Oh snap! CO2 causes some ocean critters to build more shells

And some thought ocean acidification would destroy everything.

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2″…“They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”

From the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute press release, just in time for Copenhagen.

Conchs
The conch shell at left was exposed to current CO2 levels; the shell at right was exposed to the highest levels in the study. (Tom Kleindinst, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean—causing it to “acidify” —researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem.

But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased.

“Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate…dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them,” said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. “They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”

Organisms displaying such improvement also included calcifying red and green algae, limpets and temperate urchins. Mussels showed no effect.

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

Urchins
The larger of these two pencil urchins was exposed to currrent CO2 levels; the smaller was exposed to the highest CO2 levels in the study. (Tom Kleindinst, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.

Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2. In the most extreme finding, Ries, Cohen and WHOI Associate Scientist Daniel C. McCorkle exposed creatures to CO2 levels more than seven times the current level.

This led to the dissolving of aragonite—the form of calcium carbonate produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers.  Under such exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins began to lose their shells.  “If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely,” he said, “rendering them defenseless to predators.”

“Some organisms were very sensitive,” Cohen said, “some that have commercial value. But there were a couple that didn’t respond to CO2 or didn’t respond till it was sky-high—about 2,800 parts per million. We’re not expecting to see that [CO2 level] anytime soon.”

The researchers caution, however, that the findings—and acidification’s overall impact—may be more complex than it appears. For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms respond to carbon dioxide.

“We know that nutrients can be very important,” she says. “We have found that corals for example, that have plenty of food and nutrients can be less sensitive” to CO2. “In this study, the organisms were well fed and we didn’t constrain the nutrient levels.

“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”

Ries concurs that any possible ramifications are complex. For example, the crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification.  “This may initially suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-pray dynamics.  But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way, as well,” Ries said.

In addition, Cohen adds, even though some organisms such as crabs and lobsters appear to benefit under elevated CO2 conditions, the energy they expend in shell building under these conditions “might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building.”

Since the industrial revolution, Ries noted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. Climate models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200 years.

“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere,” Ries says.  However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost.

“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems, he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, independent organization in Falmouth, Mass., dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary mission is to understand the oceans and their interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the oceans’ role in the changing global environment.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
225 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
D. King
December 1, 2009 8:16 pm

“I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.”
net effect will be negative.
re-stabilize at a new steady state.
I think he means on his planet.

Glenn
December 1, 2009 8:16 pm

But but but polar bears are drowning and kittens are exploding!

FHSIV
December 1, 2009 8:16 pm

If I had to guess what is the largest sink of carbon on earth was, I’d have to say carbonate sediments (i.e. limestone and dolomite)! Those pesky liitle marine organisms have been fixing carbonate out of sea water for a couple billion years now.
It has been as few years, but If I remember correctly, the accumulation of biogenic carbonate on the sea floor is at least partly controlled by something called the calcium (or carbonate?) compensation depth (CCD). This is the depth in the ocean below which calcium carbonate is no longer stable due to greater pressures which are unfavorable to the to the crystalline form resulting in dissolution back into the seawater. As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases an equilibrium reaction causes the CCD to deepen. This results in a greater area of the sea floor where calcium carbonate can accumulate and effectively remove CO2 from the system.
How much of this do I have wrong? Can anyone give me a good reference to brush up on this ocean chemistry?
Thanks

crosspatch
December 1, 2009 8:18 pm

“On the face of it, I don’t see an emergency.”
Cap and Trade bill stalled in Australia and the US. Copenhagen possibly in shambles if third world nations walk out. Climategate. There’s an emergency, alright.

Spenc BC
December 1, 2009 8:18 pm

Last post for the night I promise. I am noticing that major news outlets are taking a harder line at least in the papers. Is Mann next?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/universities-take-action-on-climategate/

pat
December 1, 2009 8:18 pm

Hmmmm. Those long unused genetic strands kicked in right on time. And aren’t the dissimilarities between the post and pre fascinating? A more formidable defense. And note the CO2 absorption. It seems like some fauna, like flora, relishes the availability of a bit of CO2.

Doug Ferguson
December 1, 2009 8:19 pm

Interesting findings! Wonder what happens when the increases in CO2 are gradual over many years(sort’a like the real world)? Do you suppose the life forms adapt and evolve? Another finding that shows we’re not as knowledgable about our ecosystems as we think!
Also as it happens, I am reading “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer. In his chapter 6 on water, pps. 331-339 he discusses in depth the whole question of what we know about CO2 and ocean acidity. He mentions(p. 336 – references are extensively sited throughout the arcticle) that in the geological past, higher atmospheric CO2 has made it easier to form shells, so I don’t know why this is such a suprise to this research team. I suggest that they read Ian’s book and look up and read all the research papers he references.
Doug in Mankato, MN

John F. Hultquist
December 1, 2009 8:20 pm

One might hypothesize that insofar as humans are used to a certain amount of O2 in the atmosphere at sea level and that as one goes up in elevation, humans could not breathe and live except near sea level. Some of these folks didn’t get the message:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_towns_by_country
In this case the analogy does break down because there are mountains sufficiently high that the oxygen just isn’t here. So the question might then be raised whether or not the world-ocean can actually be brought to a state that might supersede the abilities of these organisms to adapt. From reading some of the studies on CO2 Science (http://co2science.org/) it doesn’t seem so.

John
December 1, 2009 8:20 pm

Carbon dioxide is estimated to have been something like 1500 ppm during parts of the Carboniferous Period and, as Bill H pointed out, are estimated to have been even higher during other periods and life in the oceans somehow managed to survive. I guess they need to “get rid of” the Carboniferous Period, too.

KimW
December 1, 2009 8:23 pm

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.” That conclusion simply does not follow from the body of the paper. it is the obligatory nod to AGW, somewhat like the North Korean press releases that give credit to Kim Il Jong and the indomitable juche spirit. It is frightening to think that such obligations to mention AGW are now considered necessary. Frankly, I welcome our new insect overlords.

Ray
December 1, 2009 8:28 pm

Maybe this is why when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were 2000 ppm the shellfishes were so huge, back then!

Eric Anderson
December 1, 2009 8:33 pm

There is an interesting presentation available that I thought of when I saw the above post:
Craig Idso’s PowerPoint presentation “Carbon Dioxide, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future”
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Craig_Idso.ppt

JEM
December 1, 2009 8:41 pm

So in other words if CO2 levels in the oceans go up, the lobsters get tougher and less meaty.
My wife would be mad…

syphax
December 1, 2009 8:42 pm

The caption on the urchin graphic is BACKWARDS. From the press release:
“The larger of these two pencil urchins was exposed to currrent CO2 levels; the smaller was exposed to the highest CO2 levels in the study.”
I am going to assume this was a careless error driven by wishful thinking…
REPLY: Thanks corrected. I’ve moved over the caption from WHOI. Interesting thing though, the left right relationship is reversed in the two pictures they provide. The study suggests that both increases and decreases are seen, and that’s the surprise of it all. But if their own captions are correct, then they only showed one side of the result, and the not the most surprising part.
It may be that they themselves reversed a caption. I’ll inquire. – A

Sunfighter
December 1, 2009 8:45 pm

What!? Animals can adapt too?! Without humans helping?! The environmentalists beg to differ!

Paul Vaughan
December 1, 2009 8:46 pm

“We were surprised […]”
Tip to scientists: Maybe don’t admit your lack of creativity publicly.

Richard
December 1, 2009 8:48 pm

I assume the research was done before Climategate so we should be interpreting the last line as “lotsa and lotsa money out there for warming climate research and since we like grant money, we need to stay on the warmists’ good side by toeing the party line.”

syphax
December 1, 2009 8:51 pm

When discussing high paleo CO2 levels, it’s worth remembering that the ocean’s alkalinity was also much higher, as well.

D. King
December 1, 2009 8:54 pm

John (20:20:52) :
I guess they need to “get rid of” the Carboniferous Period, too.
Our reality is shrinking.

Carlos
December 1, 2009 9:02 pm

That’s almost as crazy as watching some weeds and plants thriving under elevated GCR’s/Deep Solar Minimum while others wilt.
You mean, like, tomatoes? Just sayin. I want my global warming back, please.

Leon Brozyna
December 1, 2009 9:02 pm

No, no, no — they’ve got it all wrong. They should have admitted that there were too many unwarranted assumptions made of the effects on sea life as a result of ocean neutralization. They should then have gone on to state that the bottom line is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex, we don’t have anywhere near the full understanding needed, and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail. That should set them up for a steady stream of grant monies that might otherwise dry up as a result of Climategate.

Carlos
December 1, 2009 9:03 pm

it’s worth remembering that the ocean’s alkalinity was also much higher, as well.
Link?

Eggsuckindog
December 1, 2009 9:05 pm

I don’t understand either – everything loves it up to 1000ppm, then some see issues but we’re at 380 and need to reduce -[snip]

Spenc BC
December 1, 2009 9:09 pm