From San Francisco State University another indication that nature is such a poor engineer that phytoplankton can’t adapt to a small change in ocean pH. But then again it is a closed lab experiment, not the ocean, and there’s those weasel words of “might”, “could”, and “may”.
Researchers explore plankton’s shifting role in deep sea carbon storage
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 13, 2011 — The tiny phytoplankton Emiliania huxleyi, invisible to the naked eye, plays an outsized role in drawing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it deep in the seas. But this role may change as ocean water becomes warmer and more acidic, according to a San Francisco State University research team.
In a study published this week in the journal Global Change Biology, SF State Assistant Professor of Biology Jonathon Stillman and colleagues show how climate-driven changes in nitrogen sources and carbon dioxide levels in seawater could work together to make Emiliania huxleyi a less effective agent of carbon storage in the deep ocean, the world’s largest carbon sink.
Changes to this massive carbon sink could have a critical effect on the planet’s future climate, Stillman said, especially as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise sharply as a result of fossil fuel burning and other human activities.
While floating free in the sunny top layers of the oceans, the phytoplankton develop elaborate plates of calcified armor called coccoliths. The coccoliths form a hard and heavy shell that eventually sinks to the ocean depths. “About 80 percent of inorganic carbon trapped down there is from coccoliths like these,” said Stillman.
Stillman and his colleagues wanted to discover how ocean acidification and changes in the ocean’s nitrogen cycle—both hallmarks of climate warming—might effect coccolith development. So they raised more than 200 generations of Emiliania huxleyi in the lab, adjusting carbon dioxide levels and the type of nitrogen in the phytoplankton’s seawater bath.
They found that high levels of carbon dioxide—which make the water more acidic—along with a shift in the prevailing nitrogen type from nitrates to ammonium—”had a synergistic effect” on the phytoplankton’s biology and growth.
In particular, coccoliths formed under conditions of high carbon dioxide and high ammonium levels were incomplete or hollow, and contained less than the usual amount of inorganic carbon, the researchers noted.
“The ratio of inorganic to organic carbon is important,” Stillman explained. “As inorganic carbon increases, it adds more ballast to the hard shell, which makes it sink and makes it more likely to be transported to the deep ocean. Without this, the carbon is more likely to be recycled into the Earth’s atmosphere.”
“Our results suggest in the future there will be overall lower amounts of calcification and overall lower amount of transport of carbon to the deep ocean,” he added.
Emiliania huxleyi typically use nitrates to make proteins, but this form of nitrogen may be in shorter supply for the phytoplankton as the world’s oceans grow warmer and more acidic, Stillman and colleagues suggest. In the open ocean, nitrates are upwelled from deep waters, but a thickening layer of warmer surface water could inhibit this upwelling. At the same time, the warmer temperatures favor bacteria that turn recycled nitrogen from surface waters and the atmosphere into ammonium, and acidification inhibits the bacteria that turn ammonium into nitrate.
“It is likely that in the future, the ocean surface will contain more ammonium,” which the phytoplankton will assimilate instead of nitrates, Stillman suggested. “Metabolizing nitrogen as ammonium versus nitrates requires different biochemical constituents that impact how well the cells make their coccoliths. They will survive just fine, but their biology will be different as a result.”
The study by Stillman and colleagues is the first to look at the intertwined effects of ocean acidification and changes in nitrogen on phytoplankton like Emiliania huxleyi. It’s also one of the first studies to observe these effects continuously over a long time scale, “so the responses of the phytoplankton are likely what we’ll see in the ocean itself,” Stillman said.
Stephane Lefebrve, the SF State postdoctoral student who developed the experiments for the study, said he is now looking for phytoplankton genes that “will help us to build the genetic blueprint of their responses to elevated carbon dioxide and a nitrogen source”
Lefebvre, Ina Benner, Alexander Parker, Michelle Drake, Pascale Rossignol, Kristine Okimura, Tomoko Komada, and Edward Carpenter, all from SF State’s Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, were co-authors on the Global Change Biology study.
“Nitrogen source and pCO2 synergistically affect carbon allocation, growth and morphology of the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi: implications of ocean acidification for the carbon cycle,” was published online in October by the journal Global Change Biology.
Jonathon Stillman and Stephane Lefebvre may be reached by contacting Nan Broadbent at SF State: nbroadbe@sfsu.edu or at 415-338-7108.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think that we all know by now that the oceans are not acid, they are alkaline. They have always been alkaline, even in the distant past when CO2 levels were 20 times higher than they are today. It was at that time, 400 million years ago, when CO2 levels were very high, that coral and shellfish were first created.
Any increased dissolution of CO2 in the ocean simply reduces this alkalinity slightly, and moves the seawater closer to neutrality, i.e. the water becomes less caustic.[corrosive] . So I am always suspicious of the motives of those who refer to a reduction in alkalinity as suggesting that the oceans are turning to acid.
Of course, I accept that a headline such as “Oceans Becoming Less Caustic” may not have the desired alarmist ring to it, but at least it has the merit of being true!
As Anthony points out at the beginning, this report if riddled with mays, mights and coulds. When I read a statement such as “this role may change as ocean water becomes warmer and more acidic”; I feel free to interpret this as “this role may be unaffected as ocean water becomes warmer and more acidic. Both statements are equivalent – and so what is the value of this report when nothing it says has any meaning?
I do like the bit about inorganic carbon though. I was always taught that the difference between inorganic and organic chemistry was that the latter was the study of compounds containing carbon. I believe this definition still holds today, but authors of this paper seem unaware of it.
And for those who are confused about the “inorganic carbon” term:
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic#Inorganic_carbon_compounds
“Many compounds that contain carbon are considered inorganic, for example, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonates, cyanides, cyanates, carbides, and thyocyanates. In general, however, the workers in these areas are not concerned about strict definitions.”
The Britannica ecyclopedia also mentions this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/431954/organic-compound
One other little thing: they ran this test in the lab, over “200 generations.” Which means less than a year. If you’re going to test the adjustment of an organism to changing environments, you need a bit more time than that.
You also have to wonder what the adjustments were. Did they let the population stabilize for a couple of months, then slowly change over the course of the year, or did they increase the CO2 levels gradually over the course of time from a new population? Did they adjust the CO2 and nitrogen levels by small calibrated amounts, or did they “push” things to simulate the amount they expect in 100 years?
Let’s see… the KEY words in this news release are… SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 13, may change, show how, could work, could have, wanted to, might effect, in the lab, more likely to be, more likely to be, results suggest, may be, suggest, could inhibit, is likely, in the future, Stillman suggested, likely what we’ll see.
Got it!
OT
I was looking at the magnetogram of the sun and sunspot 1312 in the upper right does not appear to e a Cycle 24 sunspot. it looks to me like the orientation is opposite of a cycle 24 sunspot (in the magnetogram white leads black, whereas all the rest in the upper hemisphere black leads white). Is this just an anomaly caused by a dying sunspot or is it a Cycle 25 sunspot?
There doesn’t seem to be any mention calcium in the article (although some commenters have mentioned it). Did the experimenters ensure there was enough calcium available for the phytoplankton to use-up in the conversion of CO2 to calcium carbonate?
I have long wondered where all the new calcium has come from, over the eons, to form the vast volumes of limestone, chalk, shale (and other rocks rich in calcium carbonate) that exist. I would suspect that it is coming from the undersea volcanic vents. But articles about undersea vents seem to concentrate on other things.
Surely Woods Hole and the like should be on a hunt for the sources of calcium that have enabled such a huge amount of calcium carbonate to form.
Every year, the Barents Sea north of Norway experiences a huge plankton bloom turning the ocean color into various shades of aqua.
The plankton species causing it, Emiliana huxleyi.
This year was probably the biggest one seen and it lasted for months covering thousands of kilometres.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=51765
stevo says:
October 15, 2011 at 4:01 am
No matter what the subject, whether it’s biology, physics, chemistry, whatever, you apparently know enough about it to pour scorn on research that somehow offends you.
One has to presume you are talking to _all_ the contributors. You will note that almost all the responses give citations for their reasons. Almost always these people know the citations because they are experts in the subject and they DO know enough about [the subjects] to pour scorn on poor research in their areas of expertise.
It is a pity that the organizations that are funded for this research, in many cases accredited universities, do not provide the hostile reviews that most research requires. That is why in the old days theses required a ‘defense’ – the reviewers were hostile. Peer review was hostile and in depth. Nowadays, the research and academic communities are lax and the only real review comes from the scientific community on the ‘Web’ when the research is published.
Rather than whining about a hostile reaction on the web, the researchers should do better quality research. In this particular case a literature review of all related research (which should be mandatory before starting) would have avoided what appear to be errors due to ignorance.
Clear-thinking skeptics — the heartbreak of psychiatrists.
agweird (October 15, 2011 at 4:16 am)
Thanks for the link to the abstract (- I didn’t look under accepted papers)
It is the bit I’ve emboldened that bothers me:
“As CO2 concentration is rising in the atmosphere, the ocean is acidifying and ammonium (NH4+) concentration of future ocean water is expected to rise. The latter is attributed to increasing anthropogenic nitrogen (N) deposition, increasing rates of cyanobacterial N2 fixation due to warmer and more stratified oceans, and decreased rates of nitrification due to ocean acidification.”
I don’t think it is justified, or justifiable. Nitrification in the ocean is substrate limited. Period. Even with a decrease in the rate of nitrification, with more of the limiting substrate available the nitrifying population would respond with increased numbers to use it up.
coral reef gaps in the geological record take millions of years to occur, pity this point is missed by the alarmists
Real science is about precision. When I see the phrase “more acidic” in respect of the oceans it is a big clue that we are dealing with morons, and that there is no point in reading further. Any self-respecting reviewer of a scientific paper would bounce it back at that point without proceeding further.
The phrase “more acidic” implies that something is already acidic, which the oceans most decidedly are not.
What they probably mean is “less alkaline”. It only becomes acidic when when the Ph falls below 7. Zero to seven, we talk about more or less acidic, seven to 14 we talk about more or less alkaline.
This paper was obviously written by, reviewed by and published by illiterate morons.
The mass of a single coccolith shell is so tiny and water so viscous that the sinking rate is very slow. More likely the CaCO3 gets to depth when copepods graze on the coccoliths and their fecal pellets sink. How that affects the dissolution of the carbonate needs to be considered. The system is vastly more complex than this simple lab experiment implies.
Only at pH below 7 ( neutral ), is more ammonia converted to the ammonium state. It would take a massive change in ocean pH to make the nitrogen compound be mostly in the ammonium state .
The cart is before the horse.
They sound uncertain about their findings with the weasel words but are certain about the warming that has not been proven. They can’t be doing this without some encouragement.
@Baa Humbug
Thanks for your well chosen quotes and short, pithy analysis.
Agreed.
EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding is Endangered
By S. Fred Singer
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/epas_co2_endangerment_finding_is_endangered.html
But the global surface warming reported since 1979 is fake; it does not exist — as demonstrated by NIPCC in several other data sets: Atmospheric temperatures show no warming trend, as seen both by balloon-borne radiosondes and independent satellite observations. The reported warming of the sea surface can be traced to instrumental problems. And the available proxy data show no post-1979 warming.The reason for the reported surface warming, as reported by the IPCC, is still unclear. But it is likely due to a selection of weather stations that favors an increasing fraction of urban stations and airports, which show a local warming trend because of increasing air traffic.It will be interesting to see the reaction of IPCC scientists, once these data are fully published and accepted by the scientific community. It is unlikely, therefore, that the EPA’s TSD will stand. And without the TSD, the Endangerment Finding is toast – and so is regulation of carbon dioxide.
stevo says:
October 15, 2011 at 4:01 am
No matter what the subject, whether it’s biology, physics, chemistry, whatever, you apparently know enough about it to pour scorn on research that somehow offends you.
Stevo, poor soul, this is what real peer review looks like. The only thing that limits the review is the paucity of real information about this research project presently available. What exactly, do you think a large percentage of WUW readers do for a living? I would hazard that WUWT has the highest percentage of active science PhDs in attendance of any blog on the web that has more than 10 viewers.
If you change the conditions, you are carrying out a selection whereby species better adapted grow at the expense of those less well adapted.
I used to do experiments using antibiotic selections in the lab. Within 3 days, you could have billions upon billions of resistant bugs. But up front you suppressed growth of 99.9% of the bacteria initially exposed.
Adaptation will take place. It’s just not clear in advance what that will be.
Nomatter what we do or nature does, the oceas will always be alkaline. the word ‘acidification’is the real weasel woed here, a lie actually.
The warmists base their (false) prognostications on weasel words, lies, damned lies and computer models.
The reason for referring to the term ‘ocean acidification’ (even if there’s nothing solid to suggest it may even be happening) is simple: the alarmists want to scare the bejesus out of the young and ther gullible into thinking that future trips to the seaside could be ruined by their flesh falling from their bones.
Just watch the scare swing direction in 30 years’ time, when it’ll become ‘ocean bleaching’.
This is a fine example of why such ‘scientists’ should be required to keep a reef tank for a year. The conclusions of this study can be easily challenged by the employees of the local pet fish store.
The ammonia cycle is the process through which tanks ‘cycle’, once cycled, a tank can support the more delicate types of organisms. The ammonia cycle consists of three main stages:
Stage 1: The tank is filled with water and animals are added. At this point there are no beneficial bacteria growing. The animals eat what food is available and metabolize what they can and expel the rest. Uneaten food and animal waste quickly breaks down in the tank into ammonia.
Stage 2: The release of ammonia allows the beneficial bacteria nitrosomonas to grow. Nitrosomonas eat ammonia and expel nitrite. During stage two of a fish tank cycling, the ammonia levels will decline and the nitrite levels will increase.
Stage 3: The availability of nitrite as a food source will allow the beneficial bacteria nitrobacter to thrive. Nitrobacter eat nitrites and their waste product are nitrates. So during this last stage of the fish tank cycling, ammonia will be zero or near zero, nitrites will be nearing zero, and nitrates will be increasing.
The tank is now cycled. There was an ammonia spike and reduction, then a nitrite spike and reduction, and an increasing amount of nitrates. Nitrates are controlled by the aquarist two ways: with the introduction of plants which consume nitrates as food, and through water changes.
In a healthy fish tank, there is no ammonia or nitrite, these will quickly poison a reef tank.
In the study in the article, there is no mention of how the tanks were kept clean during the 200 generations of phytoplankton growth. If the water continuously had ammonia added (as I seem to read in the article) then the natural cycling of the tanks would not have occurred. There would not have been the proper proportions of nitrobacter and nitrosomonas to create the nitrates the phytoplankton need to thrive.
The poor condition of the phytoplankton has nothing to do with the additional ammonia, other than that the normal process for creating nitrates was disrupted. Also, just to nitpick, there is no mechanism to turn ammonia into nitrate as described in the article, it is a two step process as I have described.
And how would a warmer surface prevent an upwelling of cold water bringing up nutrients from the bottom?
So much wrong with the experiment, too little time to discuss, I’ve got four reef tanks that need my attention today…
Conclusion: dirty tanks and poor reef keeping skills led to the poor health of the phytoplankton.
Oakden Wolf (@oakden_wolf) says:
October 15, 2011 at 12:02 am
This is for James Sexton and several of the other commentators here:
First direct evidence of ocean acidification
======================================================
That’s an interesting link. I always go to sleep too early…..A few things jump out at me.
1) There’s no link to any study….?
2) The drop they are so concerned about is change that is WNL
3) They only measured a thin area in the north Pacific. They don’t mention what state the oscillating cycles are in…. such as the PDO, the AO, and others. Were they in the same state?
4) “….in the spring of 2006 using state-of-the-art techniques developed at USF’s College of Marine Science. “…… that’s beautiful…. were the same state-of-art-techniques used in determining the pH in 1991? If not, ….. well it would open a whole host of questions and is probably best to toss and start a study using consistent techniques.
5) Even if the extreme extrapolation is correct,(a drop by 0.4) the oceans will still be base and not acidic.
These are just some of the most glaring issues that pop out at me, but then I haven’t finished my first cup of coffee, yet. Could you bring something a bit more substantial? After all, they concluded the observations in 2006. We’ve nothing more in 5 years?
As to those of us having a bit of fun with the vernacular…… its important to point out that words mean things. A bit of jesting to make that point isn’t harmful.
Indeed, just as there are two types of CAGW-obsessed climate scientist: moronic and oxymoronic…
Scientific papers that have conclusions of what would happen due to Anthropogenic climate change, Are Not proof that Anthropogenic climate change is Actually happening.
The absence of any Super Accelerated Catastrophic Man Made Green House Warning Effect makes any research based on it Null and Void.
But group-think research and self evident circular reasoning being pushed under the guise of “Man Made Global Warming” can be scientifically proven with empirical evidence to be dumber than Stormtroopers as ‘savethesharks’ suggests.
In Fact, that research should be publicly funded and taught in schools around the globe.