Meta-Eukomics Webinar
Speakers: Sonya Dyhrman (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia Univ.) and Lucia Campese (Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Naples)
January 28, 2pm ET REGISTER
Do you do science related to the air-sea interactions? If so, we’d love to hear from you!
Funding agencies often rely on the science community to identify and prioritize leading-edge scientific questions and required observations. NASA and its partners ask the National Research Council (NRC) once every decade to look out 10 years into the future and prioritize research areas, observations, and national missions.
The OCB Ocean Atmosphere Interaction Committee (OAIC) is gathering input and ideas for a white paper focused on our community’s priorities for NASA related air-sea interaction research.
Please fill out the form to share with us your ideas.
Your input and collaboration is critical to this process -a cohesive community voice on research priorities and key observables will be much more likely to garner NASA support for missions, field campaigns, etc. to support air-sea research.
Email oaic@whoi.edu with questions or further ideas.
SOLAS warmly invites everyone to join us in Xiamen for an evening of reconnecting with old friends and meeting new ones. The gathering will take place on Tuesday, 14 January 2025, starting at 7:00 PM. The first round of drinks is on us!
To register, please complete the Google registration form by 31 Dec. 2024. If you are unable to access the Google form, please register here.
Gelatinous zooplankton comprise a widespread group of animals that are increasingly recognized as important components of pelagic ecosystems. Historically understudied, we have little knowledge of how much key taxa contribute to carbon fluxes. Likewise, there’s a critical knowledge gap of the impact of ocean change on these taxa.
Appendicularia are the most abundant gelatinous zooplankton in the world oceans. Their population dynamics display typical boom-and-bust characteristics, i.e. high grazing rates in combination with a short generation time and life cycle, results in intense blooms. The most prominent feature of appendicularians is their mucous feeding-structure (“house”), which is produced and discarded several times per day. These sinking houses can contribute substantially to carbon export.
Figure 1: Influence of ocean acidification on the Appendicularia Oikopleura dioica and carbon export. Appendicularian populations display typical boom-and-bust characteristics, resulting in intense blooms. The sinking of appendicularians’ discarded mucous feeding-structure several times per day can contribute substantially to carbon export. Low pH conditions (as expected for future ocean acidification extreme events) enhanced its population growth and contribution to carbon fluxes shown above (red lines/diamonds) vs ambient (blue lines/diamonds).
(Figure sources: Picture by Jean-Marie Bouquet, data plots from Taucher et al. (2024): The appendicularian Oikopleura dioica can enhance carbon export in a high CO2 ocean. Global Change Biology, doi:10.1111/gcb.17020)
A recent study in Global Change Biology quantified how much appendicularia can contribute to carbon export via the biological pump, and how this carbon flux could markedly increase under future ocean acidification and associated extreme pH events.
The findings are based on a large-volume in situ experimental approach that allowed observing natural plankton populations and carbon export under close-to-natural conditions for almost two months. Thereby, O. dioica population dynamics could be directly linked to sediment trap data to quantify the influence of this key species on carbon fluxes at unprecedented detail. During the appendicularia bloom up to 39% of total carbon export was attributed to them.
The most striking finding was that high CO2 conditions elevated carbon export by appendicularia increased by roughly 50%. Appendicularians physiologically benefit from low pH conditions, giving them a competitive advantage over other zooplankton, allowing them to contribute to a disproportionally large role in carbon export from the ecosystem.
Authors
Jan Taucher (GEOMAR)
Anna Katharina Lechtenbörger (GEOMAR)
Jean-Marie Bouquet (University of Bergen)
Carsten Spisla (GEOMAR)
Tim Boxhammer (GEOMAR)
Fabrizio Minutolo (GEOMAR)
Lennart Thomas Bach (University of Tasmania)
Kai T. Lohbeck (University of Konstanz)
Michael Sswat (GEOMAR)
Isabel Dörner (GEOMAR)
Stefanie M. H. Ismar-Rebitz (GEOMAR)
Eric M. Thompson (University of Bergen)
Ulf Riebesell (GEOMAR)
Climate change is expected to especially impact coastal zones, worsening deoxygenation in the Chesapeake Bay by reducing oxygen solubility and increasing remineralization rates of organic matter. However, simulated responses of this often fail to account for uncertainties embedded within the application of future climate scenarios.
Recent research published in Biogeosciences and in Scientific Reports sought to tackle multiple sources of uncertainty in future impacts to dissolved oxygen levels by simulating multiple climate scenarios within the Chesapeake Bay region using a coupled hydrodynamic-biogeochemical model. In Hinson et al. (2023), researchers showed that a multitude of climate scenarios projected a slight increase in hypoxia levels due solely to watershed impacts, although the choice of global earth system model, downscaling methodology, and watershed model equally contributed to the relative uncertainty in future hypoxia estimates. In Hinson et al. (2024), researchers also found that the application of climate change scenario forcings itself can have an outsized impact on Chesapeake Bay hypoxia projections. Despite using the same inputs for a set of three experiments (continuous, time slice, and delta), the more commonly applied delta method projected an increase in levels of hypoxia nearly double that of the other experiments. The findings demonstrate the importance of ecosystem model memory, and fundamental limitations of the delta approach in capturing long-term changes to both the watershed and estuary. Together these multiple sources of uncertainty interact in unanticipated ways to alter estimates of future discharge and nutrient loadings to the coastal environment.
Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay hypoxia is sensitive to multiple sources of uncertainty related to the type of climate projection applied and the effect of management actions. Percent contribution to uncertainty from Earth System Model (ESM), downscaling methodology (DSC), and watershed model (WSM) for estimates of (a) freshwater streamflow, (b) organic nitrogen loading, (c) nitrate loading, and (d) change in annual hypoxic volume (ΔAHV). (e) Summary of all experiment results for ΔAHV, expressed as a cumulative distribution function. The Multi-Factor experiment (blue line) used a combination of multiple ESMs, DSCs, and WSMs, the All ESMs experiment (pink line) simulated 20 ESMs while holding the DSC and WSM constant, and the Management experiment (green line) only simulated 5 ESMs with a single DSC and WSM but incorporated reductions in nutrient inputs to the watershed. The vertical dashed black line marks no change in AHV.
Understanding the relative sources of uncertainty and impacts of environmental management actions can improve our confidence in mitigating negative climate impacts on coastal ecosystems. Better quantifying contributions of model uncertainty, that is often unaccounted for in projections, can constrain the range of outcomes and improve confidence in future simulations for environmental managers.
Figure 2: A schematic of differences between the Continuous and Delta experiments. In the Delta experiment a combination of altered distributions in future precipitation and changes to long-term soil nitrogen stores eventually result in increased levels of hypoxia (right panel).
Authors
Kyle E. Hinson (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Marjorie A. M. Friedrichs (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Raymond G. Najjar (The Pennsylvania State University)
Maria Herrmann (The Pennsylvania State University)
Zihao Bian (Auburn University)
Gopal Bhatt (The Pennsylvania State University, USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office)
Pierre St-Laurent (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Hanqin Tian (Boston College)
Gary Shenk (USGS Virginia/West Virginia Water Science Center)
Thank you for submitting your fantastic plenary session ideas. The OCB SSC has announced the lineup for next year:
OCB2025 plenary topics (final session titles TBD)
Constraining the dark ocean carbon cycle (Co-chairs: Anne Dekas, Anela Choy, Jeff Bowman, Randie Bundy)
Land-ocean connectivity (joint with North American Carbon Program) (Co-chairs: Jessica Luo, Fei Da, Kanchan Maiti, Shaily Rahman, Libby Larson, David Butman)
Rapidly changing systems (Co-chairs: Kristen Krumhardt, Rachel Stanley, Melissa Melendez)
Bridging scales in the ocean carbon cycle (Co-chairs: Zachary Erickson, Tim DeVries, Roo Nicholson, Daniel Whitt, Dreux Chappell)
If you haven't heard, the OCB Summer Workshop is heading west for 2025! OCB will hold its annual summer science workshop from Tuesday, June 3 to Friday, June 6, 2025 at the NASA Ames Research Center (Moffett Field, California). A few things besides location will be different next year – e.g., we will arrange hotel blocks but each participant will need to reserve and pay for their own room by a given deadline (or book their own accommodations elsewhere). Stay tuned for other OCB2025 announcements.
Never attended and want to know more about the summer workshop? Find OCB2024 and previous summer workshop recordings on the OCB YouTube Channel.
The Pacific Northwest mCDR Node officially launched with a half-day in-person gathering of 65 invited participants at the Seattle Mountaineers Center on April 17, 2024. The location and timing of this event were chosen to facilitate participation by those traveling to Seattle to attend a separate Carbon Business Council CDR Symposium the following day. In addition to a strong showing from the Washington state mCDR community, Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, California and Washington DC were also well-represented1.
Pacific Northwest Node co-leads Meg Chadsey (WA Sea Grant), Sara Nawaz (American University) and Kohen Bauer (Ocean Networks Canada) opened the event with an overview of the Ocean Carbon & Biogeochemistry Program’s vision for regional mCDR Nodes, how the Pacific Northwest Node might function in support of that vision (including a proposed Code of Conduct), and suggestions for potential Node objectives and activities. They then set the stage for an engaging and interactive event with a casual ‘speed-introduction’ exercise, to help participants put faces to names and make new connections.
A few invited speakers provided context for the afternoon breakout sessions. David Redford, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, outlined the agency’s current mCDR regulatory framework. Global Ocean Health Programs & Partnerships Director Francesca Hillery shared how Partnerships for Tribal Carbon Solutions is supporting Tribal leadership in carbon removal development and governance. PNNL Earth Scientist Jessica Cross made a compelling pitch for mCDR test beds, and encouraged participants to ‘put a Pacific Northwest spin’ on the breakout session topics: Permitting & Regulations; Social Issues & Engagement; Modeling; and Test Beds.
The rest of the program was devoted to facilitated breakout discussions, report-outs and synthesis. The following paragraphs attempt to summarize these rich conversations; detailed notes from each breakout session available on request.
Permitting & Regulations
Participants categorized permitting challenges as either tactical (issues with the process itself) or strategic (stemming from data gaps and inadequate scientific and regulatory frameworks). Process length and complexity was cited as the primary tactical barrier, exacerbated by a mismatch between the pace of industry developments and the ability of agencies to respond. The strategic conversation focused on the disconnect between existing laws and fundamental mCDR processes, and the current dearth of basic scientific knowledge needed to develop fit-for-purpose regulations and ecological risk/benefit assessments. Participants noted that better awareness of regulators’ information needs would allow researchers and developers to proactively design their projects to address key issues. They also acknowledged the need for better communication between regulators, developers and communities, which could be improved by the creation of a ‘common local and federal language’.
Social Issues & Engagement
As public backlash to some proposed mCDR trials has shown, social engagement can be as critical to the success of a project as R&D, and yet it is often not prioritized. Social scientists need to be included in, and insert themselves in, the mCDR arena, especially conversations about place-based activities (such as regional test beds), as a means to better orient projects to local residents’ priorities, concerns and benefits. The session facilitator noted that for all its novelty, the social challenges facing mCDR are hardly new; we can learn from other ocean sectors like marine energy that have also met resistance. Participants recommended i) investing in mCDR risk research, so the scientific community can be better prepared to address community concerns; ii) learning from–and responding well to–public pushback; and iii) framing mCDR within the broader context of carbon dioxide removal efforts rather than treating it as an isolated initiative. mCDR engagement plans should also consider the who as well as the how. It is vital to avoid overburdening the same groups and individuals with repeated requests for input (especially true of tribal communities). Inviting diverse perspectives will likely lead to better outcomes. Neither should the burden of engagement fall solely on project developers, who often lack dedicated capacity, and could be perceived as biased. Innovative outreach methods, including youth-focused platforms like TikTok and STE(A)M education, were proposed as a way to familiarize communities with mCDR prior to project initiation, in addition to more in-depth and participatory engagement methods where communities and residents are able to inform decision making.
Modeling
Discussion in this session revolved around i) modeling objectives; ii) the appropriate kinds, scales, resolution and accuracy of models for various stages of development and types of mCDR; and iii) what biological parameters to include in Pacific Northwest models. Participants agreed that modeling would be critical for MRV (especially in the far-field), but that models could also provide forecasts, help define uncertainty, guide decisions about project siting and monitoring, and facilitate permitting. The field is hampered by data gaps and unknowns– especially around biological impacts and feedbacks–but perfection is neither necessary nor feasible at this point. Importantly, models can help us communicate mCDR in the context of global carbon cycle and climate change.
Regional Test Beds
Prompted for a working definition of “test bed”, participants proposed “a place where a technology can grow from bench to demonstration without growing pains”, and defined short, medium and long-term goals across that growth phase. They then considered what such test beds might look like, in terms of technological scope, location criteria, scientific assets and expertise, and enabling social factors. Desired qualities included: capacity for high-quality physical, chemical and biological measurements and modeling (i.e. the ‘M’ in MRV); a confluence of the ‘right’ natural features; baseline understanding of natural system variability; support for interdisciplinary collaboration and public-private partnerships; access to local assets, expertise (and housing for those experts!); and opportunities to benefit and engage with communities. Test beds should also have robust data management plans, with standardized inter-operable data formats to support accessibility and transparency. Data should be open source to the extent possible, while allowing some protection for industry partners’ intellectual property. Ultimately, successful test beds will advance shared understanding and confidence in promising mCDR technologies for real-world deployment across stakeholders (regulators, buyers, supply chain, public, etc), and sectors (energy, ocean R&D, mineral and industry), something the Pacific Northwest–with its unique culture, capacity and resources–is well-equipped to deliver.
Enthusiasm for continued engagement around these topics was high, and participants were quick to suggest follow-on activities. Two of these–a coordinated response to the mCDR Fast-Track Action Committee’s request for input on their federal research plan, and a PNW Node listserv and Slack channel–have already been executed. Replicating the popular monthly Seattle mCDR Happy Hour in other cities was another. The Permitting & Regulations breakout group proposed that the Node draft a regional mCDR primer–including a glossary–to facilitate communication between developers, regulators and communities. Serving as an informal ‘initial contact’ for agency staff seeking information about mCDR is another possible role. With additional funding and/or dedicated capacity, the Node could also mobilize future events. Washington Sea Grant has already committed to co-hosting a Seattle-based mCDR Law & Policy symposium with Columbia University in September 2025, and would welcome involvement from this community. There may also be an opportunity for Node members to co-design a proposed UW mCDR mini-course in August 2026.
As participants prepared to shift to the inaugural Pacific Northwest Node Happy Hour at a nearby pub, NOAA PMEL Carbon Program Senior Scientist Dick Feely offered the following words of advice:
“Build your mCDR program on the backs of those who have come before you. We’ve had over 40 years of marine carbon research, and 20 years of ocean acidification research. Each of those groups have done exactly the same as you: gradually developed best practices and techniques to the best of their ability at the time, and established really great data systems for all to utilize. So we have a lot of resources at our disposal, including a best practice manual for ocean carbon dioxide removal, and the data systems in place through the National Data Center. Make use of these approaches and resources, and make sure that all of your data gets included in the transparent GLODAP.info database, so we can all benefit from the important observations that we are making. We all know this for certain: the oceans are under-sampled, so everything that we provide will be very useful for a lot of different applications.”
Participant affiliations:
Coming soon…
Copyright © 2025 - OCB Project Office, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 266 Woods Hole Rd, MS #25, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA Phone: 508-289-2838 • Fax: 508-457-2193 • Email: ocb_news@us-ocb.org
Funding for the Ocean Carbon & Biogeochemistry Project Office is provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The OCB Project Office is housed at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.