Two foundational questions about sustainability are "How are ecosystems and the services they provide going to change in the future?" and "How do human decisions affect these trajectories?" Answering these questions requires an ability to forecast ecological processes. Unfortunately, most ecological forecasts focus on centennial-scale climate responses, therefore neither meeting the needs of near-term (daily to decadal) environmental decision-making nor allowing comparison of specific, quantitative predictions to new observational data, one of the strongest tests of scientific theory. Near-term forecasts provide the opportunity to iteratively cycle between performing analyses and updating predictions in light of new evidence. This iterative process of gaining feedback, building experience, and correcting models and methods is critical for improving forecasts. Iterative, near-term forecasting will accelerate ecological research, make it more relevant to society, and inform sustainable decision-making under high uncertainty and adaptive management. Here, we identify the immediate scientific and societal needs, opportunities, and challenges for iterative near-term ecological forecasting. Over the past decade, data volume, variety, and accessibility have greatly increased, but challenges remain in interoperability, latency, and uncertainty quantification. Similarly, ecologists have made considerable advances in applying computational, informatic, and statistical methods, but opportunities exist for improving forecast-specific theory, methods, and cyberinfrastructure. Effective forecasting will also require changes in scientific training, culture, and institutions. The need to start forecasting is now; the time for making ecology more predictive is here, and learning by doing is the fastest route to drive the science forward.

High-performing collaborative research teams KS Cheruvelil et al. 32www.frontiersinecology.org

Aquatic systems are critical to food, security, and society. But, water data are collected by hundreds of research groups and organizations, many of which use nonstandard or inconsistent data descriptions and dissemination, and disparities across different types of water observation systems represent a major challenge for freshwater research. To address this issue, the Water Quality Portal (WQP) was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council to be a single point of access for water quality data dating back more than a century. The WQP is the largest standardized water quality data set available at the time of this writing, with more than 290 million records from more than 2.7 million sites in groundwater, inland, and coastal waters. The number of data contributors, data consumers, and third‐party application developers making use of the WQP is growing rapidly. Here we introduce the WQP, including an overview of data, the standardized data model, and data access and services; and we describe challenges and opportunities associated with using WQP data. We also demonstrate through an example the value of the WQP data by characterizing seasonal variation in lake water clarity for regions of the continental U.S. The code used to access, download, analyze, and display these WQP data as shown in the figures is included as supporting information.

Abstract. Lake water quality is affected by local and regional drivers, including lake physical characteristics, hydrology, landscape position, land cover, land use, geology, and climate. Here, we demonstrate the utility of hypothesis testing within the landscape limnology framework using a random forest algorithm on a national-scale, spatially explicit data set, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 2007 National Lakes Assessment. For 1026 lakes, we tested the relative importance of water quality drivers across spatial scales, the importance of hydrologic connectivity in mediating water quality drivers, and how the importance of both spatial scale and connectivity differ across response variables for five important in-lake water quality metrics (total phosphorus, total nitrogen, dissolved organic carbon, turbidity, and conductivity). By modeling the effect of water quality predictors at different spatial scales, we found that lake-specific characteristics (e.g., depth, sediment area-tovolume ratio) were important for explaining water quality (54-60% variance explained), and that regionalization schemes were much less effective than lake specific metrics (28-39% variance explained). Basin-scale land use and land cover explained between 45-62% of variance, and forest cover and agricultural land uses were among the most important basin-scale predictors. Water quality drivers did not operate independently; in some cases, hydrologic connectivity (the presence of upstream surface water features) mediated the effect of regional-scale drivers. For example, for water quality in lakes with upstream lakes, regional classification schemes were much less effective predictors than lake-specific variables, in contrast to lakes with no upstream lakes or with no surface inflows. At the scale of the continental United States, conductivity was explained by drivers operating at larger spatial scales than for other water quality responses. The current regulatory practice of using regionalization schemes to guide water quality criteria could be improved by consideration of lake-specific characteristics, which were the most important predictors of water quality at the scale of the continental United States. The spatial extent and high quality of contextual data available for this analysis makes this work an unprecedented application of landscape limnology theory to water quality data. Further, the demonstrated importance of lake morphology over other controls on water quality is relevant to both aquatic scientists and managers.