Feed aggregator

body {background-color: #D2D1D5;} Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a new rule on 28 May that, if finalized, would give political appointees approval power over scientific grants, reduce support for international collaboration, limit funding for publication fees, and make other extensive alterations to the federal government’s funding review process. 

The proposed “Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance” would require senior political appointees to conduct reviews of each grant, and would not allow those appointees to defer to peer reviewers for grantmaking decisions. Scientific peer review “remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion,” according to the proposal.

“It replaces expertise with political appointees, globally decouples the U.S. and completely guts our scientific ecosystem.”

The proposed rule would further codify an executive order from last August, titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” in which the White House ordered federal agency heads to award grants that “advance the President’s policy priorities” and align with its criteria for “Gold Standard Science.”

The proposal states that the OMB made the suggested revisions in response to a lack of “transparency, accountability, and proper oversight” between 2021 and 2024. “Federal awards were often used during those years to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public,” the proposal claims, referencing “unlawful DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] practices, various anti-American ideologies in American education,” and “non-replicable and highly misleading studies” as examples. 

“We warned of this exact form of government overreach in science a year ago,” Colette Delawalla, founder of Stand Up for Science, told Scientific American in reference to the administration’s proposed rule. “It replaces expertise with political appointees, globally decouples the U.S. and completely guts our scientific ecosystem.”

In addition to elevating government oversight of the grantmaking process, the proposed rule would, among other changes:

• Allow federal agencies to terminate active grants at any time if they are deemed “inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities.”
• Prohibit the use of federal funds for research collaborations with foreign entities affiliated with countries under sanction by the United States, unless exceptions are authorized by federal law or the head of a federal agency.
• Disallow federal grants from being used for most publication costs and open access fees. 
• Require that grant recipients obtain pre-approval from federal agencies to use their funding to attend conferences or obtain professional memberships related to the scientific work covered by their grant.
• Allow federal agencies to receive exemptions from the requirement to publicly advertise grant competitions when “publicly announcing an opportunity would pose a risk to national security or is in the national interest of the United States.”
• Ban federal funds from being used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” any activities related to DEI or “gender ideology,” defined as “theories or ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans.”

 
Related

•  Read the Proposed Rule
•  White House Proposes New Rules Giving Political Appointees Final Approval on Research Grants
•  Summary of Key Changes in OMB’s Proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule
•  The State of the Science 1 Year On: Academia and Research
•From the Prow: A Rule That Would Rewrite the Terms of U.S. Science
•  Get Involved: AGU’s Science Policy Action Center
 

“Congress has repeatedly appropriated funds for science agencies with the expectation that those funds would be administered through merit-based, expert-driven processes insulated from political interference,” Elizabeth Ginexi, a former official at the National Institutes of Health, wrote in a blog post. “This rule attempts to override that expectation.”

Stand Up for Science will host an online meeting with scientist speakers on Tuesday, 2 June at 4 p.m. ET to review the proposed rule. The Office of Management and Budget is accepting public comments on it until 13 July. 

AGU President Brandon Jones released a statement about the rule on 3 June, urging the AGU community to submit public comment via AGU’s Action Center.

“This is not a routine regulatory update,” he wrote. “What it actually does is restructure the foundational rules of U.S. science funding—with cascading impact for global collaborators—to serve political priorities rather than the public good. We have seen executive orders, budget cuts, and terminations take aim at the scientific enterprise one by one. This proposed rule would codify that agenda into federal regulation, making it far harder to reverse.”

—Grace van Deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Staff Writer

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

After another spell of wet weather along Australia's east coast, with storms, heavy rain and flash flooding across Sydney and parts of New South Wales, it is natural to ask whether our cities are shaping the rainfall that descends upon them.

Cities around the world are planting more trees to cope with rising urban heat. But our research shows trees alone are often not enough. In some cases, the wrong kind of greening can even make streets feel less comfortable on a hot day.

Across much of the northern hemisphere, extreme weather events like heat waves and heavy precipitation have increased in frequency and severity over the last several decades. A new study from the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) shows that one proposed partial explanation, so-called "quasiresonant amplification of quasistationary Rossby waves," may not be capable of explaining any of this increase in severe weather events.

Editors’ Highlights are summaries of recent papers by AGU’s journal editors. Source: Water Resources Research

Recent studies have shown the climatic envelope for blanket bog peatlands to be contracting, yet questions remain about what will happen to existing peatlands as they pass outside of this shrinking bioclimatic envelope.

DigiBog, a process-based model, accurately predicts peat depth in an area of very complex topography. This presents a significant advancement in modeling peat depth in areas with complex terrain. The implications of peat expanding at a faster rate on the relatively dry and steeper slopes, compared to the wetter basins, is contrary to the current thinking.

Despite being at the edge of the future climatic envelope for blanket bog, under all climate scenarios, the site continues accumulating peat until 2100, with the greatest accumulation occurring under the moderate Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario. 

While peat thickness generally depends on wetness, wetness does not fully explain accumulation patterns in blanket bogs, with some very wet areas having only shallow peat accumulation.

Tom Winter’s conceptual model proposed that wetland vulnerability to climate change depends on wetness and the position within the hydrological landscape. Baird et al. [2026] does indeed show peat depth to have moderate to strong correlations with wetness. However, greater recent peat accumulation, and predicted future accumulation, is away from basins which contradicts Winter’s “wetter is better” and may be partially explained by the ability of peatlands themselves to engineer and alter landscape wetness.

Overall, ecohydrological models that are process-based are better than simple bioclimatic models for assessing future peatland carbon, when accounting for accumulation rates and spatial patterns.

Citation: Baird, A. J., Young, D. M., Ramirez, J. A., Gill, P. J., Morris, P. J., Peleg, N., et al.(2026). Assessing the response of blanket peatlands to climate change using the DigiBog model and winter’s concept of the “hydrologic landscape”. Water Resources Research, 62, e2025WR042050. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025WR042050

 —Paul Whitfield, Associate Editor, Water Resources Research, with input from Joshua Ratcliffe

Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

New research led by Monash University sheds a new perspective on forecasts of future rainfall in Victoria, showing that recent dry conditions may not fully reflect long-term climate change signals.

One of the most devastating extinctions in Earth's history is best known for what didn't die—dinosaurs. But the end-Triassic extinction 201 million years ago wiped out roughly 60% of Earth's species, and scientists are still piecing together how it unfolded.

Off Track, On Purpose

Iceland, Chile, Kenya, Antarctica, Papua New Guinea, and the Great Salt Lake. That ambitious lineup covers (most of) the destinations where scientists featured in our annual fieldwork collection have ventured to test innovative instruments and answer pressing questions about natural processes on—and off—Earth.

Read along to learn about some fascinating field science and to hit all these hot spots and cool destinations for yourself.

In “Discovering Venus on Iceland,” scientists describe a multiweek effort traversing three rugged and rocky sites to collect samples and validate airborne radar measurements. Iceland’s basaltic lava fields are about the closest analogue to the surface of Venus that Earth has to offer, and the team’s data collection is helping to test the performance of instruments that will be a part of NASA’s VERITAS (Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectroscopy) mission in several years’ time.

From Iceland, travel west and south to Chile, Guatemala, and Idaho to learn how researchers have been building and using their own inexpensive, lightweight sensors to detect infrasound emanating from volcanoes, earthquakes, and wildfires in “Sensing the Sounds from Earth’s Hazardous Environments.” At Villarica volcano in the Chilean Andes, for example, they have deployed sensor clusters on, around, and even hanging from a cable above the volcano’s summit crater to better understand how infrasound may be useful for eruption monitoring.

Meanwhile, at Lake Turkana in Kenya, scientists have been partnering with local industries to map the subsurface and better understand how the continent is unzipping along the East African Rift System, as Kimberly Cartier describes in “Eastern Africa Is Splitting Apart, but Not Where We Expected.”

Stick with Cartier for another leg of our fieldwork trip as she relates how researchers have instrumented an underwater volcanic vent off Papua New Guinea to track effects of ocean acidification on corals in “Coral Diversity Drops as Ocean Acidifies.”

From there, head to the decidedly less tropical climes of the South Pole, where a team recently installed a pair of seismometers deep in the Antarctic ice, completing a challenging and years-long feat of engineering, reports Grace Van Deelen in “These South Pole Seismometers Will Detect Vibrations 1.5 Miles Under the Ice.”

Finally, journey to the North American interior to learn what scientists found when they installed electrodes on the now-desiccated surface of Utah’s Great Salt Lake in Carolyn Wilke’s—spoiler alert—“What’s Below the Great Salt Lake? More Water.”

We’ll understand if you need a break after all that globe-trotting. But you’re always welcome to join us for more adventures in the field.

—Timothy Oleson, Eos Senior Science Editor

Citation: Oleson, T. (2026), An off-road itinerary, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260181. Published on 1 June 2026. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Source: AGU Advances

The Indian monsoon has shifted over the past quarter century. Northwest India now receives substantially more rain than it once did, while a lack of rain sends the Indo-Gangetic Plain toward drought.

More than a billion people rely on the monsoon to confer economic stability across southern Asia; further changes to this weather system could lead to widespread hardship. Scientists have struggled to predict how this weather pattern will change moving forward because commonly used climate models fail to capture changes to the monsoon that have already occurred.

Mahendra et al. suggest that models do not adequately represent either changes in the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean or how those temperature changes are linked to weather patterns around the rest of the globe. As a result, the coupled models tend to fail to predict this monsoon shift.

Specifically, current climate models lack the ability to incorporate information about the cold blob, a patch of cold water off the south of Greenland. When the researchers added the cold blob to climate model results, they found that it can alter the jet stream in a way that makes it pull moisture toward northwest India while also preventing storm systems from forming elsewhere. This is exactly the type of shift that has been observed in monsoon patterns. When a large-scale wind pattern prevents the formation of smaller-scale weather patterns in this way, it is called a barotropic governor mechanism.

This barotropic governor mechanism also explains why midlatitudes around the globe have observed more storm activity in recent years. The results highlight the importance of connecting processes from disparate parts of the globe when formulating climate models, the authors write. (AGU Advances, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025AV002173, 2026)

—Saima May Sidik (@saimamay.bsky.social), Science Writer

Citation: Sidik, S. M. (2026), The surprising link between a cold blob and the Indian monsoon, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260177. Published on 1 June 2026. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

body {background-color: #D2D1D5;} Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news that impacts science and scientists today.

This week, a parade of scientists will spend 50 hours straight speaking about the importance of weather and climate research in the United States.

Now in its second year, the Weather & Climate Livestream will feature hundreds of scientists describing their work and why it matters. Last year’s event, which lasted 100 hours, saw more than 180,000 views and led to 30,000 phone calls to Congress to #SaveAmericasForecasts.

“The first aspect of it is just communicating science,” said Haley Crim, a climate literacy researcher at MIT and the founder of Climateliteracy.earth. “The second half of it is to inspire people to call their representatives in support of funding for climate and weather science, and science more broadly.”  

 
Related

•  The Weather & Climate Livestream
•  Get Involved: AGU’s Science Policy Action Center
 

Last year, Crim was an “avid watcher” of the livestream, so she was happy to help when a friend asked her to pitch in for the second iteration. But it’s also more personal this year, as she has since lost her position as a contractor with NOAA.

“It has a whole new meaning now, this year,” she said.

The livestream begins at 4 p.m. ET on Monday, 1 June, ending at 6 p.m. ET on Wednesday, 3 June. Speakers include meteorologist Jeff Masters and climate scientists Adam Sobel of Columbia University and Kim Cobb of Brown University. AGU President Brandon Jones and president-elect Benjamin Zaitchik will also speak from 2 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. ET on Wednesday, 3 June.

Science Under Attack

Since Donald Trump began his second presidential term in 2025, federal science funding has faced extensive cuts, with more proposed. In June 2025, for instance, a budget document proposed eliminating NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. In December 2025, the administration announced plans to break up the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“This is really a full-frontal attack on climate science.”

“This is really a full-frontal attack on climate science,” said Andrew Williams, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who is helping to organize the livestream and will speak during it.

He added that even though Congress pushed back against the most drastic cuts proposed last year, leaving key science program budgets mostly intact, many agencies haven’t yet seen the money they’ve been granted in the budget. For instance, according to the organization Grant Witness, 112 grants have been awarded in the NSF Directorate for Geosciences so far this year, compared with 948 in total in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The average total number of grants awarded between FY21 and FY24 was 1,418.

Both Crim and Williams said they hope the livestream provides the public with a better understanding of how climate and weather research affects us all, from allowing for timely evacuation warnings to affecting insurance rates. Williams offered the example of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, a federally funded NOAA research lab that would be eliminated under the president’s proposed FY2027 budget.

“It builds the engine of the U.S. weather forecasting model, which is what tells you day to day what the weather is going to be,” he said. “We’ve all been able to take for granted that these things are happening because the U.S. has for decades, for 60 or 70 years, had strong and stable federal funding for weather and climate science.”

—Emily Gardner (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about science or scientists? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Editors’ Vox is a blog from AGU’s Publications Department.

The AGU Books Editorial Board comprises researchers spanning the breath of the Earth and space sciences. From diverse perspectives comes an interdisciplinary catalog of monographs and textbooks—and collaborations between scientists whose paths might not cross otherwise.

In honor of the 70th anniversary of the AGU Books Program, we interviewed three members who have served on the Books Board since its founding in 2020: Estella Atekwana is a near-surface geophysicist and serves as a dean and professor at the University of California Davis; Xianzhe Jia is a space physicist and professor at the University of Michigan; Jim O’Connor is a research geologist with the United States Geological Survey. We asked these Editorial Board members about their favorite projects and why books remain important within the scientific literature  which is dominated by journals.

What is a memory or project that stands out from your AGU Books Editorial Board experience?

Supporting Congo Basin Hydrology, Climate, and Biogeochemistry pushed Board member Jim O’Connor to engage with new topics and geographic areas of study.

JOC: Two items stand out for me. One is one of the first books that I handled, Congo Basin Hydrology, Climate, and Biogeochemistry: A Foundation for the Future. This book was so far outside my zone (topically and spatially) yet so gratifying to be a small part of. It was really a very different book, discussing much classic hydrology but also touching on resource management and politics in an area where those topics are complicated. It was so interesting. And it was published in both English and French.

The other memory sticking with me is our early discussions on what AGU books could and should be about. The discussions were so wide-ranging (including children’s books!), and they really forced me out of what was probably a pretty narrow lane. I suppose such discussions might be expected when you put together a diverse group of scientists and give them a chance to explore what AGU books could be.

Board member Estella Atekwana saw Salt in the Earth Sciences progress from a proposal through multiple iterations and finally to a published book.

EA: One project that stands out is serving as the Subject Editor for the two-volume set Salt in the Earth Sciences: Evaporite Rocks and Salt Deposition and Salt in the Earth Sciences: Basin Analysis and Salt Tectonics by Webster Mohriak. It was a pleasure to work with Dr. Mohriak, who was thoughtful, responsive, and deeply engaged with the review process. I also developed a tremendous appreciation for the reviewers, who took the time to read the full volume carefully, sometimes through multiple iterations, and provide detailed and constructive feedback. Seeing the book move from proposal to publication was deeply rewarding. It reminded me how much care, expertise, and collaboration go into producing a high-quality scholarly book.

XJ: One project that stands out for me is a book that’s still in production. It is about exoplanets, focused on how stellar-driven space environments interact with (exo)planetary magnetic fields and atmospheres and, ultimately, shape habitability. What’s made it memorable is that the book sits right at the boundary between communities that don’t always share the same language—space physics, planetary science, and exoplanets. I’m excited for it to become a resource that helps readers move back and forth between exoplanets and our solar system with a shared comparative framework.

What is your favorite thing about serving on the AGU Books Editorial Board?

EA: When I was first asked to serve as on the AGU Books Editorial Board, I approached the role with some skepticism. I wondered why early- and mid-career faculty or scientists would choose to write books when the academic reward system often emphasizes journal articles, citation counts, and publications in high-impact journals. However, serving on the Board has changed my perspective. I have enjoyed reviewing book proposals, encouraging leaders in the field to consider writing books, and working with an editorial team that provides thoughtful support every step of the way.

My favorite thing about serving on the AGU Books Editorial Board is getting to help shape syntheses—not just what’s new, but what the community collectively understands.

Xianzhe Jia

XJ: My favorite thing about serving on the AGU Books Editorial Board is getting to help shape syntheses—not just what’s new, but what the community collectively understands. This role gives me the opportunity to work with Volume Editors and authors to turn a set of strong contributions into a coherent, usable resource, and to do that in a way that brings different subfields into the same conversation.

JOC: I suppose my favorite thing has been similar to that of being a journal editor. One is forced to confront a much wider scientific arena than that framed by one’s particular scientific discipline. Every AGU book I’ve worked with has had some element of “new and cool” that came with it.

Why are books important for Earth and space science communities? 

XJ: Scientific fields advance by connecting pieces that are often studied separately—stars and their activity, planets and their atmospheres and magnetospheres—and those connections are hard to establish from individual papers alone. A good book synthesizes what we know across those interfaces, makes assumptions and terminology explicit, and highlights where knowledge gaps exist. That’s valuable both for training new scientists and for enabling collaboration; books help researchers from different disciplines meet on common ground, especially when we’re trying to interpret sparse data and compare very different environments.

JOC: I believe that in many instances books enable better stories. The length and format freedom, particularly in relation to journal articles, allows for longer and more fully developed narratives. And I believe good storytelling is essential for communicating science. My personal experience is that books I have been a part of have much wider and long-lasting reach to a wider public than most journal articles. Though this may be changing (or already changed) in the social media age.

In many fields, a well-written book becomes the go-to reference for generations of students, researchers, and practitioners.

Estella Atekwana

EA: Books are important because they provide a trusted, comprehensive place to access knowledge on a particular topic. In many fields, a well-written book becomes the go-to reference for generations of students, researchers, and practitioners. I am reminded of the book Geodynamics by Donald Turcotte and Gerald Schubert, which was foundational to my own studies as a Ph.D. student and has remained an essential text in the field through subsequent editions. It was a special delight when I came to UC Davis to meet Professor Donald Turcotte, then Professor Emeritus in Earth and Planetary Sciences, the author of a book that had been so fundamental to my intellectual development. That experience reinforced for me the lasting impact books can have. They synthesize knowledge, broaden access, and help sustain a global scientific community.

—Dara Liling (dliling@agu.org; 0009-0005-6828-2811), American Geophysical Union, USA; Estella Atekwana (0000-0003-1424-4068), University of California Davis, USA; Xianzhe Jia (0000-0002-8685-1484), University of Michigan, USA; and Jim O’Connor (0000-0002-7928-5883), United States Geological Survey, USA

Citation: Liling, D., E. Atekwana, X. Jia, and J. O’Connor (2026), The Editorial Board marks the latest chapter in AGU Books, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO265023. Published on 1 June 2026. This article does not represent the opinion of AGU, Eos, or any of its affiliates. It is solely the opinion of the author(s). Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

SummaryDistributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) using metropolitan telecom fibre-optic cables provides an unprecedented opportunity for seismic monitoring in sedimentary basins, exemplified by Mexico City. In this study, we analyze 15 months of nearly continuous DAS measurements to identify previously undetectable details of wave propagation, thereby enabling the precise localization of local earthquakes. Using real seismic velocity models, we overcome the inaccuracies of traditional constant ${{V}_P}/{{V}_S}$ approaches, highlighting significant limitations of Wadati diagrams in sedimentary environments. Our results reveal clear hydro-seismic coupling, where intense early-season rainfall, coinciding with low aquifer levels, generates sufficient stress perturbations to trigger moderate-magnitude earthquakes (Mw ∼ 3.5). These main events subsequently induce slow slip along local faults and secondary seismicity on a perpendicular plane, driven primarily by stress imbalance rather than fluid involvement along faults. We further identify basin-converted and conical phases as dominant sources of ground shaking, underscoring the urgent need to integrate these secondary seismic phases into urban seismic hazard assessments and building codes. Our findings underscore the crucial role of continuous DAS measurements in comprehending urban seismic risk and managing aquifer resources, thereby establishing a robust monitoring framework with global applicability in sediment-filled megacities.

A new analysis of global wildfire activity in 2025 reveals the world experienced some of the most destructive and deadly fire events in recent history, despite the second lowest area burned since 2002. It highlights a continued trend toward fires becoming increasingly extreme, costly, and disastrous—both economically and in lives lost.

Publication date: 1 June 2026

Source: Advances in Space Research, Volume 77, Issue 11

Author(s): Takehiro Yasuda, Mai Bando, Shinji Hokamoto

Publication date: 1 June 2026

Source: Advances in Space Research, Volume 77, Issue 11

Author(s): Yi Gu, Zihao Li, Hanqing Liu, Qizhang Luo, Huan Liu, Guohua Wu

Publication date: 1 June 2026

Source: Advances in Space Research, Volume 77, Issue 11

Author(s): Xinwei Wang, Chao Han, Roel Leus

In a study published in Nature Geoscience, a research team led by Prof. Liu Lingli from the Institute of Botany of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (IBCAS) has identified a mean annual precipitation (MAP) threshold of approximately 700 mm, beyond which the dominant controls on ecosystem nitrogen retention shift.

Climate change is exacerbating rainfall, flooding and sea-level rises in coastal and low-lying areas. During the past few years, disastrous floods have swept through Lismore in New South Wales, Northern Queensland, and the Great Ocean Road in Victoria. Large waves have pounded beaches, causing erosion in Byron Bay and Wamberal Beach in NSW and Lancelin, Western Australia.

Some 350,000 years ago, the center of New Zealand's North Island appeared much different than the mountainous, scrub-covered landscape it is today. Amid a glacial period, temperatures were colder and conditions harsher. Vast beech and podocarp forests blanketed the region, providing habitat for abundant native birdlife.

For the past several years, Penn State geoscientist Sarah Ivory and her students have been among a team of scientists scaling the East African Rwenzori Mountains, collecting sediment core samples from lakes formed at the end of the last ice age as glaciers began receding in the region some 12,000 years ago.