How Community Feedback Impacts NEON Operations

Community feedback is one of the key drivers of change within the NEON program and is provided to NEON in myriad ways. Community members submit feedback via the Contact Us form on the NEON website, participate in NEON advisory groups and user surveys, and interact directly with NEON staff at conferences, workshops, and other community events and via email and other communication channels. NEON staff typically participate in more than 300 community events each year to increase awareness of NEON, support users, and to ensure connection and conversation with an increasingly diverse community.

NEON staff process community feedback according to NEON鈥檚 standard change process (Figure 1). Of course, minor tweaks or clarifications do not require this formal process; rather, feedback that could impact sampling designs, sample analysis, or require significant resources to implement necessitate such careful consideration. This process is the same regardless of whether a change is proposed by a member of the research community, NEON field staff, or an analysis of data (e.g., see Optimizing the Observational Sampling Designs). Community input is funneled to the NEON scientist responsible for the affected data product, curated samples, or other NEON resource. The NEON scientist is then responsible for working with the relevant Technical Working Group (TWG) to assess whether the change warrants further consideration. If it is supported by the TWG, the scientist further reviews the feasibility and impacts of the change with designated groups of NEON staff representing internal stakeholders impacted by the proposed change, known as Integrated Project Teams (IPTs). If a proposed change affects the scope of NEON 鈥� typically something that impacts whether we collect a given data product at a given site, then review and concurrence by the Science, Technology, Education Advisory Committee (STEAC) and the NSF prior to implementation is also required.

Community Feedback cycle
Figure 1. Schematic summarizing the steps of review conducted in response to user feedback, particularly suggestions that would significantly impact an aspect of NEON operations. Note that not all changes require every step shown here. For example, NSF concurrence is required only for changes that impact the scope of the program.

Battelle maintains many TWGs, as well as the STEAC, to support NEON operations and provide guidance as new challenges are faced, as data-driven optimization has become possible, and as science evolves. The NEON designs are intended to provide a standardized approach across space and time to enable continental- and decadal-scale understanding of ecosystem dynamics. That said, conditions change - environmentally, scientifically, and budgetarily, risks are realized, and lessons are learned. These realities drive change, including opportunities to achieve efficiencies and improvements in NEON operations. Consequently, the NEON program employs a robust change management process to ensure changes are necessary and reasonable, with the least impact to the continuity and scientific integrity of NEON data products.

NEON: Designed by the Community

The NEON design was driven by the community from the outset. As described in the brief history of NEON, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) has invited and relied on input and participation from the research community to guide the scope and design of NEON. NSF funded numerous workshops and other efforts[1] led by the research community to further its design (e.g., , , , ), yielding the first formal plan for NEON in 2006, the Integrated Science and Education Plan (ISEP)[2]. This step triggered the implementation of the formal design phases as prescribed by the NSF Research Infrastructure Guide (), beginning with the Conceptual Design Review and release of a Request For Information (RFI) on prospective sites and integrative science questions. Following this stage, NSF also convened subject area-focused 鈥楴EON Tiger Teams鈥� comprised of research community members to continue furthering the design of the NEON data collection systems. A researcher-led Blue Ribbon Review Panel was convened in 2009 to review the scope and design recommendations put forth as a result of these efforts to garner community input, ahead of the Preliminary and Final Design Reviews. These efforts then culminated in the congressional approval of funds to build NEON in 2011. The 2011 NEON Science Strategy[3] captures the design details envisioned at that time, under the guidance of the Science, Technology, Education Advisory Committee (STEAC) comprised of research community experts. The STEAC persists to the present day, with regular changes in membership over the years to bring in new voices and perspectives to guide the latest operations and evolution of NEON.

With construction funds in hand, NEON staff refined the high-level vision laid out in the NEON Science Strategy to generate the detailed site- and data product-specific sampling designs needed to operate NEON and enable science. Technical Working Groups (TWGs) were formed during this period to provide critical, specialized community input and support to the NEON staff scientists responsible for synthesizing expert input, best practices, budget realities, and the latest technologies to arrive at initial sampling designs. For example, the Small Mammal TWG was formed in 2012 to guide decision-making on small mammal sampling details[4], such as number and design of sampling grids per site, number of nights of sampling per sampling bout and year, and how best to collect samples from individual captures. Expert input was also critical during the initial years of sampling at NEON sites to guide any adjustments needed, as NEON field staff began sampling at new sites throughout the network and encountering site-specific challenges. For example, initial trapping efforts in Massachusetts brought the unforeseen challenge (at least to the NEON staff scientist at the time) of managing slug disturbances to the mammal traps. Guidance was then sought from TWG members on best practices for managing these issues, and the small mammal sampling protocol was updated accordingly. By the time NEON operations began in 2019, this sampling protocol had been revised ten times to accommodate lessons learned and expert feedback[5].

Examples of Community Contributions to NEON Operations

  • Eddy4R 鈥� open and collaborative data product algorithm development
    • Metzger et al. 2017 [6].
  • Plant foliar traits () sampling design
    • NEON implemented two key changes to the sampling design for this product recommended by the Foliar Sampling Technical Working Group in early NEON operations: (1) use of a site-based approach rather than a plot-based approach to sampling woody individuals to enhance capture of the full spectrum of canopy biodiversity, and (2) adding the creation of polygon shapefiles of sampled crowns on top of recent AOP remote sensing data while in the field to facilitate alignment between the ground and airborne datasets.
  • Optimization of reaeration () sampling
    • The Reaeration sampling design ( [7]) included simultaneous volatile gas tracer and conservative salt tracer constant-rate injections at most NEON stream sites, with the intention to discontinue the volatile gas tracer component once gas exchange curves were established across the range of typical flows at each stream site. So, in 2021, NEON convened a Reaeration TWG to guide the evaluation and analysis of data collected to date to assess its sufficiency to characterize the relationship between gas exchange rates and stream discharge. Following these analyses, the TWG concluded that additional experiments releasing SF6 are unlikely to change the relationships characterized by existing data, recommending that the SF6 method be discontinued at 12 sites in 2022 and at all remaining sites in 2025. NEON will continue to perform the NaCl salt slug portion of the reaeration experiment four times per year at all 24 wadeable stream sites to measure stream hydrologic characteristics.
  • Suspension of and subsequent development of new algorithms for derived remote sensing data products
    • In 2020, the Airborne Remote Sensing Data Quality Technical Working Group recommended the suspension of several remote sensing data products (Canopy Nitrogen (DP2.30018.001, DP3.30018.001), Canopy Lignin (DP2.0022.001, DP3.30022.001), Canopy Xanthophyll (DP2.30020.001 and DP3.30020.001) and Total Biomass 鈥� Spectrometer (DP2.30016.001, DP3.30016.001) as the implemented algorithms (from off-the-shelf software packages) were deemed of insufficient quality for the sensor, scale and site conditions associated with NEON AOP collections. will be suspended and removed from the data portal. NEON staff have since been actively collaborating with the research community to develop new algorithms.
    • In response to community feedback, in 2024, NEON began to publish bidirectional reflectance data products, which include BRDF and topographic corrections adapted from a community-developed algorithm (Queally et al. 2022 [8]). These corrected L1 reflectance and derived (L2-L3) reflectance data products are now available under a separate revision (.002) for AOP data acquired between 2022-2024.
  • Vegetation Structure () sampling design
    • In 2020, the Plant Biomass and Productivity TWG recommended that annual stem diameter data be collected from as many NEON sites as possible. In response, NEON installed dendrometer bands at ten low-growth-increment sites to enable high-resolution annual stem diameter measurement.

Additional Resources

  1. Senkowsky, S. Planning of NEON Moves Ahead. 2005. BioScience, 55:106鈥�112. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055\[0106:PONMA\]2.0.CO;2
  2. Schimel, D., Hargrove, W., Hoffman, F. and MacMahon, J. 2007. NEON: a hierarchically designed national ecological network. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5: 59-59. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5\[59:NAHDNE\]2.0.CO;2
  3. Schimel, D., et al. 2011 NEON Science Strategy. /sites/default/files/NEON_Strategy_2011u2_0.pdf.
  4. Thibault, K. 2018. TOS Science Design for Small Mammal Abundance and Diversity. . NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network).
  5. Thibault, K., Y. Springer, E. Knapp, and K. Tsao. 2019. TOS Protocol and Procedure: Small Mammal Sampling. . NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network).
  6. Metzger, S., Durden, D., Sturtevant, C., Luo, H., Pingintha-Durden, N., Sachs, T., Serafimovich, A., Hartmann, J., Li, J., Xu, K., and Desai, A. R. 2017. eddy4R 0.2.0: a DevOps model for community-extensible processing and analysis of eddy-covariance data based on R, Git, Docker, and HDF5, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3189鈥�3206, .
  7. Goodman, K. 2021. AOS Protocol and Procedure: REA 鈥� Reaeration in Streams. . NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network).
  8. Queally N, Ye Z, Zheng T, Chlus A, Schneider F, Pavlick RP, Townsend PA. 2022. FlexBRDF: A Flexible BRDF Correction for Grouped Processing of Airborne Imaging Spectroscopy Flightlines. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 127: e2021JG006622. .