-Leff
Writing – review & editing: D. Dwivedi,
A. L. D. Santos, M. A. Barnard, T. M.
Crimmins, A. Malhotra, K. A. Rod, K.
S. Aho, S. M. Bell, B. Bomfim, F. Q.
Brearley, H. Cadillo-Quiroz, J. Chen,
C. M. Gough, E. B. Graham, C. R.
Hakkenberg, L. Haygood, G. Koren, E.
A. Lilleskov, L. K. Meredith, S. Naeher,
Z. L. Nickerson, O. Pourret, H.-S.
Song, M. Stahl, N. Taş, R. Vargas, S.
Weintraub-Leff

Earth and Space Science
DWIVEDI ET AL.
10.1029/2021EA002119
3 of 8
perceived national over international interests. Even within national borders, there are barriers to open data
sharing, such as the desire to avoid competition between smaller and larger research groups due to the avail-
ability of disparate resources. International cultural and resource differences further intensify barriers to open
and networked efforts, because scholars from developing countries may not receive equal recognition for the
outcomes of their data (e.g., inclusion on publications, patents) (Armenteras,2021). This recognition is critical
for addressing local issues, maintaining rigorous research and education programs for their groups, and career
and institutional advancement.
2.3. Looking Forward: An Urgent Call for People-Centric Actions
To address barriers to ICON in the biogeosciences, we call for people-centric actions. In the short term, invest-
ment in capacity- and infrastructure-building, workshops, and training can help overcome barriers to global
collaboration. These efforts will favor the development of researchers with a sense of “belonging” to global
networks, and will facilitate reducing technological barriers (e.g., infrastructure) and global cooperation. Scien-
tific societies, institutions of higher learning, and other research entities can promote these coordinated efforts
by organizing in-person and virtual events. For longer-term actions, we propose top-down incentives that reward
ICON activities, such as data sharing (e.g., publishing open datasets) and efforts towards integration and coordi-
nation of networked efforts (e.g., activities that support or develop networks such as LTER, FLUXNET, Forest-
Plots). Further, recognizing the need for close coordination and integration across the globe to advance science,
Figure 1. Biogeosciences, an inherently interdisciplinary field, needs ICON to address urgent and multiscale global problems, where process-complexity and need
for ICON increase with scale, and to reduce geographical bias in data and scientific progress. Various challenges hinder ICON in biogeosciences, but perhaps the
most critical ones revolve around cultural and institutional barriers that prevent data sharing and cross-border collaborations. Our recommended short- and long-term
solutions focus on people-centric actions to break these barriers, especially for low-to-middle-income countries (LMIC) researchers.

Earth and Space Science
DWIVEDI ET AL.
10.1029/2021EA002119
4 of 8
the Accelerating Research through International Network-to-Network Collaborations (AccelNet) program of the
National Science Foundation (NSF) fosters connections among research networks of the United States of America
(USA) and complementary networks abroad. As an illustration, Arora etal.(2021) organized several workshops
supported by the NSF and Department of Energy (DOE) between 2019 and 2021 and brought together an inter-
national network of DOE watersheds and critical zone observatories (CZOs). They emphasized that networks can
serve as a vehicle for knowledge exchange, integration, and discovery among researchers of the USA and their
international counterparts. These efforts should carry as much weight as scientific publications for hiring and
promotions. Furthermore, longer-term funding priorities are needed for institutionalizing capacity and reducing
entry costs, especially for researchers from low-to-middle income countries (Figure1). Overall, biogeosciences
deal with cross-scale and cross-continental problems, and need ICON principles.
3. Community Engagement, Community Science Education, and Stakeholder
Involvement
3.1. Current State of ICON
In recent years, increased engagement among non-scientists through public participation in the scientific
endeavor (Besançon etal., 2021; Roy etal., 2012) has significantly boosted and popularized community or
citizen science projects. These projects are supported by volunteers and have the potential to yield consistently
collected diverse data (integrated and coordinated) that are openly accessible (open) through stakeholder
engagement (networked). In this commentary, although we use “community science” as an umbrella term for
“citizen science,” “public participation with science,” and “advancing science through volunteer-contributed
data,” these terms may have slightly varying connotations in different scientific fields. As an illustration of
community science projects, the USA-based phenology-focused community science program Nature's Notebook
utilizes the same published and scientifically vetted observation protocols as the National Ecological Observation
Network (NEON; Denny etal.,2014; Elmendorf etal.,2016), and provides ready access to data contributed by
both community and professional (e.g., NEON) scientists (coordinated, open). Similarly, many research projects
taking place at International Long-Term Ecological Network sites engage students in integrated and coordi-
nated research (Gosz etal.,2010).
However, examples of coordinated, open, networked science engaging communities, stakeholders, and commu-
nity scientists remain rare. Funding for science and scientific publishing are two areas where changed practices
are leading to increased engagement among communities, stakeholders, and community scientists. In Australia,
New Zealand, Japan, and several European countries, publicly funded research projects are required to involve
local stakeholders and indigenous communities. Federally funded research proposals in New Zealand must
demonstrate direct involvement and/or benefit to Māori and address indigenous knowledge and innovation, soci-
etal and health concerns, and environmental sustainability (Ministry of Research, Science & Technology,2005).
In the USA, expectations for outreach are variable: the DOE calls require outreach plans, and the NSF encour-
ages but does not require outreach and education through grant-funded “broader impacts”. In addition to federal
agencies, several non-federal, state-level, and university-based programs also require stakeholder engagement
(e.g., SeaGrant Programs, Water Resources Institutes). As a cultural change, a growing number of journals are
innovating by ensuring the entire peer-review process is transparent, accessible, and available for an open viewing
and comment by not only scientists, but also stakeholders and policymakers.
3.2. Major Challenges
A key challenge to engaging stakeholders, community members, and non-professional scientists in ICON science
is the limited awareness of or access to coordinated established and often technical research protocols, open data
efforts, and communication channels used by professional scientists. Monitoring protocols are not always readily
available for would-be non-professional data collectors or users. Similarly, data repositories and communication
channels used by professional scientists remain relatively unknown or inaccessible to stakeholders, community
members, and non-professional scientists, challenging efforts to engage these communities while adhering to
ICON principles. Such limited ICON-centered interaction between scientists and non-scientists stifles the trans-
fer, application, and translation of global change research that could shape policy and inform decision-making
(Enquist etal., 2017). Another important barrier to greater engagement among scientists and researchers with

Earth and Space Science
DWIVEDI ET AL.
10.1029/2021EA002119
5 of 8
stakeholders and community members is the persistent and intensifying academic standard that productivity and
impact be judged primarily via peer-reviewed articles (Davies etal.,2021; Perkmann etal., 2021). This results
in many research findings and data remaining “untranslated” for a non-technical audience, rendering potentially
valuable results inaccessible to policymakers, stakeholders, and the general public. Further, scientific journals
and databases are frequently inaccessible to the public, presenting additional barriers to open, coordinated science
engaging and used by stakeholders, community members, or community scientists.
3.3. Opportunities to Advance Biogeosciences Through Community Science
The intentional engagement of local stakeholders, community members, and educators during the development
of a research project has the potential to increase integrated, coordinated, and open science. During project
inception and development, researchers could build in ways to involve stakeholders and the public, ranging from
defining the scope and priorities of research questions and applications with community expertise to engaging
the public in community science data collection (networked). The requirement that publicly funded research
projects in New Zealand directly involve the native Māori people in project design, execution, and communica-
tion of findings has shown that such practices ensure measurable outcomes to research and society (Ministry of
Research, Science & Technology,2005). Increasing research team diversity by involving community members,
stakeholders, and other non-professional scientists can amplify data collection by orders of magnitude beyond
what researchers alone can achieve and can increase the extent to which science is integrated, open, coordinated,
and networked. For example, the “Indigenous Symposium on Water Research Education, and Engagement,” held
in Montana in 2018 (Chief etal.,2019) brought 36 indigenous scientists, community activists, and elders together
to discuss topics ranging from groundwater contamination to climate change, topics that are impacting Confeder-
ated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Representation among different genders, backgrounds, nationalities, and career
stages expands perspectives in a project (Sandbrook etal., 2019). Local non-scientists can be great assets to
projects, bringing valuable contextual information (Roman etal., 2021). The American Geophysical Union's
Thriving Earth Exchange offers one opportunity for scientists to connect with communities seeking science
support to resolve challenges that require the expertise of scientists, such as issues associated with municipal
water quality and community forest health. Existing community science projects such as those listed at scistarter.
org can provide ready-made infrastructure for engaging members of the public in data collection.
Alternatively, researchers may create their own community science project leveraging existing infrastructure like
that housed at citsci.org and anecdata.org. Including social scientists on project-teams can maximize societal
benefits and use of project outputs by non-scientist audiences (Enquist etal.,2017). Media coverage of research
can result in a broader appreciation of research findings and the return on invested funds by the public. Science
translation and communication can extend beyond the traditional news media and can be led by researchers them-
selves, using traditional outlets such as newspaper, radio, and television, in addition to social media (e.g., Twitter,
Reddit, Facebook), blog posts, podcasts, and even comics (Pourret etal.,2020). Funding agencies and publishers
could encourage or even require such science translation. This could take the form of non-technical abstracts and
reports published alongside research papers. Communication in multiple languages is crucial for the effective
dissemination of scientific ideas (Márquez & Porras,2020). Finally, annual and tenure reviews should incentivize
researcher participation by acknowledging, funding, and rewarding the effort that community and stakeholder
engagement and science communication efforts necessitate.
4. Field, Experimental, Remote Sensing, and Real-Time Data for Biogeosciences
4.1. Current State of ICON
Biogeoscience research is often limited by observational and analytical constraints, and by the integration of
concepts and applications across subdisciplines (e.g., land-ocean fluxes in Kothawala etal.,2020). Recently, a
proliferation of data networks and observatories have employed principles of ICON science to mitigate these chal-
lenges across scientific research: from data collection to publication. Well-established field sampling networks
and observatories, like NEON, ICOS, FLUXNET, and LTERs, generate coordinated data products across dispa-
rate study sites and consolidate them (e.g., https://lter.github.io/som-website/; Wieder etal.,2021). ICON princi-
ples are likewise evident in the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data policies required by
many journals, which require the provision of direct measurements from independent and less intensively sampled

Earth and Space Science
DWIVEDI ET AL.
10.1029/2021EA002119
6 of 8
campaigns to public repositories (e.g., Environmental Data Initiative), thereby allowing for post-hoc cross-scale
syntheses. These have increased the number of open-access direct measurements across field, experimental,
remote sensing, and real-time data that have facilitated parameter-specific database creation and “bottom-up”
scaling efforts. The growing availability of field-deployable sensors enables real-time data collection of biogeo-
chemical processes and drivers that capture rare phenomena and short-term processes that are critical to ecolog-
ical monitoring, experimental studies, and predictive models. Openly real-time data are increasingly available in
networks like Next Generation Water Observing System (NGWOS), and ecosystem-scale experiments such as
Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments(Krassovski etal.,2018) and Biosphere 2 Land-
scape Evolution Observatory (Volkmann etal.,2018). Additionally, there are coordinated projects to collect field
and sensor data at a network of field sites (e.g., Drought-Net, NutNet; Chabbi & Loescher,2017) or under the
same research infrastructure (e.g., AnaEE; Clobert etal.,2018).
Satellite remote-sensing is another Earth system monitoring technology that has increasingly employed ICON
principles. Efforts to openly disseminate remote-sensing data have grown rapidly, from the opening of Land-
sat archives and the establishment of data processing and distribution centers like the Land Processes Distrib-
uted Archive Center, to the development of user-friendly web portals like Earthdata Search and EarthExplorer.
Increased coordination has enabled international orchestration of upcoming missions, as well as integrated data
products like the Harmonized Landsat-Sentinel data set, which combines the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) satellite data. At the application level, user-
driven repositories like GitHub have enabled open data and code sharing, while cloud-based platforms like
Google Earth Engine have made large data sets, complex algorithms, and cloud computing networked and open.
4.2. Major Challenges
Interrelated issues of data availability, computational costs, monetary costs, time costs, researcher preferences,
and data standards pose key challenges. For example, challenges exist in balancing geographic representativeness
and the need for environmental–ecological stratification (Guerin etal.,2020). Geographic gaps are common in
data networks, especially for emerging nations, which directly impact data integration and openness (Villarreal
& Vargas,2021). While satellite imagery and open-access platforms for data acquisition and processing can
partially mitigate these geographic biases, inequity in resources, training, and access due to political restric-
tions and low funding in emerging nations greatly limit seamless integration. Moreover, despite the potential
for existing networks to provide networked research infrastructure for research (Hinckley etal.,2016), mission-
and agency-specific protocols can make integrating ICON principles across networks challenging. Research in
biogeosciences is driven by exploration and hypotheses rather than by integration and networking alone. As such,
ICON-driven research ensures transparency and reproducibility, while advancing the investigation of large-scale,
context-dependent biogeochemical questions. With the large-scale questions that need to be addressed in biogeo-
sciences today, overcoming the challenges that inhibit ICON principles will be essential.
4.3. Opportunities to Advance Biogeosciences Through Technology
Adopting ICON principles in biogeosciences provides many opportunities to expand our understanding of critical
ecosystem processes. In particular, paired experimentation and field observations provide coordinated assess-
ments across scales needed to resolve global biogeosciences challenges like ecosystem responses to climate
change (Hanson & Walker,2020; Hinckley etal.,2016). First, we advocate accelerating efforts to integrate multi-
ple experiments at single sites and coordinate research efforts across networks to provide integrated data streams.
For example, globally coordinated field campaigns and remote-sensing data networks can advance the quanti-
fication of biogeochemical drivers and feedbacks across scales to improve continental assessments of emerging
trends. Second, ICON principles should be more thoroughly embraced for real-time data collection by expanding
sensor availability, coordinating data standards and tools, and increasing open access. Especially important in
this effort is the goal to increase sampling in underrepresented geographical areas and expand the reach of data
networks to researchers in those regions. Third, to optimize these opportunities to incorporate ICON principles
across and within all subdisciplines in the biogeosciences, there should be transparency in data, metadata, and
methods in open publications (i.e., clear design descriptions, uncertainty estimates), and an effort to achieve
standardization while allowing for site- and budget-specific modifications when needed. Finally, the develop-
ment of easy-to-use forecasting tools (e.g., web dashboards) for non-specialist end-users in conservation and

Earth and Space Science
DWIVEDI ET AL.
10.1029/2021EA002119
7 of 8
ecological management should be prioritized. Advances in biogeosciences can then be more readily incorporated
by practitioners, allowing them to overcome barriers to technology and information where the need is greatest,
especially in underrepresented low- and middle-income countries that are critical for expanding ICON science
to the global scale.
5. Call for Action to Work Towards ICON Science
Great potential exists to better engage stakeholders, community members, and inclusive networks of global scien-
tists in research efforts. We strongly encourage richer involvement with these audiences and more purposeful
translation and communication of findings to society (e.g., Arora etal.,2019,2021). ICON-driven science will
not only solve scientific gaps but also increase scientific equity, inclusion, and more fluid use of collective
scientific knowledge. To implement ICON principles in biogeosciences, we call for a suite of actions on short-
and long-term horizons, focusing on a people-centric approach toward capacity building, cultural shifts, break-
ing barriers through reduced entry costs, building research networks, and promoting community engagement
with open and fair research practices. We also suggest developing interoperable methods and instrumentation to
confront global challenges and solve key questions in biogeosciences.
Data Availability Statement
This research does not use any data or software.
References
Armenteras, D. (2021). Guidelines for healthy global scientific collaborations. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(9), 1193–1194. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41559-021-01496-y
Arora, B., Ireson, A., Bouteiller, C. L., Hector, B., Ali, G., Stegen, J., & Groh, J. (2019). Toward an international critical zone network-of-net-
works for the Next generation through shared science, tools, data, and philosophy (No. FZJ-2019-06647).
Arora, B., Sullivan, P. L., Kuppel, S., Yang, X., & Groh, J. (2021). The future of critical zone science: Call for papers, EOS, 102. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021EO157965
Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., & Leyrat, C. (2021). Open science saves lives: Lessons from the
COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y
Chabbi, A., & Loescher, H. W. (2017). Terrestrial ecosystem research infrastructures: Challenges and opportunities. CRC Press.
Chief, K., Emanuel, R., & Conroy-Ben, O. (2019). Indigenous symposium on water research, education, and engagement (Vol. 100). EOS. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2019eo114313
Clobert, J., Chanzy, A., Le Galliard, J.-F., Chabbi, A., Greiveldinger, L., Caquet, T., et al. (2018). How to integrate experimental research
approaches in ecological and environmental studies: AnaEE France as an example. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 43. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00043
Davies, S. W., Putnam, H. M., Ainsworth, T., Baum, J. K., Bove, C. B., Crosby, S. C., etal. (2021). Promoting inclusive metrics of success and
impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLoS Biology, 19(6), e3001282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001282
Denny, E. G., Gerst, K. L., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Tierney, G. L., Crimmins, T. M., Enquist, C. A., etal. (2014). Standardized phenology moni-
toring methods to track plant and animal activity for science and resource management applications. International journal of Biometeorology,
58(4), 591–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-014-0789-5
Elmendorf, S. C., Jones, K. D., Cook, B. I., Diez, J. M., Enquist, C. A., Hufft, R. A., etal. (2016). The plant phenology monitoring design for the
National Ecological Observatory Network. Ecosphere, 7(4), e01303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1303
Enquist, C. A., Jackson, S. T., Garfin, G. M., Davis, F. W., Gerber, L. R., Littell, J. A., etal. (2017). Foundations of translational ecology. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment, 15(10), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1733
Goldman, A. E., Emani, S. R., Pérez-Angel, L. C., Rodríguez-Ramos, J. A., & Stegen, J. C. (2021). Integrated, Coordinated, Open, and Networked
(ICON) Science to Advance the Geosciences: Introduction and Synthesis of a Special Collection of Commentary Articles. Earth and Space
Science Open Archive, 22. https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10508554.1
Gosz, J. R., Waide, R. B., & Magnuson, J. J. (2010). Twenty-eight years of the US-LTER program: Experience, results, and research questions.
In Long-term ecological research (pp. 59–74). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8782-9_5
Guerin, G. R., Williams, K. J., Sparrow, B., & Lowe, A. J. (2020). Stocktaking the environmental coverage of a continental ecosystem observation
network. Ecosphere, 11(12), e03307. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3307
Hanson, P. J., & Walker, A. P. (2020). Advancing global change biology through experimental manipulations: Where have we been and where
might we go? Global Change Biology, 26(1), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14894
Hinckley, E.-L. S., Anderson, S. P., Baron, J. S., Blanken, P. D., Bonan, G. B., Bowman, W. D., et al. (2016). Optimizing available network
resources to address questions in environmental biogeochemistry. BioScience, 66(4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw005
Hubbard, S. S., Varadharajan, C., Wu, Y., Wainwright, H., & Dwivedi, D. (2020). Emerging technologies and radical collaboration to advance
predictive understanding of watershed hydrobiogeochemistry. Hydrological Processes, 34(15). https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13807
Hubbard, S. S., Williams, K. H., Agarwal, D., Banfield, J., Beller, H., Bouskill, N., etal. (2018). The East river, Colorado, watershed: A mountain-
ous community testbed for improving predictive understanding of multiscale hydrological–biogeochemical dynamics. Vadose Zone Journal,
17(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.03.0061
Kothawala, D. N., Kellerman, A. M., Catalán, N., & Tranvik, L. J. (2020). Organic matter degradation across ecosystem boundaries: The need for
a unified conceptualization. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36(2), 113–122.
Acknowledgments
DD was supported in part by the Water-
shed Function Science Focus Area and
ExaSheds projects at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Science,
and Biological and Environmental
Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-
05CH11231. MAB acknowledges
support from the United States National
Science Foundation (OCE 1840715),
the United States National Institutes of
Health (NIEHS 1P01ES028939), and a
Grant-in-Aid of Research from Sigma
Xi, the Scientific Research Society
(G201903158412545). CG acknowl-
edges support from the National Science
Foundation (NSF), Awards 1655095
and 1856319. SN acknowledges support
from the New Zealand Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment
through the Global Change through Time
research program (contract C05X1702).
NT acknowledges support from the
Office of Biological and Environmental
Research in the U.S. Dept. of Energy
(DOE) Office of Science - Early Career
Research program. BB was supported as
part of the Next Generation Ecosystem
Experiments-Tropics, funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Science,
Office of Biological and Environmen-
tal Research (DE-AC02-05CH11231).
HCQ acknowledges support from the
Division of Environmental Biology at
NSF award 1749252. SMB acknowledges
support from the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation (CEX2019-
000940-M). RV acknowledges support
from NASA Carbon Monitoring System
(80NSSC21K0964). LM acknowledges
support from the Division of Environ-

Earth and Space Science
DWIVEDI ET AL.
10.1029/2021EA002119
8 of 8
Krassovski, M. B., Lyon, G. E., Riggs, J. S., & Hanson, P. J. (2018). Near-real-time environmental monitoring and large-volume data collec-
tion over slow communication links. Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems, 7(4), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.5194/
gi-7-289-2018
Márquez, M. C., & Porras, A. M. (2020). Science communication in multiple languages is critical to its effectiveness. Frontiers in Communica-
tion, 5, 31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00031
Ministry of Research, Science & Technology. (2005). Vision Mtauranga unlocking the innovation potential of Mori knowledge, resources and
people. MoRST Wellington.
Mirtl, M., Borer, E., Djukic, I., Forsius, M., Haubold, H., Hugo, W., etal. (2018). Genesis, goals and achievements of long-term ecological
research at the global scale: A critical review of ILTER and future directions. Science of the Total Environment, 626, 1439–1462. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.001
Perkmann, M., Salandra, R., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., & Hughes, A. (2021). Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019.
Research Policy, 50(1), 104114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104114
Pourret, O., Suzuki, K., & Takahashi, Y. (2020). Our study is published, but the journey is not finished. Elements: An International Magazine of
Mineralogy, Geochemistry, and Petrology, 16(4), 229–230. https://doi.org/10.2138/gselements.16.4.229
Roman, D., Reeves, N., Gonzalez, E., Celino, I., Abd El Kader, S., Turk, P., & Simperl, E. (2021). An analysis of pollution citizen science projects
from the perspective of data science and open science. Data Technologies and Applications, 55(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-10-2020-0253
Roy, H., Pocock, M., Preston, C., Roy, D., Savage, J., Tweddle, J., & Robinson, L. (2012). Understanding citizen science & environmental moni-
toring. Final report on behalf of UK-EOF. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Natural History Museum. Natural History Museum.
Retrieved from http://www.ukeof.org.uk/co.citizen.aspx
Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J. A., Holmes, G., Luque-Lora, R., & Keane, A. (2019). The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided.
Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0267-5
Stell, E., Warner, D., Jian, J., Bond-Lamberty, B., & Vargas, R. (2021). Spatial biases of information influence global estimates of soil respiration:
How can we improve global predictions? Global Change Biology, 27(16), 3923–3938. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15666
Varadharajan, C., Agarwal, D. A., Brown, W., Burrus, M., Carroll, R. W., & Christianson, D. S. (2019). Challenges in building an end-to-end
system for acquisition, management, and integration of diverse data from sensor networks in watersheds: Lessons from a mountainous commu-
nity observatory in East river, Colorado. IEEE Access, 7, 182796–182813. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2957793
Vargas, R., Alcaraz-Segura, D., Birdsey, R., Brunsell, N. A., Cruz-Gaistardo, C. O., de Jong, B., etal. (2017). Enhancing interoperability to facil-
itate implementation of REDD+: Case study of Mexico. Carbon Management, 8(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2017.1285177
Villarreal, S., & Vargas, R. (2021). Representativeness of FLUXNET sites across Latin America. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeo-
sciences, 126(3), e2020JG006090. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jg006090
Volkmann, T. H., Sengupta, A., Pangle, L. A., Dontsova, K., Barron-Gafford, G. A., & Harman, C. J. (2018). Controlled experiments of hillslope
coevolution at the Biosphere 2 Landscape Evolution Observatory: Toward prediction of coupled hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological
change. Hydrology of Artificial and Controlled Experiments, 25–74.
Wieder, W. R., Pierson, D., Earl, S., Lajtha, K., Baer, S. G., Ballantyne, F., etal. (2021). SODAH: The soils data harmonization database, an
open-source synthesis of soil data from research networks, version 1.0. Earth System Science Data, 13(5), 1843–1854. https://doi.org/10.5194/
essd-13-1843-2021
mental Biology at NSF award 2034192.
KA, ZN, and SWL acknowledge support
from the National Ecological Observatory
Network, which is a program sponsored
by the National Science Foundation and
operated under cooperative agreement
by Battelle. This material is based
in part upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation through
the NEON Program. We thank Diana
Swantek (LBNL) and Dan Hawkes
(LBNL) for extending their support in
graphic designandeditingofthemanu-
script,respectively.Authors for Section2:
DD, AM, EL, MS, SMB, GK, HSS, FQB,
RV, SWL, and JC. Authors for Section3:
MB, TMC, CG, LH, SN, TYC, OP, and
NT. Authors for Section4: ALDS, BB,
CH, EG, HCQ, KA, KR, LM, and ZLN.