Forest, Grassland and Freshwater Ecology Division Appendices to the self-assessment report

Transcription

1 ALIMENTATION AGRICULTURE ENVIRONNEMENT EFPA Division evaluation Forest, Grassland and Freshwater Ecology Division Appendices to the self-assessment report Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Membre fondateur d Agreenium Département EFPA Centre INRA - Nancy CHAMPENOUX France Tél. : Fax :

2 Table of contents Appendix 1: Evaluation report for the INRA division «Ecology of Forests, Grasslands and Freshwater systems»... 1 Appendix 2: List of EFPA units with associated staff members, thematic areas and research priorities Appendix 3: List of observatories in environment indicating the target ecosystems, type of data stored, budget, associated staff, publication and projects Appendix 4: Age structure of EFPA staff member for females and males Appendix 5: Evolution of new hires (researchers and engineers) and incoming mobilities for each ta and ecosystem type Appendix 6: EFPA Division scientific animation networks and matching thematic areas Appendix 7: List of Public Interest Groups (GIP), Scientific Interest Groups (GIS) and Joint Technological Networks (RMT) in which EFPA is involved Appendix 8: List of interface position Appendix 9: List Of French Research Poolings (GDR) in which EFPA is implicated Appendix 10: List of ANR-funded research programmes for the period Appendix 11: List of projects funded by the Investments for the Future call 42 Appendix 12: List of the EU COST Actions with at least one EFPA unit involved in the Management Committee of the action Appendix 13: List of EU-funded projects with at least one EFPA unit involved... 44

3 Appendix 1: EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE INRA DIVISION «ECOLOGY OF FORESTS, GRASSLANDS AND FRESHWATER SYSTEMS» Report date: 21st of December 2007 Evaluation Panel members: Gilles CELEUX / INRIA, Orsay ; Reinhart CEULEMANS / Universiteit Antwerpen, Wilrijk, Belgium (President) ; Etienne DANCHIN / UMR CNRS/UPS Toulouse ; François LEBOULENGER / Le Havre University ; Bernadette PINEL-ALLOUL / Montreal University, Canada ; Dominique PONTIER / UMR CNRS/UCBL, Lyon ; Bernard ROMAN-AMAT / AgroParisTech Nancy ; Outi SAVOLAINEN / University of Oulu, Finland ; Jean-François SILVAIN / IRD, Gif sur Yvette. 1

4 From the 27 th to the 29 th of vember 2007, the Evaluation Panel (named hereafter: the panel ) met at the INRA Center of Nancy to examine the activities and perspectives of the Division of Ecology of Forests, Grasslands and Freshwater Systems (EFPA) 1. Below are stated the elements on which the panel based its review work. The following documents were put forward before the meeting: - Two presentation documents on INRA: A brief two-page brochure (English and French version) A document on the research orientation of INRA (English and French version) - The EFPA Strategic Scheme The EFPA Status Report Three documents bringing extra information to the Status Report, but which did not need to be fully read by the members of the panel: The compilation of Experimental Units (UE) and Experimental Installations (IE) The compilation of key events of The compilation of theses by thematic field and date. Furthermore, the following documents were handed out during meetings: - Bibliographic list of the articles and reviews - List of prizes or distinctions and publishing activities - The documents from the presentations (slide prints) At the end of these three days, a brief restitution of the panel review was presented to: the Scientific Manager for the Environment, Cultivated and Natural Ecosystems (a cluster of three INRA divisions including EFPA), the Head and Deputy Heads of EFPA Division, and several unit leaders and Division personnel. The presentation outlined the main points which are elaborated in this report. A. INTRODUCTION 1. An outline of the Division The EFPA Division (Ecology of Forests, Grasslands and Freshwater Systems) was created in March 2004, under the reconstruction of the scientific support of INRA. Its creation came from the will to better structure the research in ecology inside the Institute, which was until then spread out amongst different divisions based on the distinction between types of objects (forests, freshwater systems, grasslands). Therefore the EFPA Division was composed of teams coming from different divisions of the previous structure of the Institute: - all of the teams from the former division of Forests and Natural Environment, FMN 2 with joint association within the study of wood-based product topics of two units (UMR 3 LERMaB-Nancy 4 1 EFPA : Ecologie des forêts, prairies et milieux aquatiques 2 FMN : Forêts et milieux naturels 3 Joint Research Unit (Unité Mixte de Recherche) 4 Laboratory of Studies and Research on Wood Materials of Nancy 2

5 and LRBB- 5 ) to the Characterization and Elaboration of Processed Agricultural Products, CEPIA Division; - teams within the ecology thematic area of the former Division of Hydrobiology and Wildlife, HFS ; - the Functioning and Management of Grassland Ecosystems, FGEP team, dedicated to the study of permanent grasslands, from the Environment and Agronomy, EA Division at Clermont- Ferrand. For the Strategic Scheme five priorities of research have been defined, of different nature and linked to the above aims, on which the EFPA Division has the ambition to act upon: i) Study the multifunctionality of ecosystems ii) Design long-term systems of observation based on in situ measurements iii) Specify the relationships between biodiversity, functioning and dynamics of ecosystems iv)associate integrative biology and ecology to decipher evolutionary mechanisms v) Understand and manage the functioning and dynamics of complex systems. For scientific interactions between units and sites, and transversal activities in relation to the subjects of research, four Thematic Areas have been defined. These TAs have been used to structure the management policy of disciplinary competencies. Based on the EFPA Division Strategic Scheme ( ) a thematic area is defined by the conjunction of a level (or levels) of biological organization and of groups of studied processes. The four Thematic Areas in the EFPA Division are the following: i) TA1: Ecosystem functioning and biogeochemical cycles; ii) TA2: Interaction between species within ecosystems; iii) TA3: Adaptation of organisms and populations to their environment; iv) TA4: Methods and strategies for the sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems. Since February 2005, the EFPA Division has been directed by J.M Guehl (between March 2004 and February 2005 by François Houllier) with three deputies each responsible for the coordination and management of a TA (D. Gerdeaux, TA1; A. Franc, TA2; M. Bariteau, TA4). J.M Guehl being involved in TA3. The management team is also made up of a partnership-assistant and three assistants, as well as a quality-assurance project leader and a database manager. Therefore the period of time covered by this evaluation relates to two consecutive management teams. 2. The EFPA Division in numbers The EFPA Division is currently made up of 37 units, 5 of which correspond to Research Units (UR) under the supervision of EFPA only, 2 Research Units attached to two divisions but steered by EFPA, 17 Joint Research Units (UMR), 5 Experimental Units (UE), 4 Units Under Contract (USC) and 4 Research Support Units (UAR). Amongst the Units attached to two divisions, four are steered with the Environment and Agronomy Division (EA), two with the CEPIA 6 Division, one with the SAD 7 5 Laboratory of Wood Rheology of 6 Characterization and Elaboration of Processed Agricultural Products 3

6 Division (Science for Action and Sustainable Development), one with the SPE 8 Division (Plant Health and the Environment) and one with the PHASE 9 Division (Animal Physiology and Livestock Systems). The units are located around 20 different sites linked to 10 INRA centers. The main implantation sites are in order of importance by number of staff: Nancy (27% of EFPA civil servants), (19.5%), Orleans (14%) and Avignon (9.5%). Approximately 75% of the staff works on forests, 15% on freshwater systems and 10% on grasslands. Since its creation, the global budget of the EFPA Division reaches a yearly average of 29 million euros (permanent staff salary included). Nevertheless, the part of the budget going towards permanent staff salaries dropped from 76,7% in 2005 to 73.2% in 2006, partly due to reduction and rejuvenation of staff, and to the increase in contractual funding. B. EVALUATION Despite the various comments and criticisms formulated throughout this report, the committee much appreciated the quality of the many documents received, the written syntheses and analyzes as well as the quality of the oral presentations. The panel was impressed with the number and quality of the works and research activities of the EFPA Division carried out over the evaluation period ( ). Generally speaking, the research developed in the Division is based on a good balance between observation, experimentation, theory and modeling in a broad sense. In order to respond to the different general elements and questions asked in the engagement letter of the Scientific Governance, and in order to avoid an overly long and detailed discussion, the panel has unanimously decided to build its evaluation report around 8 items which seem fundamental. In discussing each of the 8 priority items, the panel combined the evaluation of past operations, the diagnosis of the present situation and recommendations with regards to desired improvements. Analyzes and specific suggestions are mentioned for each of the 8 items. 1. Positioning and scope EFPA is a Division which studies different ecosystems, meaning forest, grassland and freshwater. From an outside point of view this can seem very diverse and can give the impression of a juxtaposition of three research objects. However, this diversity of subjects also constitutes a source of diversity and richness. Since the general theme of ecology that underlies the activities of the EFPA Division is very broad, and enables a very diverse approach, the panel thinks that the current sphere of activity is satisfactory. It is therefore not necessary to change it. The panel thinks that since the Division is still young, a review of scope of activity should occur only at the end of the next four-year plan. The three objects of study belong to the same class of ecosystems: mildly anthropized ecosystems. The relations with the Animal Health (SA 10 ) Division were raised in the context of reviewing the scope of activity of the EFPA Division. For example, concerning the study of hostparasite interactions, and the work on rodents and parasitism. The reading of the report brought the panel to question the intensity of the interactions with, on the one hand, the researchers of other 7 SAD : Sciences pour l Action et le Développement 8 SPE : Santé des Plantes et Environnement 9 PHASE : Physiologie Animale et Systèmes d Elevage 10 SA : Santé Animale 4

7 INRA divisions, and on the other hand with the other French institutions (CNRS 11, Universities, CEMAGREF 12, INRIA 13, IFREMER 14...). The panel underlines the necessity to think about the position of the EFPA Division within the French and even international research scene in ecology. The committee suggests that in the future Strategic Scheme more attention be brought to a very clear and well defined description of the position of the EFPA Division in the national structure, with regards, for example, to other national organizations like; CIRAD 15, the CNRS, the IRD 16 and Universities. The panel also notes that the synergy between the three elements (forest, grassland, freshwater) has not yet reached an optimal stage of maturity. This integration of the three elements is the only way in which to respond to the major issues. Even if the will to integrate is present, the effort to integrate is not quite yet sufficient. Regarding this, the panel has retained two examples that may lead to suggestions. Firstly, the situation of the research on ungulates is striking: the works seem a bit disconnected from the forests, while there should be an original approach to develop in the studying of the interactions between the animals and the ecosystem in which they live. Secondly, to coordinate and stimulate the interface between the water systems and the territory (forests, grasslands), the studies on the water catchment areas should be reinforced. With regards to the relations between the characteristics of water catchment areas and freshwaters, the panel did not see any mapping of the use of territory (forests, agriculture) in relation to the quality of waters and freshwater resources Concerning the geographical perimeter, the panel noted that the EFPA Division is active in French Guiana, the Republic of Congo, and in a few other areas outside of Europe. The collaboration between ECOFOG 17 and the INRA units in genetics is exceptional on the international scale and produces excellent results. Regarding the geographical extension, the panel agrees that the tropical zones are very important in the comparative studies. An extension would be justifiable as long as it is not done at the expense of other types of temperate forests. The committee also recommends a more important investment in the research on Mediterranean and Alpine forests, taking into account climate change and high needs in competencies at this level. 2. Staff The EFPA Division staff is made up of 151 researchers, 75 engineers and 233 technicians, for a total sum of 470 persons. The panel has noted a reasonably good stability in the workforce except for the technicians whose numbers have decreased, and the researchers whose numbers have slightly increased during the last few years. In comparing the numbers relative to each staff group, the committee has noticed a smaller proportion of technicians in the EFPA Division than on average at INRA. This corresponds to a an abnormal situation given the importance of technicians for the maintenance of experimental sites, 11 CNRS : National Centre of Scientific Research 12 CEMAGREF became IRSTEA in 2011 : National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture 13 INRIA :National Institute For Research in Computer Science and Control 14 IFREMER : French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea 15 CIRAD : Agricultural Research for Development 16 IRD: Research Institute for Development 17 ECOFOG: Joint Research Unit Ecology of French Guiana Forests 5

8 forest plantations and the other experiments carried out in the Environmental Research Observatories (ORE). The panel underlines how important it is to maintain a sufficient number of technicians to conduct the critical research activities in the ORE, which make up the uniqueness of the EFPA Division with regards to the other divisions of INRA. For the first time, the EFPA Division has analyzed the number of men and women inside different staff categories. This analysis shows that the percentage of women is only 30% in EFPA compared to 50% at the scale of INRA. This imbalance is very pronounced amongst the Senior Scientists (DR 18 ), with only 3 women out of 44 DR. The number of women is even less amongst the Heads of Unit (and notably at the Head of Division). However, this number is rising amongst the PhD students, leaving hope for a positive evolution. The panel encourages the EFPA Division to closely follow the men/women ratio evolution in the different staff categories and the number of women in leadership positions. In the division, 44 researchers have Senior Scientific (DR) positions, and the greater majority is qualified to manage research. The total number of Qualified Research Supervisor (HDR) and equivalents (65) is judged rather small compared to the total number of researchers. The panel suggests that the division adopts short-term policies favoring the rise of the number of HDR. The recruitment for any Junior Scientist (CR 19 ) is done through an external selection process. However, after entry at CR level, the recruitment to superior levels (DR) is mostly done internally. The weak mobility from outside researchers is also a characteristic of other INRA divisions. The panel hopes that the exchanges and collaborations with researchers from the Joint-Research Units (UMR) in the Universities can reduce this problem and encourage the EFPA Division to increase the external inputs of scientific staff. The invited researchers and postdoctoral students, as well as foreign doctoral students from different universities, are a very important part of INRA, bringing an aspect of exchange and mobility. The panel would have wished to have statistics on: (a) the non-permanent staff and (b) the professional careers of PhDs trained in the EFPA Division. 3. Scientific production The panel evaluated this criterion in the context of specific INRA missions generally speaking, in other words concerning academic and applied research. It is therefore necessary to consider not only classical scientific production, but also all productions with objectives of application and of expertise. Concerning the academic production, the panel notes that the average productivity per researcher at Division scale can still be significantly improved. Furthermore, the panel formulates a series of recommendations to facilitate bibliometric analysis. - The synthesis which was presented did not highlight all the publications in major reviews: those which were the subject of less than 5 articles did not appear in the figures and in the report tables (Nature, Ecology, Plos Biology, Ecology Letters, American Naturalist, and PNAS: absent in the table 10 of the activity report Appendix 2 is also missing from the activity report documents). 18 DR : Directeur de Recherches 19 CR : Chargé de Recherches 6

9 - A second remark concerns the relatively heterogeneous quality of the scientific productions between different domains (see figure 25 from the activity report ). It would have been useful to specify the leading role of the EFPA Division representatives in the articles, for example, putting in bold letters the author names members of the EFPA Division. A positive aspect is shown with the existing efficient international collaborations as revealed in figures 27 and 28 of the Status Report The panel noted heterogeneity in the quality of the publications depending on the thematic areas, even though it does not seem to reflect differences in the quality of the research carried out. The quality of the questioning and results, as the panel perceived through the oral presentations, confirms this affirmation. The panel was particularly impressed by the pertinence of the modeling approach integrating the knowledge gained in view of the help in decision-making. However the panel is aware that the publication media are not as easy to find as in theoretical ecology. The mastery and improvement of international reach of a journal like Annals of Forest Science are to be preserved. Concerning the evaluation of non-academic production, the panel regrets the absence of a synthesis on the implication in expertise and, as a general rule, the need for better valorization of results for the users (for example, forest owners, institutional foresters, agricultural domain, water management agencies ). On the other hand, it seems to us that certain results only published in reviews with no impact factor would have greatly deserved to be valorized in reviews with impact factor as well. Some of them would have even justified a publication in reviews of large audiences, in order to be accessible to a larger community of researchers on an international scale. 4. Training and teaching In the EFPA Division Status Report given to the members of the panel for evaluation, the training and teaching aspect was not covered as such. However the teaching contributions were briefly brought up in the general presentation by the Head of EFPA Division on the first day of the visit. Different tables and statistics were then given to the panel. At present, the effort for doctoral training can be seen in the activity report with the indication of theses done between 2004 and 2006 in specific TAs or between two TAs. The average of 38 PhD theses per year seems rather modest compared to the HDR potential (75) and number of researchers in the whole EFPA Division. However, the doctoral supervision activity is relatively balanced between TAs, even if slightly higher in TA2 and TA3. Most of the theses submitted between 2004 and 2006 were initiated before the establishment of the EFPA Division. That is why the panel would have liked to have more information on the number of doctorates enrolled each year and the number of on-going theses, to better outline the evolution of this doctoral training activity, which seemed to have doubled between 2004 and 2006 according to a histogram presented during the visit. The leaflet on on-going theses by thematic field and date is less informative. Information on the average length of the theses would have been appreciated. Moreover, to allow better evaluation of the Division s implication in training and teaching, information on Master students in the units of the EFPA Division is required. Indeed, the students 7

10 doing a Master s Research degree, or other Masters, who are taken on as interns make up an essential pool of potential doctorate recruits. Information on the integration of post-docs in the EFPA division team could also bring more interesting information for future evaluations. Considering the information given on formal teaching, the panel sees that the implication of EFPA Division researchers in higher education is globally modest but especially heterogeneous depending on the sites. It is also possible that the information given from the research units was not very thorough. The detailed tables given on demand of the committee show a total of 771 teaching hours in Master courses by 125 speakers (DR and CR in reasonably equal shares, and engineers in a small share). 70% of this time is dedicated to lectures, which seems consistent with the INRA researcher status, the rest is divided between tutorial classes (3/4) and practical work (1/4). Interventions from full-time researchers in training outside of Master courses mainly correspond to teaching in schools of engineers, in which tutorials take a leading role with regards to the lectures. Globally, the teaching volume given between Masters and outside Masters is nearly the same, but the distribution between lectures and tutorials seems very different. The panel regrets the lack of precise information concerning the involvement of researchers from the EFPA Division as heads of academic training or as a leading proposition force for the creation of new training courses (masters, professional bachelors, engineer training courses), or teaching units, or even in program renewals. The information on the involvement of the EFPA Division units in doctoral training Universities is also too broad to draw conclusions from. The notion of the top 10 of INRA concerning the doctoral training Universities is abstruse for the panel members. 5. Partnerships and international collaborations The panel believes that the insertion of EFPA Division teams in international and European research programs is an important factor for the acknowledgment and recognition of research activities in each of the thematic areas. Regarding the FP 20 6 and FP7, the EFPA Division has participated and participates respectively in 13 and 4 European projects where the four thematic areas have relatively balanced contributions. Most of the projects come from research activities in relations to the terrestrial domain (forests, grasslands). The research groups in population genetics have reached a very high acknowledgment in Europe with some of the programs coordinated by researchers from the EFPA Division, like the Network of Excellence Evoltree. These heavy administrative tasks are made possible through collaboration with INRA Transfert. In reading the report, it was more difficult to evaluate the efforts of insertion from the teams working on the freshwater domain, even if some information was given concerning the study programs on the salmon (thematic areas 3 and 4). An effort should be made from the teams working on the freshwater domains (alpine lakes, freshwater ecotoxicology) to join European programs. 20 FP : EU Framework Program 8

11 The panel much appreciated the implication and success of the EFPA Division research units in the National Research Agency (ANR) programs, where the EFPA Division researchers are often seen as the main coordinator (8 out of the 9 projects are coordinated by the EFPA Division). Nevertheless, the panel observes that the majority of ANR projects involve forests. However, the participation of the EFPA Division teams in the major international network of research is not very clear in the report. The presentation of the partner countries in international collaborations was not informative. It mostly brought out the privileged links with the European countries for joint publications, but not the participation in major environmental research programs on a global level (LTER 21, DEWA/GRID-Europe 22 ). However, the research presentations showed the insertion of researchers amongst international networks, but we cannot tell if the collaborations were the result of individual initiatives on behalf of the researchers, or of an actual internationalization policy of the EFPA Division. In the report, the national and international partnerships are presented in the section on the operation and scientific coordination of the division, and on the partnership and collaboration analysis. It would have been preferable to present more precise indicators of the national and international scientific influence in terms of the number of CR and DR involved in national, European, and global networks in each of the thematic areas, of the number of long-term stays, of postdoctoral researchers coming from overseas, of joint-supervised theses, etc. The panel would have also liked to evaluate the varying implication of researchers in each thematic area in the context of national and international partnerships. The panel proposes that the EFPA Division reinforces its implication in major international networks (for example freshwater biodiversity network: DIVERSITAS; LAKENET) and makes more effort to valorise the integration of the freshwater teams on an international level. 6. Environmental observatories and experimental facilities (OREs) Over the years, the different EFPA Division units have created many Environmental Research Observatories (ORE) in order to study closely and over time the ecosystems on which they work: microcosms, common gardens, forest plots, experiments integrated or not in the ORE sites, etc. These experimental sites are a special feature and wealth of INRA, and are places where specific tasks and multidisciplinary activities are carried out with researchers from many different organisations. Thanks to those experimental facilities, a large number of important scientific results have been obtained. These have been useful in the progression of the main research domains of the EFPA Division, as in functional ecology and evolutionary ecology. The panel therefore recommends that appropriate financial and staff support is provided by INRA for the maintenance and running of the existing facilities, or for the creation of new OREs. 21 LTER : Long Term Ecological Research 22 DEWA/GRID-Europe: United Nations Environmental Programme 9

12 For a more thorough evaluation, the panel would have needed access to a reference presenting each of the experimental sites (IE, UE 23 ); the projects, the teams involved in the projects, the mobilized human resources, the financial cost of operation, the collected information, the important results, the publications, the collaborations created thanks to these facilities. The panel also wishes to emphasize the importance of databases which constitute a strong link with the outside world. The panel invites EFPA Division to improve these databases for the following processes: evaluation, validation, availability to other users, perenniality. The panel is interested in the development of ecoinformatics as a means to valorise the database. 7. Themes and scientific approaches Even though the structuring of the EFPA Division in 2003 was beneficial, the panel finds the transversal aspects need reviewing. In this context, the panel appreciated the thoughts the EFPA Division have on different themes which could better integrate approaches in the three domains (forests, grasslands and freshwater systems). The panel suggests a more conceptual and theoretical approach in order to improve the synergy between these different domains. Regarding the use of model species, the committee considers this approach as rather secondary with respect to the use of thematic areas or transversal axes. Since the structuring of the Division into Thematic Areas (TA) is relatively recent (2004), the panel suggests keeping this initial structure in the future. The TAs offer an interpretation, which is completed by the networks with which they are associated. The panel sees that these TAs are useful in the thematic activities amongst the EFPA Division, to the reinforcement of the scientific originality inside the INRA structure, but also French and International structures. However, the panel suggests that it would be useful to present these TAs with a prospective description of the functioning or final utility of the research carried out in the EFPA division, in response to the questions from the decision-makers, the end-users, and society in general. Six transversal axes are proposed, which try to reply to this need by using the wealth and diversity of the competencies available in the EFPA Division, either directly by its officers or indirectly through partnerships like UMR 24. The definition of these transversal axes should contribute to a better understanding of the EFPA Division, especially in the development of external partnerships. The committee suggests apart from the six transversal axes, two more technological and methodological transversal axes should be developed as explained below. 7.1 Transversal axes based on issues The transversal axes are as follows (the order of presentation is of no significance): - Biological invasions and emerging diseases 23 IE : Experimental Installations ; UE : Experimental Units 24 Joint Research Unit 10

13 The objective is to valorize and expand the competencies of the division in terms of understanding the dynamics of the demographic and geographic apparition and spreading of invasive species (animal, plant) and of new diseases (fungi or bacteria), as also to understand the consequences of these dynamics on the functioning and biodiversity of the animal and plant groups studied by the EFPA Division. - Definition of the scientific bases of adaptive management The objective here is to link the upstream research dedicated to the reactions of organisms related to global warming (adaptation vs. migration and dispersion) and the necessity to start suggesting replacement for the species that are likely to disappear in certain biotopes by more adapted species capable of evolving with the climatic changes. - Evolution of water supply and quality of freshwater systems The objective is to underline the foreseeable evolutions of the water supplies in terms of quantity (global warming) and quality (ecotoxicology) in the changes of ecosystems studied by EFPA Division. The competencies of the EFPA Division are to be developed in terms of defining earth-water interface and ecotoxicology (see above: Position and scope) - Connectivity of ecosystems One of the recommendations from the working groups of the Grenelle Environment Forum was that the interconnectivity amongst ecosystems be favored on a national scale (for example the green corridor) and especially forestry, in order to reduce the consequences of fragmentation on biodiversity (disappearance of species and populations). The competencies of the EFPA Division in terms of ecology of species and landscapes, as well as the distribution of units and experimental sites, confers a special legitimacy for the study of the application of this recommendation. It will be necessary to take into account the linear dimensions (riparian strips, hedges) and diverse elements of the ecological connectivity. -Extreme climatic events The analysis of consequences of events like the storm of 1999, the heat wave and drought of 2003 on forests shows the importance of track keeping of extreme events in the approach of global warming effects. The availability of the sites and experimental fields at the EFPA should allow for the Division to play an important role in this approach. -Global changes and solutions The research activities mainly concern the description and analysis of the consequences of global changes on species, communities, ecosystems and landscapes. However very few activities are defining solutions to bring to the dynamics of global changes, for example in the fluctuations of carbon and water resources. It would be preferable for the EFPA teams, and for the INRA as a whole, to progress towards an elaboration of possible solutions based on the gained knowledge, and without neglecting the use of descriptive approaches. Once again, the experimental sites give the EFPA Division a major role to take part in this type of approach. INRA is without doubt one of the best equipped institutions of France to participate in defining the important conservative actions 11

14 aiming to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It seems to us that amongst INRA, the EFPA Division must take a leading role in this domain. 7.2 Methodological and technical axes - Genomics The recent scientific developments in genomics have changed many domains of natural sciences. Some of the projects led by the EFPA division are forefront projects of natural system genomics. INRA possesses its own technological genome platforms or can access national platforms. The new generation sequencing technologies are able to broaden the use of genomic tools. These can be used to characterize the microbial communities, to enhance the application of genomics to established ecology, and physiology at the level of gene expression. It is important that the researchers be aware of the possibilities given by the genomics in the many fields of research of the EFPA Division. Particularly in the field of genetics, it is interesting to see how the genomic methods can be used as mean of studying ecological questions relative to the adaptation of organisms to environmental changes. - Modelling: from exploratory analysis to decision-support tools The researchers in the EFPA Division come from diverse scientific cultures; biologists, geneticists, theoretical ecologists, modellers. Furthermore, they have access to a large number of considerable experimental facilities, which enables them to experiment and to monitor long-term projects. The information then gathered is used to either test the hypotheses directly or through modelling. This research can also lead to models being used for decision-support tools. This organization of research is typical of what the EFPA Division can bring to the field of ecology. It is ambitious and difficult and, generally speaking, calls for the collaboration of researchers from different cultures. The panel believes that the EFPA Division teams indeed organize their research with this organization in mind. Therefore, often the works which start to show results of qualitative nature (influence of factors) obtained from exploratory analytical tools of experimental data, result in modelling attempts. This is a very positive aspect: the effective collaborations with the researchers from the MIA (Mathematics and Applied Information) Division are very favorable. The panel appreciated the intention, expressed during the evaluation, to make regular contact with this division in order to lead to long-term collaborations. Undoubtedly, in the approach described above (exploratory analysis modelling - decision-support tools) the most delicate passage is the shifting from model to decision-support tools. This passage is an indispensable one for INRA in becoming an essential actor in the decision making process in ecology. Due to the youth of the EFPA Division this passage has so far rarely been made. Needless to say that the EFPA Division has all the necessary assets at hand to suggest decision-support tools in the future. The panel would like to indicate a few improvements to be made here in order to reach this goal with the practices of the EFPA Division researchers. It seems to us that improvements can often be made with the evaluation of modelling performances. It is important to give oneself the means to verify the stability of the results of the models, to check and control their sensitivity to parameters. 12

15 Simultaneously, it is also important to relate the performances of the models with regards to reference models of the given domain, and to identify their field of application, their limits and possible inconveniences. This sort of validation study that the panel recommends is not an easy one. As well as time-consuming, often there needs to be many simulations done in order to measure the robustness of the models compared to the given hypotheses and the use of specific statistic tools to evaluate the model quality (sensitivity analysis). From this perspective, the elaboration of long-term collaborations with the MIA Division will be highly beneficial. In conclusion, convinced that the researchers have all that it takes, the panel wants to insist on the wish to see the EFPA Division taking actions for proposing decision-support tools in ecology at different spatial scales. 8. Governance and scientific activities 8.1 General scientific activities The EFPA Division is a recent creation which covers a large thematic field and is made up of teams from different horizons. The EFPA Division deals with complex scientific problems that require indepth reflection on orientations and methods. This reflection needs to be carried out both within the EFPA Division and in relation with exterior scientific communities, national and international. The panel evaluates the scientific activities conducted by the EFPA Division for the thematic area 2 (TA2) as positive, and carried out within the larger framework of GDR 25 open to other partners (notably CNRS). The panel recommends the rapid creation of scientific activity counterparts (by senior researchers) for the three other thematic areas of the EFPA Division. Ad hoc networks can also be helpful for this. 8.2 Coordination between teams Recent joint-seminars for all of the doctorate students is an initiative that could potentially intensify the collaborations and exchanges between the different units of the EFPA Division. However, the panel has noted a weak scientific collaboration between some of the EFPA teams, notably in terms of ecotoxicology (small units, Rennes/Thonon sites). The panel therefore recommends that the Head of EFPA Division should intervene to incite closer relations between these teams and to better structure the ecotoxicology sector in INRA. For the next evaluation, it would be preferable to have proof of this with at least involvement in joint research programs, with joint publications if possible. The panel also suggests a better definition of the role of the EFPA Division Scientific Committee with regards to coordination between teams and the realization of the transversal axes mentioned above. 8.3 Evaluation modalities of the EFPA Division The panel greatly appreciated the efforts made by the Head of EFPA Division in writing quality documents (received a bit late however) and in organizing the presentations and discussions on scientific activities. This preparation enabled the 2007 review to be carried out under good conditions. The panel regretted that the Status Report was not written more critically: the following questions could have been asked; Where are we?, How do we position ourselves?, Who are our partners?, Where lie our weaknesses and strong points?. Also, the panel would have wished for 25 GDR : French Scientific Pooling (Groupement de Recherche) 13

16 more information about the questions addressed to the EFPA Division by society, and the answers given. Concerning the oral presentations, the panel found a lack of effort in synthesis and structuring between different thematic areas. The general presentation of the Head of Department brought essential elements to complement the written documents. The panel found interesting that the Head of Department gave a sort of oral self-evaluation (weaknesses and strong points). For the next review, the panel suggests the following evolutions: - A report: (i) with a review of the precedent Strategic Scheme achievements (result indicators); (ii) the positioning of the EFPA Division in both scientific environment and with regards to the finalized questions; (iii) a synthesized organizational image using a team/activity matrix (underlining the scientific interactions between units); and (iv) a relatively more important section on general scientific advancements and answers given to questions from society. - More presentations and discussions on the activities of the EFPA division: orientation, steering, and facilitation. The panel also takes note that during this evaluation, it was impossible to compare the results obtained with the resources that were used. Indeed, the results were evaluated by thematic area whereas the resources are distributed by unit. C. CONCLUSION The EFPA Division presents a very positive general assessment. The division was able to combine a great production of new skills with activities of innovative development, of valorization, of dissemination and transfer, characteristically from INRA. The division clearly proved its incontestable positioning with regards to the research on mildly anthropized ecosystems, both on a national and international scale. During the evaluation period ( ) the majority of emerging projects favored by the Division were multidisciplinary. The activities, based on a good balance between observation, experimentation and modelling are of high quality. But efforts still need to be made for an equalized balance between the three EFPA Division elements, meaning forests, grasslands and freshwater systems, despite the historical background that cannot be ignored. Congratulations to the past and present executive teams who have assumed and undertaken their leading role with competency, determination, and vitality. The panel approves the Strategic Scheme and the structure in thematic areas, as long as an approach using transversal axes is used to optimize, on one hand EFPA Division (and unit) activities, and on the other hand its wealth and complexity. For obvious reasons, global change is prominently present in most of the research of the EFPA Division and in the questionings. The panel has noticed that the approaches on global change are mainly oriented towards precedent researches which aim to take note or decrypt phenomenon, or eventually to predict implications on living organisms or biodiversity. However, it seems fundamental that EFPA Division research turns towards reflecting what the division can provide in defining concrete solutions to resolve global warming itself (forest, grassland, and freshwater system 14

17 management) maximizing carbon sequestration. From the position of an enlightened observer, the division must become an essential actor in decision making. Indeed it seems to us that in the context of French research in ecology, INRA and more precisely the EFPA Division, is one of the rare scientific institutions uniting all the competencies (modelling, integrative biology) and tools (experimental sites, large scale experimental installations) able to bring scientific expertise for decision making at the scale of French society. This would allow the national and international bodies implicated in future decisions to rely on a contact of reference. The EFPA Division thus has a major card to play. A final point concerning animal specificities, including behavior, which lead to very differentiated population dynamics between plants and animals. This may, for example, have an important impact on the understanding of mechanisms responsible for invasions and emergence of infectious diseases. Thanks Unanimously, the panel would like to thank the INRA Scientific Management team, the EFPA Division Management team, the Head and team at the Centre of Nancy, and particularly the technical staff, the Heads of Units, all the people and orators for the welcome given, for the excellent work conditions, for the quality of the interventions, oral presentations and discussions, as well as the clarity and conviviality in which the debates were carried out. For the evaluation panel, Reinhart Ceulemans, President 15

18 Appendix 2: List of EFPA units with associated staff members, thematic areas (TA) and research priorities (P). Division involved EFPA UMR 0745 EFPA UR 0629 EFPA UE 0348 EFPA UE 1353 EFPA UMR 1202 EA*, EFPA UMR 1220 Unit code Name of the unit Acronym Ecologie des forêts de Guyane Unité de Recherches écologie des forêts méditerranéennes Unité expérimentale Entomologie et Forêt Méditerranéenne Unité expérimentale Villa Thuret Biodiversité, gènes et communautés Transfert sol-plante et cycle des éléments minéraux dans les écosystèmes cultivés Partner involved in joint management Centre des Antilles-Guyane (15 agents) AgroParis-Tech, CIRAD, CNRS, ECOFOG UAG URFM UEFM UEVT Centre d'avignon PACA (45 agents) Centre d'antibes PACA (7 agents) Centre de -Aquitaine (102 agents) Director Eric Marcon François Lefèvre Jean-Claude Martin Catherine Ducatillion BIOGECO Université I Rémy Petit TCEM ENITAB Laurence Denaix Thematic Activities (TA) and research priorities (P) TA : 1, 2, 3 P : 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 TA : 1, 2, 3, 4 P : 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 EFPA staff members %EFPA staff in Unit 15 33% % TA : 2, 3, 4 13 P : 8, 9, 12, % TA : 2, 3, 5 7 P : 8, 9, 12, % TA : 2, 3, 4 53 P : 1, 2, 3, 5, 78% 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 TA : 1 3 P : 1, 4, 6 10% Division involved Unit code Name of the unit Acronym Partner involved in joint management Director Thematic Activities (TA) EFPA staff members 16

19 and research priorities (P) Centre de -Aquitaine (102 agents) EFPA UMR 1224 St-Pée sur Nivelle Ecologie comportementale et biologie des populations de poissons ECOBIOP Université Pau et Pays de l'adour Agnès Bardonnet TA : 2, 3, 4 P : 6, 7, 8, 11, % EA*, EFPA UR 1263 EFPA UE 0570 Ecologie fonctionnelle et physique de l'environnement Unité expérimentale de l'hermitage EPHYSE UE PIERROTON Sylvain Dupont Patrick Pastuszka TA : 1 9 P : 1, 2, 4, 9, 14 TA : 1, 2, 3, 4 P : 1, 6, 8, 9, 13 2% % EFPA UAR 0911 Unité Forêt-Bois Aquitaine UAR FBA Jean-Michel Carnus EA*, EFPA UMR 0547 EFPA UR 0874 EFPA EFPA, SA EFPA EFPA USC 1364 LEM Lyon USC 1369 LEHNA Lyon UMR 0042 Thonon-lesbains USC 2016 Besançon Physiologie intégrée de l'arbre fruitier et forestier Unité de recherche de l'ecosystème Prairial Laboratoire d'écologie microbienne Impact Génotoxique sur les Hydrosystèmes Centre Alpin de recherche sur les réseaux trophiques des écosystèmes limniques Chrono-Environnement (UMR 6249) Centre de Clermont-Ferrand, Theix & Lyon (29 agents) PIAF Université Clermont II Jean-Louis Julien UREP Pascal Carrère LEM CNRS, Université Lyon I Yvan Moënne-Loccoz IGH ENTPE, CNRS, ISARA Lyon Pierre Joly Centre de Dijon (32 agents) CARRTEL Université Savoie Bernard Montuelle USC CE Université Franche-Comté Hervé Richard 6 100% TA : 3 5 P : 2, 5, 9 9 TA : 1, 2 21 P : 1, 4, 6, 8, 100% 11, 14 TA : 2 2 P : 6 2,8% TA : 3 1 P : 9 5,8% TA : 1, 2, 3, 4 P : 4, 5, 6, 7, % TA : 2, 3 0 P : 6, 8, 9 17

20 Division involved EFPA UMR 0931 SPE*, EFPA UMR 1062 Unit code Name of the unit Acronym Botanique et bioinformatique de l'architecture des plantes Centre de biologie et de gestion des populations Partner involved in joint management Centre de Montpellier (24 agents) Director AMAP CIRAD, CNRS, IRD, Univ. M. 2 Pierre Couteron CBGP CIRAD, IRD, SupAgro Flavie Vanlerberghe Thematic Activities (TA) and research priorities (P) EFPA staff members TA : 4 8 P : 5, 8 12% TA : 2 8 P : 5, 6, 7, 11 10% EA*, EFPA UMR 1222 EFPA UMR 1092 EFPA UMR 1136 EFPA UMR 1137 EFPA UR1138 EFPA UE1261 EFPA UAR 1275 EFPA UAR 0816 EFPA UR 0588 Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Biogéochimie des Sols Laboratoire d'études des ressources forêt-bois Interactions arbresmicroorganismes Écologie et écophysiologie forestière Biogéochimie des écosystèmes forestiers Unité Expérimentale Forestière de Lorraine Ecol. des forêts, prairies et milieux aquatiques Annales des sciences forestières Amélioration, génétique et physiologie forestières ECO&SOL Montpellier SupAgro Jean-Luc Chotte Centre de Nancy (129 agents) LERFoB AgroParis Tech Mériem Fournier IaM Université Nancy I Pascale Frey-Klett EEF Université Nancy I André Granier BEF Laurent Saint André UEFL Bénédicte Fabre EFPA Jean-Marc Guehl ASF Erwin Dreyer Centre d'orléans (64 agents) AGPF Gilles Pilate TA : 1 4 P : 1, 6 5,8% TA : 2, 4 31 P : 1, 2, 8, 9, 60% 13, 14 TA : 2 25 P : 5, 6, 9, 11 57% TA : 1, 2, 3 44 P : 1, 2, 4, 6, 72% 8, 11, 12, 14 TA : 1 14 P : 1, 4, 6, 8 78% TA : 2, 3 8 P : 1, 4, 9 100% 5 TA : 2, 3, 4 P : 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, % 2 100% % 18