From silk to satellite: half a century of ocean colour anomalies in the Northeast Atlantic

Changes in phytoplankton dynamics influence marine biogeochemical cycles, climate processes, and food webs, with substantial social and economic consequences. Large-scale estimation of phytoplankton biomass was possible via ocean colour measurements from two remote sensing satellites – the Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS, 1979-1986) and the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS, 1998-2010). Due to the large gap between the two satellite eras and differences in sensor characteristics, comparison of the absolute values retrieved from the two instruments remains challenging. Using a unique in situ ocean colour dataset that spans more than half a century, the two satellite-derived chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) eras are linked to assess concurrent changes in phytoplankton variability and bloom timing over the Northeast Atlantic Ocean and North Sea. Results from this unique re-analysis reflect a clear increasing pattern of Chl-a, a merging of the two seasonal phytoplankton blooms producing a longer growing season and higher seasonal biomass, since the mid-1980s. The broader climate plays a key role in Chl-a variability as the ocean colour anomalies parallel the oscillations of the Northern Hemisphere Temperature (NHT) since 1948.

On the Front Line: frontal zones as priority at-sea conservation areas for mobile marine vertebrates

1.Identifying priority areas for marine vertebrate conservation is complex because species of conservation concern are highly mobile, inhabit dynamic habitats and are difficult to monitor. 2.Many marine vertebrates are known to associate with oceanographic fronts – physical interfaces at the transition between water masses – for foraging and migration, making them important candidate sites for conservation. Here, we review associations between marine vertebrates and fronts and how they vary with scale, regional oceanography and foraging ecology. 3.Accessibility, spatiotemporal predictability and relative productivity of front-associated foraging habitats are key aspects of their ecological importance. Predictable mesoscale (10s–100s km) regions of persistent frontal activity (‘frontal zones’) are particularly significant. 4.Frontal zones are hotspots of overlap between critical habitat and spatially explicit anthropogenic threats, such as the concentration of fisheries activity. As such, they represent tractable conservation units, in which to target measures for threat mitigation. 5.Front mapping via Earth observation (EO) remote sensing facilitates identification and monitoring of these hotspots of vulnerability. Seasonal or climatological products can locate biophysical hotspots, while near-real-time front mapping augments the suite of tools supporting spatially dynamic ocean management. 6.Synthesis and applications. Frontal zones are ecologically important for mobile marine vertebrates. We surmise that relative accessibility, predictability and productivity are key biophysical characteristics of ecologically significant frontal zones in contrasting oceanographic regions. Persistent frontal zones are potential priority conservation areas for multiple marine vertebrate taxa and are easily identifiable through front mapping via EO remote sensing. These insights are useful for marine spatial planning and marine biodiversity conservation, both within Exclusive Economic Zones and in the open oceans.

There are no whole truths in meta-analyses: all their truths are half truths

In a recent letter, Thomsen & Wernberg (2015) rean-alyzed data compiled for our recent paper (Lyonset al., 2014). In that paper, we examined the effectsof macroalgal blooms and macroalgal mats on sevenimportant measures of community structure and eco-system functioning and explored several ecologicaland methodological factors that might explain someof the variation in the observed effects. Thomsen &Wernberg (2015) re-analyzed two small subsets of the data, focusing on experimental studies examining effects of blooms/mats on invertebrate abundance.Their analyses revealed two interesting patterns.First, they showed that macroalgal blooms reducedthe abundance of communities that Thomsen andWernberg categorized as ‘mainly infauna’, whileincreasing the abundance of communities categorized as ‘mainly epifauna’. Second, they showed that theimpacts of macroalgal blooms on ‘mainly infauna’communities increased with algal density in experiments that included multiple levels of algal density.These findings, as well as the conclusions that Thomsen & Wernberg (2015) draw from them, are largely consistent with our own expectations and interpretations. However, we also feel that some caution is required when interpreting the results of their analyses.