Effects on zooplankton of a warmer ocean: Recent evidence from the Northeast Pacific

The consequences for pelagic communities of warming trends in mid and high latitude ocean regions could be substantial, but their magnitude and trajectory are not yet known. Environmental changes predicted by climate models (and beginning to be confirmed by observations) include warming and freshening of the upper ocean and reduction in the extent and duration of ice cover. One way to evaluate response scenarios is by comparing how "similar" zooplankton communities have differed among years and/or locations with differing temperature. The subarctic Pacific is a strong candidate for such comparisons, because the same mix of zooplankton species dominates over a wide range of temperature climatologies, and observations have spanned substantial temperature variability at interannual-to-decadal time scales. In this paper, we review and extend copepod abundance and phenology time series from net tow and Continuous Plankton Recorder surveys in the subarctic Northeast Pacific. The two strongest responses we have observed are latitudinal shifts in centers of abundance of many species (poleward under warm conditions), and changes in the life cycle timing of Neocalanus plumchrus in both oceanic and coastal regions (earlier by several weeks in warm years and at warmer locations). These zooplankton data, plus indices of higher trophic level responses such as reproduction, growth and survival of pelagic fish and seabirds, are all moderately-to-strongly intercorrelated (vertical bar r vertical bar = 0.25-0.8) with indices of local and basin-scale temperature anomalies. A principal components analysis of the normalized anomaly time series from 1979 to 2004 shows that a single "warm-and-low-productivity" vs. "cool-and-high-productivity" component axis accounts for over half of the variance/covariance. Prior to 1990, the scores for this component were negative ("cool" and "productive") or near zero except positive in the El Nino years 1983 and 1987. The scores were strongly and increasingly positive ("warm" and "low productivity") from 1992 to 1998; negative from 1999 to 2002; and again increasingly positive from 2003-present. We suggest that, in strongly seasonal environments, anomalously high temperature may provide misleading environmental cues that contribute to timing mismatch between life history events and the more-nearly-fixed seasonality of insolation, stratification, and food supply. Crown Copyright (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Coccolithophore surface distributions in the North Atlantic and their modulation of the air-sea flux of CO2 from 10 years of satellite Earth observation data

Coccolithophores are the primary oceanic phytoplankton responsible for the production of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These climatically important plankton play a key role in the oceanic carbon cycle as a major contributor of carbon to the open ocean carbonate pump (similar to 50 %) and their calcification can affect the atmosphere-to-ocean (air-sea) uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) through increasing the seawater partial pressure of CO2 (pCO(2)). Here we document variations in the areal extent of surface blooms of the globally important coccolithophore, Emiliania huxleyi, in the North Atlantic over a 10-year period (1998-2007), using Earth observation data from the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS). We calculate the annual mean sea surface areal coverage of E. huxleyi in the North Atlantic to be 474 000 +/- 104 000 km(2), which results in a net CaCO3 carbon (CaCO3-C) production of 0.14-1.71 Tg CaCO3-C per year. However, this surface coverage (and, thus, net production) can fluctuate inter-annually by -54/+81% about the mean value and is strongly correlated with the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate oscillation index (r = 0.75, p < 0.02). Our analysis evaluates the spatial extent over which the E. huxleyi blooms in the North Atlantic can increase the pCO(2) and, thus, decrease the localised air-sea flux of atmospheric CO2. In regions where the blooms are prevalent, the average reduction in the monthly air-sea CO2 flux can reach 55%. The maximum reduction of the monthly air-sea CO2 flux in the time series is 155 %. This work suggests that the high variability, frequency and distribution of these calcifying plankton and their impact on pCO(2) should be considered if we are to fully understand the variability of the North Atlantic air-to-sea flux of CO2. We estimate that these blooms can reduce the annual N. Atlantic net sink atmospheric CO2 by between 3-28 %.

Coccolithophore surface distributions in the North Atlantic and their modulation of the air-sea flux of CO2 from 10 years of satellite Earth observation data

Coccolithophores are the primary oceanic phytoplankton responsible for the production of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These climatically important plankton play a key role in the oceanic carbon cycle as a major contributor of carbon to the open ocean 5 carbonate pump (�50%) and their formation can affect the atmosphere-to-ocean (airsea) uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) through increasing the seawater partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2). Here we document variations in the areal extent of surface blooms of the globally important coccolithophore, Emiliania huxleyi, in the North Atlantic over a 10-year period (1998–2007), using Earth observation data from the Sea-viewing Wide 10 Field of view Sensor (SeaWiFS).We calculate the annual mean surface areal coverage of E. huxleyi in the North Atlantic to be 474 000±119 000km2 yr−1, which results in a net CaCO3 production of 0.62±0.15 Tg CaCO3 carbon per year. However, this surface coverage and net production can fluctuate by −54/+81% about these mean values and are strongly correlated with the El Ni˜no/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate os15 cillation index (r =0.75, p<0.02). Our analysis evaluates the spatial extent over which the E. huxleyi blooms in the North Atlantic can increase the pCO2 and thus decrease the localised sink of atmospheric CO2. In regions where the blooms are prevalent, the average reduction in the monthly CO2 sink can reach 12 %. The maximum reduction of the monthly CO2 sink in the time series is 32 %. This work suggests that the high 20 variability, frequency and distribution of these calcifying plankton and their impact on pCO2 should be considered within modelling studies of the North Atlantic if we are to fully understand the variability of its air-to-sea CO2 flux.

The potential use of mapped extent and distribution of habitats as indicators of Good Environmental Status (GES)

The Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group (HBDSEG) has been tasked with providing the technical advice for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with respect to descriptors linked to biodiversity. A workshop was held in London to address one of the Research and Development (R&D) proposals entitled: ‘Mapping the extent and distribution of habitats using acoustic and remote techniques, relevant to indicators for area/extent/habitat loss.’ The aim of the workshop was to identify, define and assess the feasibility of potential indicators of benthic habitat distribution and extent, and identify the R&D work which could be required to fully develop these indicators. The main points that came out of the workshop were: (i) There are many technical aspects of marine habitat mapping that still need to be resolved if cost-effective spatial indicators are to be developed. Many of the technical aspects that need addressing surround issues of consistency, confidence and repeatability. These areas should be tackled by the JNCC Habitat Mapping and Classification Working Group and the HBDSEG Seabed Mapping Working Group. (ii) There is a need for benthic ecologists (through the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup and the JNCC Marine Indicators Group) to finalise the list of habitats for which extent and/or distribution indicators should be considered for development, building upon the recommendations from this report. When reviewing the list of indicators, benthic habitats could also be distinguished into those habitats that are defined/determined primarily by physical parameters (although including biological assemblages) (e.g. subtidal shallow sand) and those defined primarily by their biological assemblage (e.g. seagrass beds). This distinction is important as some anthropogenic pressures may influence the biological component of the ecosystem despite not having a quantifiable effect on the physical habitat distribution/extent. (iii) The scale and variety of UK benthic habitats makes any attempt to undertake comprehensive direct mapping exercises prohibitively expensive (especially where there is a need for repeat surveys for assessment). There is a clear need therefore to develop a risk-based approach that uses indirect indicators (e.g. modelling), such as habitats at risk from pressures caused by current human activities, to develop priorities for information gathering. The next steps that came out of the workshop were: (i) A combined approach should be developed by the JNCC Marine Indicators Group together with the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup, which will compile and ultimately synthesise all the criteria used by the three different groups from the workshop. The agreed combined approach will be used to undertake a final review of the habitats considered during the workshop, and to evaluate any remaining habitats in order to produce a list of habitats for indicator development for which extent and/or distribution indicators could be appropriate. (ii) The points of advice raised at this workshop, alongside the combined approach aforementioned, and the final list of habitats for extent and/or distribution indicator development will be used to develop a prioritised list of actions to inform the next round of R&D proposals for benthic habitat indicator development in 2014. This will be done through technical discussions within JNCC and the relevant HBDSEG Subgroups. The preparation of recommendations by these groups should take into account existing work programmes, and consider the limited resources available to undertake any further R&D work.