Why the dramatic title? It could be the dozens of headlines each day in the news and scientific journals on climate change–driven disasters. Finally, it appears that reticent deniers are becoming fewer and fewer as ever-growing portions of the world are burning, drowning, or dying of thirst and starvation. These increasingly widespread emergencies will continue to dominate headlines, so much so that people may become apathetic, that is, until it strikes their neighborhood. More and more, these “natural” emergencies will increasingly demonstrate the interwoven linkages to virtually every aspect of physical, chemical, and biological systems (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014; Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service 2019; World Economic Forum 2019). Then, as our compartmentalized, media-specific environmental regulations are violated, agencies will continue to respond in piecemeal fashion, separately addressing flooding, wildfires, water and air quality, wastewater discharge violations, fishery declines, and the many other environmental and human health concerns.

Much of the climate change research funding has focused on pristine areas, such as the Arctic, Antarctica, and Greenland, along with climate modeling showing increased extreme events, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and potential links to biodiversity. Little funding has gone to ecosystems within human-dominated areas, severely stressed because of habitat degradation, altered flows, elevated nutrients, erosion, and pesticides and other contaminants, to name a few (US Environmental Protection Agency 2017). Over half of US rivers and streams are impaired. An expert workshop almost a decade ago described common-sense conceptual models of how climate change and “regulated” stressors (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls) will likely interact and modify ecosystem responses (Gouin et al. 2013; Landis et al. 2013; Stahl et al. 2013). Because climate–stressor interactions are clearly occurring, management of the environment should cross the critical disciplines, including the most common stressors impairing ecosystems. Given these stressed ecosystems and their associated environmental services, climate change interactions should be part of the research focus. Relevant government agencies are operating within their own mission silos. For example, in the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is studying coastal systems, the US Geological Survey is studying inland systems, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is more focused on human health and atmospheric concerns, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service is focused on threatened and endangered species. These US-centric agencies can be replaced with their counterparts from any developed country. Most ecosystem funding in the United States is via the National Science Foundation, yet it does not consider chemical contamination—saying it is the responsibility of the USEPA. But the USEPA's ecosystem research budget has long been inadequate, despite dramatic increases in chemical production and ecosystem exposures. The USEPA-mandated remediations of site contamination rarely consider climate change. Billions are being spent on sediment contamination remediation which will be affected by extreme events, with questionable outcomes for improving ecosystem quality (National Research Council 2007).

Government agencies worldwide need collaborative research initiatives to better understand the growing direct and indirect linkages, both known and unknown, between “regulated” environmental stressors and the increasing frequency and magnitude of extreme climate events. Palmer et al. ( 2009) said protecting rivers from climate change “will require collaborations among multiple partners … and wise land use planning.” How can ecosystem and human health be protected otherwise? How can optimal adaptive management strategies be developed? Can the dramatic losses in biodiversity and species abundances, along with food and water security for wildlife and humans, be averted without understanding these interrelationships? Or will government just blindly trudge forward operating in silos—business as usual?

Given the economic straits of governments due to wars, famines, extreme events, the pandemic, and so on, it is unlikely crucial research funding is soon to come. So, a call for action: Create or modify an existing database clearinghouse for environmental scientists from all sectors to accelerate opportunities for interdisciplinary collaborations. It is not apparent that the appropriate clearinghouse now exists. This site would be the focal point for scientists to share recent studies, plan new studies, and “piggyback” ongoing studies to combine critically important expertise to best address climate change. Even without new research funding, scientists should be eager to better understand complex stressor–response relationships that continue to grow in magnitude and frequency because of climate change. As an example, a recent assessment of the fisheries in a river could provide hydrologists, environmental chemists, aquatic ecologists, and ecotoxicologists a study site where they benefit from data provided by the fisheries project. Another example could be a new stormwater study that would benefit from additional expertise by “piggybacking” their study with other scientists who have separate funding. Joint collaborations where funding is from multiple sources or agencies are rare but are needed to fill knowledge gaps until broader climate–stressor interaction research programs are established by institutions. Multistressor research occurs occasionally, such as with coral reefs, but is often under the purview of one agency. Where agency collaborations are possible, they should address multimedia, multistressor interactions and their impact on system responses. New research programs will require agency collaborations to co-sponsor funding that crosses agency mandates.

Can we start an initiative with champions from key research program and funding entities quickly coming together? They could establish database submission guidelines, such as brief summary descriptions of study sites and experimental design parameters along with key contacts. A global call for engagement could be made. This would facilitate new and sorely needed interdisciplinary partnerships for increasing our understanding of climate interactions with other anthropogenic stressors. This knowledge, in turn, will allow for more effective and efficient adaptive management strategies in human-dominated ecosystems, which should then save species, save lives, and reduce hardship.

为什么是戏剧性的标题？它可能是每天新闻和科学期刊上关于气候变化驱动灾难的几十个头条新闻。最后，随着世界上越来越多的地区正在燃烧、溺水或死于口渴和饥饿，沉默的否认者似乎越来越少。这些日益普遍的紧急情况将继续占据头条新闻，以至于人们可能会变得冷漠，也就是说，直到它袭击他们的社区。这些“自然”紧急情况将越来越多地显示出与物理、化学和生物系统几乎所有方面的相互交织的联系（政府间气候变化专门委员会，  2014 年；政府间生物多样性和生态系统服务科学政策平台，  2019 年）; 2019 年世界经济论坛 ）。然后，由于违反了我们划分的、特定于媒体的环境法规，各机构将继续以零碎的方式做出反应，分别解决洪水、野火、水和空气质量、废水排放违规、渔业衰退以及许多其他环境和人类健康问题.

大部分气候变化研究资金都集中在原始地区，如北极、南极洲和格陵兰岛，以及显示极端事件增加、海平面上升、海洋酸化以及与生物多样性的潜在联系的气候模型。很少有资金用于人类主导地区的生态系统，由于栖息地退化、流量改变、营养物质升高、侵蚀、杀虫剂和其他污染物等严重压力，仅举几例（美国环境保护署 2017 年）。美国一半以上的河流和溪流受到损害。大约十年前的一次专家研讨会描述了气候变化和“受管制”压力源（例如多氯联苯）可能如何相互作用和改变生态系统响应的常识概念模型（Gouin 等，  2013; 兰迪斯等人。 2013 年；斯塔尔等人。 2013）。由于气候-压力源相互作用明显发生，环境管理应跨越关键学科，包括损害生态系统的最常见压力源。鉴于这些受压力的生态系统及其相关的环境服务，气候变化相互作用应成为研究重点的一部分。相关政府机构在自己的任务孤岛内运作。例如，在美国，国家海洋和大气管理局正在研究沿海系统，美国地质调查局正在研究内陆系统，美国环境保护署（USEPA）更关注人类健康和大气问题，美国鱼类野生动物服务中心专注于受威胁和濒危物种。这些以美国为中心的机构可以被任何发达国家的同行所取代。美国的大部分生态系统资金是通过国家科学基金会提供的，但它不考虑化学污染——说这是 USEPA 的责任。但是，尽管化学品生产和生态系统暴露量急剧增加，但 USEPA 的生态系统研究预算长期以来一直不足。USEPA 规定的场地污染补救措施很少考虑气候变化。数十亿美元用于受极端事件影响的沉积物污染修复，改善生态系统质量的结果令人怀疑（国家研究委员会 但它不考虑化学污染——说这是 USEPA 的责任。但是，尽管化学品生产和生态系统暴露量急剧增加，但 USEPA 的生态系统研究预算长期以来一直不足。USEPA 规定的场地污染补救措施很少考虑气候变化。数十亿美元用于受极端事件影响的沉积物污染修复，改善生态系统质量的结果令人怀疑（国家研究委员会 但它不考虑化学污染——说这是 USEPA 的责任。但是，尽管化学品生产和生态系统暴露量急剧增加，但 USEPA 的生态系统研究预算长期以来一直不足。USEPA 规定的场地污染补救措施很少考虑气候变化。数十亿美元用于受极端事件影响的沉积物污染修复，改善生态系统质量的结果令人怀疑（国家研究委员会 2007 年）。

世界各地的政府机构需要合作研究计划，以更好地了解“受监管的”环境压力与日益频繁和严重的极端气候事件之间日益增长的直接和间接联系，无论是已知的还是未知的。帕尔默等人。（  2009 年）表示，保护河流免受气候变化影响“需要多个合作伙伴之间的合作……以及明智的土地使用规划。” 否则如何保护生态系统和人类健康？如何制定最佳适应性管理策略？如果不了解这些相互关系，是否可以避免生物多样性和物种丰富度以及野生动物和人类的食物和水安全的巨大损失？还是政府会盲目地在孤岛中艰难前行——一切照旧？

鉴于战争、饥荒、极端事件、流行病等导致政府经济陷入困境，关键的研究资金不太可能很快到来。因此，呼吁采取行动：为所有部门的环境科学家创建或修改现有的数据库交换所，以加快跨学科合作的机会。现在是否存在适当的票据交换所并不明显。该网站将成为科学家分享近期研究、计划新研究和“搭载”正在进行的研究的焦点，以结合至关重要的专业知识，以最好地应对气候变化。即使没有新的研究资金，科学家们也应该渴望更好地理解由于气候变化而在幅度和频率上继续增长的复杂压力-反应关系。举个例子，最近对河流渔业的评估可以为水文学家、环境化学家、水生生态学家和生态毒理学家提供一个研究地点，他们可以从渔业项目提供的数据中受益。另一个例子可能是一项新的雨水研究，该研究将通过与其他拥有单独资金的科学家一起“搭载”他们的研究而受益于额外的专业知识。来自多个来源或机构的资助的联合合作很少见，但需要填补知识空白，直到机构建立更广泛的气候 - 压力源相互作用研究计划。多重压力源研究偶尔会发生，例如珊瑚礁，但通常属于一个机构的职权范围。如果机构合作是可能的，他们应该解决多媒体、多压力源交互及其对系统响应的影响。

我们能否启动一项计划，让来自关键研究计划和资助实体的支持者迅速聚集在一起？他们可以建立数据库提交指南，例如对研究地点和实验设计参数的简要描述以及关键联系人。可以发出全球参与的呼吁。这将促进新的和急需的跨学科合作伙伴关系，以增加我们对气候与其他人为压力源相互作用的理解。反过来，这些知识将允许在人类主导的生态系统中制定更有效和高效的适应性管理战略，从而拯救物种、拯救生命并减少困难。