Assessing the environmental consequences of CO2 leakage from geological CCS: Generating evidence to support environmental risk assessment

At the start of the industrial revolution (circa 1750) the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) was around 280 ppm. Since that time the burning of fossil fuel, together with other industrial processes such as cement manufacture and changing land use, has increased this value to 400 ppm, for the first time in over 3 million years. With CO2 being a potent greenhouse gas, the consequence of this rise for global temperatures has been dramatic, and not only for air temperatures. Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) has warmed by 0.4–0.8 °C during the last century, although regional differences are evident (IPCC, 2007). This rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and the resulting global warming to some extent has been ameliorated by the oceanic uptake of around one quarter of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Sabine et al., 2004). Initially this was thought to be having little or no impact on ocean chemistry due to the capacity of the ocean’s carbonate buffering system to neutralise the acidity caused when CO2 dissolves in seawater. However, this assumption was challenged by Caldeira and Wickett (2005) who used model predictions to show that the rate at which carbonate buffering can act was far too slow to moderate significant changes to oceanic chemistry over the next few centuries. Their model predicted that since pre-industrial times, ocean surface water pH had fallen by 0.1 pH unit, indicating a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ ions. Their model also showed that the pH of surface waters could fall by up to 0.4 units before 2100, driven by continued and unabated utilisation of fossil fuels. Alongside increasing levels of dissolved CO2 and H+ (reduced pH) an increase in bicarbonate ions together with a decrease in carbonate ions occurs. These chemical changes are now collectively recognised as “ocean acidification”. Concern now stems from the knowledge that concentrations of H+, CO2, bicarbonate and carbonate ions impact upon many important physiological processes vital to maintaining health and function in marine organisms. Additionally, species have evolved under conditions where the carbonate system has remained relatively stable for millions of years, rendering them with potentially reduced capacity to adapt to this rapid change. Evidence suggests that, whilst the impact of ocean acidification is complex, when considered alongside ocean warming the net effect on the health and productivity of the oceans will be detrimental.

Reply to Haddock, S. H. D. Reconsidering evidence for potential climate-related increases in jellyfish

Following the publication of our paper (Attrill et al. 2007), we became quickly aware of a couple of errors. We have subsequently been collaborating with Dr. Chris Lynam (Lynam et al. 2004, 2005) to bring together our two datasets, explore the common patterns within our data, and attempt to provide a consensus on how climate is affecting gelatinous plankton in the North Sea. During this reanalysis, two errors within the data were discovered, one involving a transcription error of a column of residuals during de-trended analysis, the other a major data entry error deep in the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) database for sector B2. Here we present a revised version of table 1 from Attrill et al. (2007) to incorporate corrections to these transcription and data entry errors. These corrections alter some of the results in our original data table, mainly to increase and strengthen the number of significant relations we found (e.g., for sector B2 and whole sea area); all previous main results remain robustly significant. Following discussions with Dr. Lynam, two clarifications of statements made in Attrill et al. (2007) are also required. Page 482, Results, last line of first column: ‘‘There were no...robust, consistent relations between jellyfish frequency and any environmental variables for B and D… contrary to the findings of previous shorter time series (Lynam et al. 2005).’’ The Lynam et al. (2004, 2005) papers presented no data for the D sector and found no link in the B sector, contrary to our revised results. Page 482, Discussion, paragraph 1, last sentence: ‘‘… positive association … North of Scotland (Lynam et al. 2005) … does not appear to be maintained.’’ Our paper did not report on any data that covered Lynam et al.’s (2005) North of Scotland area so the statement is not directly supported, although their positive relation North of Scotland, when considered in conjunction with inflow, may agree with the C2 and B2 results of Attrill et al. (2007).

Tillin, H. & Tyler-Walters, H., 2014. Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 2 Report – Literature review and sensitivity assessments for ecological groups for circalittoral and offshore Level 5 biotopes. JNCC Report No. 512B, 260 pp.

Human activities within the marine environment give rise to a number of pressures on seabed habitats. Improved understanding of the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats is required to underpin the management advice provided for Marine Protected Areas, as well as supporting other UK marine monitoring and assessment work. The sensitivity of marine sedimentary habitats to a range of pressures induced by human activities has previously been systematically assessed using approaches based on expert judgement for Defra Project MB0102 (Tillin et al. 2010). This previous work assessed sensitivity at the level of the broadscale habitat and therefore the scores were typically expressed as a range due to underlying variation in the sensitivity of the constituent biotopes. The objective of this project was to reduce the uncertainty around identifying the sensitivity of selected subtidal sedimentary habitats by assessing sensitivity, at a finer scale and incorporating information on the biological assemblage, for 33 Level 5 circalittoral and offshore biotopes taken from the Marine Habitat Classification of Britain and Ireland (Connor et al. 2004). Two Level 6 sub-biotopes were also included in this project as these contain distinctive characterising species that differentiate them from the Level 5 parent biotope. Littoral, infralittoral, reduced and variable salinity sedimentary habitats were excluded from this project as the scope was set for assessment of circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities. This project consisted of three Phases. • Phase 1 - define ecological groups based on similarities in the sensitivity of characterising species from the Level 5 and two Level 6 biotopes described above. • Phase 2 - produce a literature review of information on the resilience and resistance of characterising species of the ecological groups to pressures associated with activities in the marine environment. • Phase 3 - to produce sensitivity assessment ‘proformas’ based on the findings of Phase 2 for each ecological group. This report outlines results of Phase 2. The Tillin et al., (2010) sensitivity assessment methodology was modified to use the best available scientific evidence that could be collated within the project timescale. An extensive literature review was compiled, for peer reviewed and grey literature, to examine current understanding about the effects of pressures from human activities on circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities in UK continental shelf waters, together with information on factors that contribute to resilience (recovery) of marine species. This review formed the basis of an assessment of the sensitivity of the 16 ecological groups identified in Phase 1 of the project (Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014). As a result: • the state of knowledge on the effects of each pressure on circalittoral and offshore benthos was reviewed; • the resistance, resilience and, hence, sensitivity of sixteen ecological groups, representing 96 characteristic species, were assessed for eight separate pressures; • each assessment was accompanied by a detailed review of the relevant evidence; Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with human activities • knowledge gaps and sources of uncertainty were identified for each group; • each assessment was accompanied by an assessment of the quality of the evidence, its applicability to the assessment and the degree of concordance (agreement) between the evidence, to highlight sources of uncertainty as an assessment of the overall confidence in the sensitivity assessment, and finally • limitations in the methodology and the application of sensitivity assessments were outlined. This process demonstrated that the ecological groups identified in Phase 1 (Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014) were viable groups for sensitivity assessment, and could be used to represent the 33 circalittoral and offshore sediments biotopes identified at the beginning of the project. The results of the sensitivity assessments show: • the majority of species and hence ecological groups in sedimentary habitats are sensitive to physical change, especially loss of habitat and sediment extraction, and change in sediment type; • most sedimentary species are sensitive to physical damage, e.g. abrasion and penetration, although deep burrowing species (e.g. the Dublin Bay prawn - Nephrops norvegicus and the sea cucumber - Neopentadactyla mixta) are able to avoid damaging effects to varying degrees, depending on the depth of penetration and time of year; • changes in hydrography (wave climate, tidal streams and currents) can significantly affect sedimentary communities, depending on whether they are dominated by deposit, infaunal feeders or suspension feeders, and dependant on the nature of the sediment, which is itself modified by hydrography and depth; • sedentary species and ecological groups that dominate the top-layer of the sediment (either shallow burrowing or epifaunal) remain the most sensitive to physical damage; • mobile species (e.g. interstitial and burrowing amphipods, and perhaps cumaceans) are the least sensitive to physical change or damage, and hydrological change as they are already adapted to unstable, mobile substrata; • sensitivity to changes in organic enrichment and hence oxygen levels, is variable between species and ecological groups, depending on the exact habitat preferences of the species in question, although most species have at least a medium sensitivity to acute deoxygenation; • there is considerable evidence on the effects of bottom-contact fishing practices and aggregate dredging on sedimentary communities, although not all evidence is directly applicable to every ecological group; • there is lack of detailed information on the physiological tolerances (e.g. to oxygenation, salinity, and temperature), habitat preferences, life history and population dynamics of many species, so that inferences has been made from related species, families, or even the same phylum; • there was inadequate evidence to assess the effects of non-indigenous species on most ecological groups, and Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with human activities • there was inadequate evidence to assess the effects of electromagnetic fields and litter on any ecological group. The resultant report provides an up-to-date review of current knowledge about the effects of pressures resulting from human activities of circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities. It provides an evidence base to facilitate and support the provision of management advice for Marine Protected Areas, development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. However, such a review will require at least annual updates to take advantage of new evidence and new research as it becomes available. Also further work is required to test how ecological group assessments are best combined in practice to advise on the sensitivity of a range of sedimentary biotopes, including the 33 that were originally examined.