Can we trust simple marine DMS parameterisations within complex climate models?

Dimethylsulphide (DMS) is a globally important aerosol precurser. In 1987 Charlson and others proposed that an increase in DMS production by certain phytoplankton species in response to a warming climate could stimulate increased aerosol formation, increasing the lower-atmosphere's albedo, and promoting cooling. Despite two decades of research, the global significance of this negative climate feedback remains contentious. It is therefore imperative that schemes are developed and tested, which allow for the realistic incorporation of phytoplankton DMS production into Earth System models. Using these models we can investigate the DMS-climate feedback and reduce uncertainty surrounding projections of future climate. Here we examine two empirical DMS parameterisations within the context of an Earth System model and find them to perform marginally better than the standard DMS climatology at predicting observations from an independent global dataset. We then question whether parameterisations based on our present understanding of DMS production by phytoplankton, and simple enough to incorporate into global climate models, can be shown to enhance the future predictive capacity of those models. This is an important question to ask now, as results from increasingly complex Earth System models lead us into the 5th assessment of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Comparing observed and predicted inter-annual variability, we suggest that future climate projections may underestimate the magnitude of surface ocean DMS change. Unfortunately this conclusion relies on a relatively small dataset, in which observed inter-annual variability may be exaggerated by biases in sample collection. We therefore encourage the observational community to make repeat measurements of sea-surface DMS concentrations an important focus, and highlight areas of apparent high inter-annual variability where sampling might be carried out. Finally, we assess future projections from two similarly valid empirical DMS schemes, and demonstrate contrasting results. We therefore conclude that the use of empirical DMS parameterisations within simulations of future climate should be undertaken only with careful appreciation of the caveats discussed.

Repeated mapping of reefs constructed by Sabellaria spinulosa Leuckart 1849 at an offshore wind farm site

Sabellaria spinulosa reefs are considered to be sensitive and of high conservation status. This article evaluates the feasibility of using remote sensing technology to delineate S. spinulosa reefs. S. spinulosa reef habitats associated with the Thanet Offshore Windfarm site were mapped using high resolution sidescan sonar (410 kHz) and multibeam echo sounder (<1 m2) data in 2005 (baseline), 2007 (pre-construction baseline) and 2012 (post-construction). The S. spinulosa reefs were identified in the acoustic data as areas of distinct irregular texturing. Maps created using acoustic data were validated using quantitative measures of reef quality, namely tube density (as a proxy for the density of live S. spinulosa), percentage cover of S. spinulosa structures (both living and dead) and associated macrofauna derived from seabed images taken across the development site. Statistically significant differences were observed in all physical measures of S. spinulosa as well the number (S) and diversity (H׳) of associated species, derived from seabed images classified according to the presence or absence of reef, validating the use of high resolution sidescan sonar to map these important biogenic habitats. High precision mapping in the early stages allowed for the micro-siting of wind turbines in a way that caused minimal damage to S. spinulosa reefs during construction. These habitats have since recovered and expanded in extent. The surveys undertaken at the Thanet Offshore Windfarm site demonstrate the importance of repeat mapping for this emerging industry, allowing habitat enhancement to be attributed to the development whilst preventing background habitat degradation from being wrongly attributed to the development.

Long-term individual foraging site fidelity – why some gannets don’t change their spots

Many established models of animal foraging assume that individuals are ecologically equivalent. However, it is increasingly recognized that populations may comprise individuals who differ consistently in their diets and foraging behaviors. For example, recent studies have shown that individual foraging site fidelity (IFSF, when individuals consistently forage in only a small part of their population's home range) occurs in some colonial breeders. Short‐term IFSF could result from animals using a win–stay, lose–shift foraging strategy. Alternatively, it may be a consequence of individual specialization. Pelagic seabirds are colonial central‐place foragers, classically assumed to use flexible foraging strategies to target widely dispersed, spatiotemporally patchy prey. However, tracking has shown that IFSF occurs in many seabirds, although it is not known whether this persists across years. To test for long‐term IFSF and to examine alternative hypotheses concerning its cause, we repeatedly tracked 55 Northern Gannets (Morus bassanus) from a large colony in the North Sea within and across three successive breeding seasons. Gannets foraged in neritic waters, predictably structured by tidal mixing and thermal stratification, but subject to stochastic, wind‐induced overturning. Both within and across years, coarse to mesoscale (tens of kilometers) IFSF was significant but not absolute, and foraging birds departed the colony in individually consistent directions. Carbon stable isotope ratios in gannet blood tissues were repeatable within years and nitrogen ratios were also repeatable across years, suggesting long‐term individual dietary specialization. Individuals were also consistent across years in habitat use with respect to relative sea surface temperature and in some dive metrics, yet none of these factors accounted for IFSF. Moreover, at the scale of weeks, IFSF did not decay over time and the magnitude of IFSF across years was similar to that within years, suggesting that IFSF is not primarily the result of win–stay, lose–shift foraging. Rather, we hypothesize that site familiarity, accrued early in life, causes IFSF by canalizing subsequent foraging decisions. Evidence from this and other studies suggests that IFSF may be common in colonial central‐place foragers, with far‐reaching consequences for our attempts to understand and conserve these animals in a rapidly changing environment.

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.