Addressing key challenges to interdisciplinary research on water-related issues: Biologists’ engagement and funding structure

Abstract

The breadth and depth of the various contributions to this special issue of Biologia provide convincing evidence of the vitality of biohydrology as a field of study. Building on, to some extent, and definitely complementing the very interesting research done in the area in recent years (Dekker et al. 2006; Hallett et al. 2009, 2010; Budagovskyi & Novak 2011; Nagy 2011; Amiri et al. 2012; Hribik et al. 2012; Lichner et al 2012; Lichner 2013), the authors of these articles explore a number of topics related to the influence of biological processes on the dynamics of the water cycle and on water resources, and in some cases to the opposite effect, at a range of spatial and temporal scales. Many of the issues addressed have particular importance in the context of global climate change, given how little is known at the moment about the temperature dependence of their biological component, likely to be significantly larger than that of their hydrological aspects. It seems highly desirable for the field to expand greatly in the next few years, so that the many questions that are still unanswered, and are becoming more and more pressing at this stage, can be addressed and hopefully resolved. However, it seems that before this can happen, two significant roadblocks will need to be alleviated. The first one is related to the interdisciplinary nature of the research dealing with biological influences on the water cycle and on water resources. By necessity, given their focus, articles dealing with biohydrology represent the successful outcomes of interdisciplinary investigations. At a time when ”interdisciplinarity” has become a buzzword, when interdisciplinary research centers are cropping up on virtually every campus, and when hordes of researchers claim to be carrying out their work in an interdisciplinary mode, it may sound trivial to emphasize the fact that a piece of research qualifies as being interdisciplinary. Yet, buzzwords can be eminently deceiving. Anyone who has taken part in a project involving researchers from different disciplines knows just how difficult and frustrating such endeavors can be. A clear challenge from the outset is that each participant should learn enough about the other disciplines involved in the project to enable, in a timely manner, the development of a common language, which is a key to success. However, in practice, since everyone is overcommitted and has precious little time to read anymore, even to keep afloat in one’s own area of expertise, this initial learning rarely if ever takes place, a common understanding never consolidates, and what started as a genuinely interdisciplinary effort tends to progressively morph, using the useful nomenclature of Tress et al. (2005), into a multidisciplinary or even cross-disciplinary project, in which there is a significantly lower level of integration among of the disciplines, and cross fertilization is minimal, if it exists at all. In some cases, when dealing with projects at the intersection of hydrology and biology, we do not even have the luxury to get to this initial stage of having to develop a common language. My experience over more than 25 years of research on the bioclogging of soils and aquifers (e.g., De Lozada et al. 1994; DeLeo & Baveye 1997) and on other topics involving microorganisms (e.g., Falconer et al. 2012) — and this perception is confirmed by conversations with many colleagues — is that it is extremely hard to get biologists to engage with non-biologists in interdisciplinary research efforts. Failed attempts in this respect can be very frustrating (Baveye 2009a), in particular because it forces nonbiologists to devote considerable efforts to learn a new body of knowledge and new skills, with many more trials and errors and in far more depth than if biologists were willing to collaborate in the work. There seem to be several possible reasons for this apparent reluctance of biologists to engage in interdisciplinary efforts, particularly with hydrologists. One of them undoubtedly has to do with the profound lack of quantitative training of many biologists, which hinders them severely in any research effort in which the quantitative description of processes is an important step. Another clear reason is the current overwhelming fascination of many biologists with molecular methods, which at times clouds significantly the objectives that are being pursued in their research (e.g., Baveye 2009b). This