What’s going on with the oceans and what can we do?

As carbon dioxide (CO₂) rises in our atmosphere, the oceans absorb roughly a quarter of the amount. This lowers the pH level in the seawater, making the oceans more acidic. How this affects life in and out of the sea is continually studied.

This week, ocean acidification is the topic of several scientific papers. We thought we’d highlight a few of them here.

Nature Climate Change has two papers—one about the affect of acidification on several different species, and the other on how ocean acidification causes even more global warming.

For the first paper, German researchers surveyed previous studies that dealt with the consequences of ocean acidification for marine species from five animal taxa: corals, crustaceans, mollusks, fish, and echinoderms. By the end, they had compiled a total of 167 studies with the data from more than 150 different species.

Their findings? Different species are affected in different ways and to different extents, but all species are negatively affected by ocean acidification. “Our study showed that all animal groups we considered are affected negatively by higher carbon dioxide concentrations. Corals, echinoderms, and mollusks above all react very sensitively to a decline in the pH value,” says lead author Astrid Wittmann, of the Alfred Wegener Institute.

The second study demonstrates that the negative effects of ocean acidification aren’t just limited to marine life. The authors discovered that rising ocean acidity has the potential to amplify climate warming in general, through the decreased production of a biogenic sulfur compound.

Phytoplankton in the ocean produce dimethyl sulfid (DMS). As DMS is released into the air, it creates atmospheric sulfur—which increases the reflectivity of the atmosphere to incoming radiation, reducing surface temperatures. Warming acidic oceans means the phytoplankton produce less DMS, causing an even warmer planet.

In addition to the Nature papers, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B has an ocean acidification-themed issue this week, with nine papers studying its effects. The papers describe three distinct effects on marine life due to ocean acidification: species interactions, decreased ecosystem functions, and adaptations. Andrew Revkin has a great summary of them on his Dot Earth blog in the New York Times.

“It’s great that some of these papers are looking at entire ecosystems,” says Aaron Pope, the Academy’s sustainability manager who works tirelessly to communicate ocean acidification issues. “There’s been lots of research in the past on individual species impacts, but data on entire natural systems was missing. Now we can start to talk about what will really happen in marine ecosystems as ocean acidification gets worse.”

One paper of the group (from local researchers at San Francisco State University) looks at tiny coccolithophores. These single-celled algae are able to sequester oceanic carbon by incorporating it into their shells, providing ballast to speed the sinking of carbon to the deep sea. The little organisms are central to the global carbon cycle, a role that could be disrupted if rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and warming temperatures interfere with their ability to grow their calcified shells.

This paper might provide a bit of hope among the rest: “At least in this experiment with one coccolithophore strain, when we combined higher levels of CO₂ with higher temperatures, they actually did better in terms of calcification,” says co-author Jonathon Stillman, of SF State.

Here’s to hoping that all of these papers findings will create more awareness of ocean acidification that will lead to more solutions.

Coccolithophore image: Alison R. Taylor/PLoS Biology

Happy Earth Day! We would like to share a few recent headlines for you to peruse to ponder and protect our planet…

Pollution
From high to low, all around the world, pollution affects our world. Recent headlines show that “Toxic chemicals are accumulating in the ecosystems of the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau,” according to Nature. Tiny plastic particles aren’t just trouble in the oceans; the Great Lakes contain millions of microplastics, too. The New York Times’ Dot Earth blog has a short post about the importance of not littering. And National Geographic has an article about how pollution on land can affect marine life like dolphins and local sea otters.

Colorado River
While many U.S. rivers have problems with pollution, the Colorado River’s mismanagement, overuse and drought put it atop the list of Endangered Rivers of 2013. National Geographic has an entire series on the Colorado River delta, and the New York Times has offered both an article and video last week on the region’s hopeful revival.

Drought
Speaking of drought… Do drought-stressed trees cry for help? French scientists are listening for clues. Climate change was not responsible for last summer’s Midwestern drought, according to NOAA, but then what was? And how might we be able to predict future droughts?

Climate Change
Climate change may not have caused of the recent drought, but it is responsible for other devastating events and looming disasters: bumpier flights, more storms, bark beetle plagues, drowned islands, failures in agriculture systems and more extinctions. Researchers are also getting a better handle on tracking climate change through mapping ocean eddies and looking at historic ocean temperatures and air pressure.

Ecology
How do species react to environmental changes? Rapid evolution, according to one study. Another study suggests that endangered species are already doomed. And Nature offers an update on a decades-long study of habitat fragmentation in the Amazon.

Energy
How has energy usage in our country changed over the past two hundred years? NPR has a graph (or four) for that. In response, Scientific American presents a diagram illustrating our potential for future alternative energy use and resources accompanying an article titled, “How to Power the World without Fossil Fuels.” Germany seems to have taken notice—the European country has ambitious renewable plans. But it’s not the only one. The U.S. had a huge year in 2012 for wind power. And, heading across the country soon? How about a solar-powered flight?

Earth Day
Finally, let’s truly celebrate the planet’s holiday with history, maps, jokes about Earth Day, and facts and photos of our beautiful home.

Image: Terra/ASTER/NASA and NASA Earth Observatory

The fossils date from 542 to 635 million years ago and, since their discovery in 1947, have been described as marine fossils. Now, a researcher at the University of Oregon believes new evidence prove the fossils to be terrestrial—making them the first terrestrial fossils ever. If true, it would mean that life on land evolved 10 to 100 million years earlier than previously thought.

But the caveat “if true” is quite a big question. Could they possibly be terrestrial? I spoke to the Academy’s Peter Roopnarine about this latest hypothesis, published last month in Nature.

“The fossils in question date to the Vendian and earliest Paleozoic—just before and in the earliest days of the animal fossil record that begins with the Cambrian Explosion,” Roopnarine explains. “The fossils are usually referred to as the Ediacaran Fauna, based on the region of their first discovery in Australia. But they have since been found all over the world.

“They are extremely important because they give us our first material evidence of complex life forms on Earth, either many-celled colonies of eukaryotic organisms or true multicellular organisms,” he adds. “They are evidence that the world was changing dramatically, and really set the stage for the next big leap, the Cambrian Explosion.”

Given this description of these fossils, it’s easy to understand why the newly proposed definition—from marine species to terrestrial species—is a big deal. In addition, the author of this new study, Greg Retellack, has been making this claim for years. The latest study is just further evidence for this claim, according to Retellack.

Using chemical and microscopic techniques, Retellack studied numerous Ediacaran fossils and claims that the diversity reflects a preference by the ancient organisms for “unfrozen, low salinity soils, rich in nutrients, like most terrestrial organisms.” In other words, the soils that these organisms inhabited were terrestrial, not underwater. His study determines that instead of ancient marine creatures, these fossils could have been lichens, microbes, fungus or slime molds.

Roopnarine disagrees. “I don’t lend much credence to the hypothesis. As indicated in a Nature News piece, there is very little sedimentological evidence to support Retallack’s claim. He sees fossil soils, but every other independent study concludes that the sediments are marine. I also do not buy the lichen or slime-mold ideas. The fossils show a great deal of organization of the bodies. They are recognizable as particular species wherever you find them. At best I would say we’re seeing a highly organized fungus, but a more likely explanation is a combination of early animal body-plans and maybe some other branch of the multi-cellular eukaryotic tree of life that subsequently went extinct.”

Nonetheless, Roopnarine isn’t surprised at the lasting debate over the fossils. “Arguments and competing hypotheses can last for decades, sometimes a century or more in science,” he explains. But, for him, weighing the evidence clearly sides with these Ediacaran fauna as marine species. “Because the Ediacaran fauna is so unlike anything else that we know, we will never truly be able to settle this and say exactly what they were. But we can at least say what is consistent with the data that we do have, and the data here do not support a terrestrial setting, nor, in my opinion, a fauna of terrestrial lichens.”

Image: Greg Retallack

Oh, is that all?

Cameron is not a scientist, but a proponent of science, as he described at a press conference yesterday. (And scientists need more people like him on their side!) In this role, he hopes to bring science into the popular dialogue and provide tools to scientists—whether that’s funding (through different sources including his Blue Planet Marine Research foundation) or engineering (such as his Deepsea Challenger submersible).

This past March, Cameron and a team of scientists headed to the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean. Using his submersible as well as two unmanned landers, Cameron gradually dove deeper and deeper into the Mariana Trench, collecting samples and video for scientists.

At the AGU meeting, researchers described their findings at these depths and locations. Kevin Hand, an astrobiologist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, spoke of microbial mats and the serpentinization that he witnessed. Doug Bartlett, a microbiologist from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, discussed not only the many novel microbes discovered, but also the larger organisms found at some of these depths, including crustaceans, worms, corals and anemones. Patricia Fryer, a geologist from the University of Hawaii, described the tectonic plates, subduction zone and topography at that location.

Together, the findings describe a rich and unique ecosystem. With no other resources to feed the microbes, the researchers propose that the serpentinization on the overriding subduction plate is the energy source for microbes and microbial mats at those depths. Those microbes in turn feed the larger animals seen in the area.

Cameron and the scientists go a step further, suggesting that the serpentinization’s match of geochemistry and biochemistry could be how life began on this planet. And what’s more, this could be how life works in other water bodies in our Solar System and beyond. Cameron named the moons Enceladus, Europa and Callisto as potentially harboring these processes.

We have much to learn about this unusual spot on our planet, 35,630 feet below sea level, and Cameron’s quest is a boon for marine science. Even though the proposed theories about the origin of life seem a bit premature, just focusing on the “unexplored frontiers right here on Earth,” in Cameron’s words, is enough. Isn’t it?

Image: Kmusser/Wikipedia using NOAA data

]]> http://www.calacademy.org/sciencetoday/diving-deep-for-science/559483/feed/ 0 http://www.calacademy.org/sciencetoday/protected-areas-part-2-ca/551804/ http://www.calacademy.org/sciencetoday/protected-areas-part-2-ca/551804/#comments Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:59:52 +0000 molly http://www.calacademy.org/sciencetoday/?p=1804 This is the second installment of our two-part feature exploring marine protected area designation and the impacts on indigenous peoples in Canada and California. Today we will feature California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) and what the proposed network of protected areas will mean for coastal indigenous communities.

In 1999, the state of California enacted the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which directed the reevaluation and redesign of all existing state marine protected areas (MPAs) to function as a network. According to the California Department of Fish and Game, “when designed and managed effectively, MPAs can help to preserve biological diversity, protect habitats (both healthy and degraded), aid in the recovery of depleted fisheries, and promote recreational, scientific, and educational opportunities.” In an ideal world, they would maintain the balance between human use and conservation.

The MLPA Initiative is a public-private collaborative effort of scientists, resource managers, stakeholders and members of the public designing and implementing the MPAs along California’s coast. This process has been open and transparent to ensure that all views are heard.

There is room for improvement, though. Earlier this year, members of the Kashia tribe of Pomo Indians gathered at a final, historic ceremony before the closure of their traditional gathering grounds at Stewarts Point in Sonoma County. This area is now designated as Stewarts Point State Marine Reserve OR Stewarts Point State Marine Reserve and the indigenous group was effectively banned from subsistence and ceremonial gathering which they have performed for centuries.

The tribe responded by drafting a proposed amendment to the recently designated Stewarts Point Marine Reserve, which would allow gathering activities on part of the reserve. The California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in favor of the proposal in late June deciding to designate the area as the Danaga State Marine Conservation Area.

Dan Bacher from the San Francisco Independent Media Center wrote this about the historic agreement:

This is the first time that tribal fishing and gathering rights have been formally recognized in the creation of a MPA under the MLPA Initiative – and the first time that an already adopted marine reserve has been amended to allow for tribal subsistence and ceremonial use.

There’s still some way to go before all stakeholders understand one another and the marine systems they depend upon, but the efforts of Canada and California to include indigenous peoples in the planning process are a step in the right direction.

Over one hundred years ago, indigenous peoples were often removed from many national parks to maintain the notion of a “pristine environment”. Today, the designation of marine protected areas is under a similar challenge as their terrestrial counterparts. What are the impacts on indigenous peoples who have co-existed with these regions for thousands of years?

Over the next two days, we will feature two recent examples of marine protected area designation and what it means for indigenous peoples from both sides of the border; one from the northwest coast of British Columbia, Canada and another from the shores here in California.

“Where the land, the sea and the people are inseparable” – the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site was officially recognized in a landmark agreement between the Government of Canada and the Haida First Nations peoples on June 7, 2010. Located on the remote south coast of the Haida Gwaii, formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands, southeast of Alaska and approximately 62 miles from the mainland province of British Columbia, Canada, the reserve is considered by some to be “the Galapagos of the North”.

According to the Vancouver Sun, the protected area “will make history as the first on the planet to guard a precious ecosystem stretching from 2,000 feet below water to 4,000 feet above the ocean”.  Including both the temperate rainforest ecosystems that surround the coastline and the sea floor in a 1,351 square mile reserve was not easy. For one thing, bringing together the Haida, a First Nations tribe who have lived in the region for millennia, with the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans who manage the economically critical fisheries in the country, and Parks Canada into an agreement took over 20 years. Parks Canada Planner and Project Manager for the Gwaii Haanas agreement, Nick Irving says this unique co-operative planning structure is “fundamentally premised on a willingness of the respective parties to come together and work in the spirit of cooperation”.

What’s next for the Gwaii Haanas? Irving says the three parties will be working towards the development of a comprehensive management plan for the area that will be based on “shared ecological, cultural and sustainable use objectives”. According to him, “you can’t take humans out of the equation, but rather, you can put greater emphasis on the need to care for an area…for it to be celebrated, used, and experienced”.

Image: Nick Irving, 2010