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
WakeUpMaggy
December 2, 2009 5:36 am

I like to think of all that carbonate folded deep under the crust and melted into the iron in the earth’s core. FeO, CaCO3, just add water and cook.
Don’t ban me, I didn’t say it!

December 2, 2009 5:40 am

A new IBD editorial: click

imapopulist
December 2, 2009 5:55 am

Woods Hole can kiss their access to grant funding goodbye now that they published a report that implies CO2 is not that bad.

December 2, 2009 5:55 am

Well, they may be defending themselves against the more acidic environments, and thus spending more energy on building the shells.
The right shell looks “healthier” than the left one in the same way as white teeth look healthier than yellow teeth. 😉

Deadman
December 2, 2009 6:05 am

Talking of oceans, may I commend Prof. Nir Shaviv’s The Oceans as a Calorimeter ?

syphax
December 2, 2009 6:09 am

Reference to alkalinity: Paul N. Pearson & Martin R. Palmer. “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years”, Nature, 406 | 17 AUGUST 2000. I found the pdf somewhere online, but can’t find it now.
Geckko- it’s standard parlance to talk about organic carbon & inorganic carbon. Here’s a quick overview via Wikipedia that captures the essence: “Traditionally, inorganic compounds are considered to be of a mineral, not biological, origin. Complementarily [sic], most organic compounds are traditionally viewed as being of biological origin.” So, CO2, HCO3-, CO3 (2-) are inorganic; CH4, carbohydrates, etc. are organic.
It’s true that the ocean is basic, and that over loooong time periods, it has an enormous capacity to buffer acids. That’s why pH has been quite stable over the past 20M years or so. What’s potentially problematic is a sudden perturbation in pH this century. While skepticism of alarmist claims is certainly warranted, I don’t know why people are so sanguine about this. Optimism abounds.
I know its standard procedure to criticize scientists around here, but the folks at WHOI generally know their stuff. I spent time researching there a few years ago, and was pretty blown away by the culture of rigor. Those people are really passionate about their science, in a good way.
Final comment: It’s best to remember that press releases generally are written by PR people. Minor inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies abound in such things. It’s unfortunate. But before judging and ripping into the research, it’s best to actually read the paper.

ScientistForTruth
December 2, 2009 6:09 am

WakeUpMaggy (05:36:06) :
“I like to think of all that carbonate folded deep under the crust and melted into the iron in the earth’s core. FeO, CaCO3, just add water and cook.
Don’t ban me, I didn’t say it!”
Not sure whether all the readers will know what this cooks up. It yields methane. It’s a possible pathway for abiogenic production of “fossil fuels”. Organic compounds from inorganic ingredients.

JonesII
December 2, 2009 6:32 am

Wow!, we didn´t know shells were made of calcium carbonate (out from CO2)!.
That´s is really new!!!

John
December 2, 2009 6:46 am

I guess they’ll have to “get rid of” the Ordovician Period, too. That will mean revisionists telling us that the carbon dioxide levels during the Carboniferous and Ordovician and other periods with more carbon dioxide didn’t really have more carbon dioxide.

ozspeaksup
December 2, 2009 6:50 am

Book, interesting.
jean Louis Kervrand
Biological Transmutations.
Do not use the big book seller its over 100, Not plugging, but acresaustralia has it and usa may have , again?
how do chickens make calcium for shells, and NO they do NOT take from their bones, or blood, and CAN make eggs when in an entirely lime free environment, with access to…Silica.He also has comments re crustacea.
we know Naff all about our own bodies, and people who have no idea about themselves and how they work..can assert they think Gore et al are 100% believable. (of course,) and theres a LOT of them, and more created every day at school.
I am glad I saw Silent Spring, and Not Al Gore as a child.
What we absorb as children Does influence us. This charade IS doing incalculable harm. Maybe all you who are parents should be calling schools to register disapproval of ANY warming being taught.
A small but rather pointed and necessary act!
I have sent this wuwt page to the ABC National in aus:-)
I wonder if? they dare to read the mail out:-)
Bush Telegraph had our supposed? oceanic science crew, waffling about acidification today.
there IS an issue with Farm chem and silt run off, but NOT CO2

yonason
December 2, 2009 7:04 am

Oceans (or anything for that matter) can’t become “more” acidic until they first become acidic. Right now the oceans are alkaline, with a fairly wide pH range being “normal.”
http://www.cambridge.org/resources/0521538432/1488_218437.pdf
E.g., look at the pH measurements here to see the wide variability AND the lack of any long term trend.
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
It started at 7.8 in 1996, and now it’s all the way down to 7.9, with a range of from 7.7 to 8.1, which is in complete agreement with the Cambridge reference, above.

Carl Gullans
December 2, 2009 7:08 am

Correct me if I’m wrong, as I’m not very familiar with them, but aren’t certain corals and mollusks used in proxy reconstructions? Do they use shell thickness as a proxy, or something else? If the former, that is now also questionable practice.

yonason
December 2, 2009 7:14 am

Tamara (05:09:12) :
While correct, it’s not scary enough, therefore It’ll never happen.

yonason
December 2, 2009 7:30 am

ScientistForTruth (04:33:03) :
“As more CO2 dissolves, the concentration of bicarbonate increases, even if carbonate decreases slightly.”
as pH increases, both bicarbonate and carbonate increase, as seen here.
http://www.cambridge.org/resources/0521538432/1488_218437.pdf
But carbonate increases more, simply because it wasn’t that relatively plentiful to begin with (10% to 25% in seawater), while bicarbonate is always near saturation at above 95%.

John Galt
December 2, 2009 7:41 am

Wow, so life adapts to changes conditions! Who wooda thunk it? I dunno, maybe Darwin?
How is it so many people get suckered into the belief that the world is static? Ask any AGW if they think evolution is a fact. If those that agree, ask them why the think life won’t adapt to changing conditions any why they think the climate would be stable without human influence.
I don’t want to get into a discussion of creationism versus evolution here. I’m pointing out a logic inconsistency in the reasoning of most Warministas. Science shows us the world today is different from the world of the past. Life has existed for about 500 million years on this planet and has adapted to the changing conditions.
I also want to point out a major problem with most climate scientists — they seem ignorant of the influence of the biosphere on the climate. Climate not only affects life but life also influences climate.

boballab
December 2, 2009 7:56 am

This just in the Head of NOAA just stated to the House Select Committee that any animal that has a shell will struggle if CO2 increases.
I guess she didn’t get the memo.

boballab
December 2, 2009 8:00 am

OMG the head of NOAA does a little chemistry experiment in front of the committee and she uses a pitcher of Tap water to simulate the Ocean then uses 2 huge chunks of Dry Ice to show how the ocean will turn acidic.

Geosota
December 2, 2009 8:03 am

Give these guys a break. Sure the “bottom line” is a non-sequitur, but they absolutely had to put it on there to avoid being black-listed. The old H2O + CO2 = H2CO3 reaction certainly creates acid. What this research shows is that not only dissolved CO2 promotes ocean plant growth, which eventually is entombed in sedimentary rock, but so does the reacted form by the animal kingdom. This is seditious, deviant and heretical. Their “bottom line” is no different from Galileo’s statement “I abjure, curse and detest my errors” before the Inquisition. Fortunately, scientists are no longer being burned at the stake, but their journals can be delisted from peer-review, editors fired and scientists themselves defunded if they do not preach the gospel of global warming. Frankly, I would rather see them survive even if they have to genuflect.

yonason
December 2, 2009 8:04 am

Douglas Haynes (01:55:27) :
“I believe we have ignored several obvious carbon sinks and pH buffers in the ocean;”
Don’t forget “sources,” like these
http://www.noaa.gov/features/monitoring_0209/vents.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/multimedia/oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06fire/background/chemistry/media/eifuku_champagnebubbles.html
Nearby, the signs of “devastation” abound.
http://www.vulkaner.no/v/volcan/submarin/pics/corals_600.jpg
“At NW Eifuku volcano, mussels are so dense in some places that they obscure the bottom.”
from here.
http://www.vulkaner.no/v/volcan/submarin/mariana-arc.html
Also, note that the deeper one goes in the ocean, the lower the pH gets, naturally. See figures here.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_13/issue_4/0688.pdf

boballab
December 2, 2009 8:06 am

For her next trick she puts chalk into one container of tap water and gets no reaction, then she does a 50/50 mix of water/vingear to show a slight reaction then drops some into pure vinegar to get the big reaction.
Her only stipulation is that the OCean will never be acidic as pure vingear, but never correlates what level of PH the 50/50 mix is nor what the normal PH of Ocean water or even TAP water.

yonason
December 2, 2009 8:12 am

Geosota (08:03:31) :
They need to put food on the table for their families. And, if their data is good, and they don’t fudge numbers, I can’t say I blame them for wanting to survive.

WakeUpMaggy
December 2, 2009 8:13 am

boballab (08:06:37) :
For her next trick she puts….
Oh Gaia no, next she makes the old papier mache volcano go off on a desktop?

yonason
December 2, 2009 8:18 am

boballab (08:06:37)
Don’t tell me, before she was head of NOAA she sold water purification systems door to door?

Chris H
December 2, 2009 8:21 am

Geosota
You need to complete the equation:
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3-
(Sorry for the absence of proper symbols “=” indicates a reversible reaction)
This is the Henderson-Hasselbach equation well known to respiratory physiologists like me and the basis of cellular pH control. If something buffers the H+ (proteins, phosphates etc) the HCO3- is free to combine with Ca++ ions to form calcium carbonate. Sea water contains plenty of buffers so increasing CO2 equates with additional calcium carbonate production by the “little critters”. This is why the corals formed when the atmospheric CO2 content was three times today’s level.

Bill P
December 2, 2009 8:21 am

Speaking of building more stately mansions…
Floridians are contesting state-manufactured beaches contiguous to theirs. In the most convoluted reasoning I’ve yet heard from people living on the edge of natural disaster, property owners are claiming it’s unfair of the state to pump up their beach area with sand because this allows beachcombers on the newly-created “state” oceanfront, and hence constitutes an unfair “taking” of their “private beach-front property”. Seems the ocean, aided by nasty weather, has been encroaching on their houses for some time, and the waves are now lapping at their back doors. The State of Florida, backed by State Courts deems this an endangerment of property values and in taking action to save their arses, has become the villain. It will be heard by the Supreme Court today.
We’ve all heard of these cases before. The newest spin is this constitutes a court-backed “taking” of private property. And it’s all due to global warming.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-beaches2-2009dec02,0,344997.story

1 3 4 5 6 7 9