Dr. Susan Waldron 1, Dr. Ian Grieve 2, Prof. Dave Gilvear 2, Dr. Simon Drew 1,2 Geographical and Earth Sciences, U. of Glasgow School of Environmental Science, U. of Stirling Welcome to CLAD

Introduction  Housekeeping  ‘Home team’  Purpose of CLAD  Structure of this meeting  Rationale for the research community day  Proposed outcomes of day 1  On with the science…

1.Fire alarm 2.Toilets 3.Problems Housekeeping

More housekeeping… Meeting 1:  Travel: £85 towards travel  2 £55 per night  Stakeholders are not similarly supported  Simon will co-ordinate reimbursement of this.  Food and refreshments provided at the meeting  Network dinner, plus a small amount of wine.

‘Home Team’ Dr Susan Waldron Prof. Dave GilvearDr Ian Grieve Dr Simon Drew Co-PI, Network Facilitator Helen Murray GU Ph.D. student (year 3) Melanie Van Niekerk SU Ph.D. student (year 2)

Overarching aim of CLAD  To integrate the academic research community with carbon landscape stakeholders.  From this interaction produce a better practical understanding of carbon landscapes, drivers of aquatic C losses and how best to monitor these.  Sediment and nutrient losses can also be considered. CLAD is currently funded to run for 3 years, until July 2012

Timeliness of this network 1.SNIFFER seeking EOI for an ‘Assessment of the contribution of aquatic carbon fluxes to carbon losses from UK peatlands’ (22 nd Nov deadline). 2.IUCN UK Peatland project : Assessing the evidence base underpinning current peatland policy and driving future policy developments 3.Questionnaire recently distributed by Rebecca Artz (Macaulay) on current state of knowledge and future evidence needs in relation to Scottish peatlands. Linked to the report on ‘Peat and Carbon’ by Richard Lindsay. 4.DEFRA: Recently commissioned Leeds to report on CH4 emissions from restored peatlands (Baird et al). Many different initiatives being commissioned or have been published relating to ‘Carbon Landscapes’:

Timeliness of this network 4.EA-funded QUEST modelling on the bioclimatic envelope of peat vegetation initiation (Jo Clark) 5.SNIFFER UKCC21 Climate change, land management and erosion in the organic and organo-mineral soils in Scotland and N. Ireland (Alan Lilly et al). 6.ECOSSE report 7.Nayak et al payback time calculator for windfarm construction 8.Environmental Systems recently funded on remote sensing of peatlands Please send information about activities and links to published reports to Simon for him to publicise on the CLAD webpage.

Purpose of the day 1 meeting UK has considerable expertise in understanding C losses to aquatic systems: → DOC production → processes regulating of carbon export → magnitude; spatial and temporal variation → quality of the DOM: composition; stoichiometry Day 1 is an opportunity for us to come together and share our knowledge.

Purpose of the day 2 meeting  To share that knowledge with ‘carbon landscape’ stakeholders (CLS).  To learn from CLS of their field-based problems and thus facilitate collaborative and focussed research opportunities  As disturbance of landscape can release C and nutrients, activities causing disturbance will be a focus.  The anthropogenic change causing most pressure at present is construction of windfarms (important stakeholder interest).

Plan for day 1  Are we all singing from the same hymn sheet? Overview of our understanding.  Focussed working groups (pm) geared towards a an academic output of the research community gathering.  Outputs: review paper on C production / loss / reworking and outstanding research challenges  Use this publication as a platform to support a consortium grant application? (not necessarily lead by CLAD PIs).

The ‘CLAD’ review paper  Biogeochemistry  Science Of The Total Environment  Both are interested in accepting a review paper.  All participants to co-author (unless they wish not too)  Biogeochemistry particularly ask for ‘vision’

Biogeochemistry  "Synthesis and Emerging Ideas" section.  Papers may be theoretical, hypothetical, and/or synthetic.  Advance the concepts involved in Biogeochemistry  challenge and expand people's thinking→ lead to developing new tools and information.  Not "traditional" review papers simply summarising existing knowledge, but knowledge synthesis to produce new ideas and theory.  Require intellectual rigor, but less focus on the "rightness" and more on the rigor, interest, and potential use of the ideas.  "Will this advance biogeochemical thinking and research?"

The review paper Is this an attractive proposition?

Research Community Overview Overview: 1.Asked several people to provide an overview of a section of research we most identified them with. 2.Were told who else was in the audience. 3.Approximately 10 minutes each. 4.Discussion to be informal Post presentation: 1.What is missing from what was covered? 2.Is anything incorrect?