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.
Cheers to those of you who get “pH” abbrv. for -log[H+] correct. It is not PH or Ph or ph.
That said, when I’m in Boulder I always make comments to the libs that I prefer only the use of “organic” chemicals.
“But this role may change as ocean water becomes warmer and more acidic, ” When I read that paragraph near the beginning of this article, I knew it was full of BS. Currently the oceans are alkali and as more CO2 is added to the oceans they become less alkali, not more acidic. The oceans are far from being acidic at this stage and probably won’t ever become acidic.
This is one of the first highlighted papers on ‘climate change’ that explores the movement of organic and inorganic carbon in the oceans.
You will note that classically, in the carbon cycle box models, we are informed that the surface of the oceans and the atmosphere were at equilibrium. The burning of fossil fuels has disturbed this equilibrium and though there is a rapid exchange of atmospheric/sea surface CO2 (with a t1/2 of about a decade), adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes a ‘fat tail’, as the rate that CO2 moves from the surface to the deep oceans is very slow. Thus, we are informed, that a bolus addition of CO2 will have a true residency of time of centuries, as sequestration in the deep ocean is very slow.
Here the authors point out that the through put of aquatic photosynthesis creates three large concentration gradients;
1) At the surface, through the action of photosynthetic organisms, CO2 is converted into organic and inorganic carbon, and Oxygen.
2) As organic/inorganic matter falls, from dead organisms and from feces, it is oxidized by microorganisms utilizing oxygen to CO2, or when the oxygen has been used up, to CO2 and CH4.
3) Depending on depth and currents, the particulate carbon ends up in sediments (and will become oil/natural gas deposits in future years.
The levels of oxygen, as one drops down the ocean depths, tell one how much organic matter is passing through the volume. If there is no O2, then it has been used to oxidized organic carbon to CO2, the same for the production of ammonia (from nitrate and nitrite), sulphide (from sulphate and sulphite) and methane (2xCH2O -> CO2 + CH4).
The profile of the oxygen gradient in the ocean, high at the top, followed by an hypoxic zone; sometimes with a higher level of O2 a depths where there is no organic sediment, tells us that the ‘fat-tailed’ box models in no way reflect who carbon moves from the surface of the oceans to the bottom.
The absence of oxygen equilibration between the atmosphere and the oceans, with respect to depth, means that CO2 is not, and has never been, in equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans.
These folks should have read the Peer Reviewed literature.
In reality, the oceans today are more basic and the CO2 levels lower than they were for 100 out of the past 110 million years. If anything we are simply returning to more typical climate conditions.
Page 53.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebePQ01.pdf
Scott Ramsdell says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:27 am
Conclusion: dirty tanks and poor reef keeping skills led to the poor health of the phytoplankton.
Similar to the declines in frog populations blamed on global warming, later found to be caused by infections spread by researchers themselves.
When I see the words ‘Ocean Acidification’ I assume they are not true scientists but people with an agenda, and whose work is most likely to be absolutely worthless.. The oceans are not acidic so can not become ‘more’ acidic, only less alkaline. ‘Acidic’ is a propaganda word aiming to give the less informed the impression that the oceans are acidic, and becoming more so, and that it is OUR fault.
I do not see any mention of the pH so it could hve been fizzy soda. It reminds me of a similar paper on abalones where the ‘scientists’ used the concentration of CO2 in air as the starting point of the CO2 concentration in the water, over four times the actual amount, rising to over eight times the actual amount of CO2 in the oceans. The fact that ANY abalones survived was a testament to their resilience and showing nature can cope with the most extreme changes, or idiotic scientists.
I did read that phytoplankton use bicarbonates rather than carbonates to form their skeleton so a reduction in alkalinity has been extremely beneficial and caused them to thrive, acting as a feedback loop to reduce CO2. I assume this is what they meant by ‘synergistic’. As this would be the ‘wrong’ result I suppose they increased the CO2 until abnormalities appeared. As the pH is not mentioned I do not know if this happened at levels which are in any way possible in the foreseeable furure, or even likely in the next billion years!
Off topic: [SNIP: Yes, it is. Please post in Tips and Notes. -REP]
Can anyone comment on Emili’s role in the production and transport of sulfur through cloud seeding? Does Emili possibly play a significant role in conjunction with cosmic rays and cloud nucleation? Does more Emili = potentially more clouds = more cooling?
It is my understanding Emili is responsible for the entire ongoing replenishment of sulfur on land. I’d love to hear from someone more intelligent than me comment on this.
Curiously, I was listening to Pirates of Penzance when I saw that beautiful satellite image of Cornwall.
When you name a journal Global Change Biology you are stating the science is settled (above and beyond natural change). Now let’s have a biochemical lesson:
When you increase CO2 and NH3 you end up, after a few reactions, with:
NH3 + H2CO3 → NH4+ + HCO3-
This is ammonium bicarbonate solution which is a buffer that resists both increases in (more alkaline) or decreases in (more acidic) pH. Simply it prevents acidification.
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=Reaction%20ammonia%20and%20carbonic%20acid&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
From Wiki: scroll down to Biochemical Role.
It seems that Assistant Professor of Biology Jonathon Stillman and colleagues didn’t take the Chemistry 101 option in undergrad. Hey, I’m only a mining geologist/engineer, what should I know about it?
I am not sure I buy this ammonia claim.They are talking about relatively near the surface where N2 is gleaned from the atmosphere. The ammonia hypothesis is is not only predicated on a (worldwide) bacteria bloom, the disappearance of N2 in the water (have waves also disappeared?), AGW, but the failure of relativistic temperature differentials between deep ocean and shallow (presumed) warmer seas. Maybe they think that that is where the missing heat has gone. But this is beyond unlikely. I think they tried very hard to get these results.
Obligatory pedantic nitpick: might effect coccolith development.
Should be “might affect coccolith development.”
REPLY: Obligatory rebuttal – take it up with the authors – Anthony
Our understanding of the ocean’s nitrogen cycle, its chemistries and the chaotic feedback loops with phytoplankton and the feedbacks loops of phytoplankton and zooplankton is in its infancy.This paper assumes things that cannot be assumed ex. upwelling is the principle nitrogen source and that a small change in pH will alter the specie of nitrogen present. W e didn’t even know the chemistries now thought responsible for half the ocean’s reactive nitrogen losses until a little more than a decade ago and we are still learning new ones. The “non-climate” science is still fighting about the role of Nitrogen fixation and whether nitrogen is or can be a limiting nutrient in the ocean. There is absolutely no way science can predict changes at a fine pH scale in a complex physical-biological system ex. diatom’s biogenic silica can act as a pH buffer. Equally important is the poor understanding of the other side of the nitrogen ledger- the conversion back to inert N2. We have little or no idea why certain species of phytoplankton bloom or when. We have little understanding of zooplankton feedback loops, role of micronutrients. etc etc etc.
It is therefore amazing that we can predict changes to the entire ocean ecosystem from 4 variables, T, a single phytoplankton, ph and the form of nitrogen. If that is all we need let us all demand an end to ocean research spending because we now know everything we need to know.
This theory should be easy to substantiate. If phytoplankton growth is inhibited by higher temperatures, then phytoplankton blooms obviously will not occur in summer.
“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”
Much was said here about acidification and pH changes, but the one thing I was looking for was an actual pH value. That was not to be found and I think I know why.
Another comment in this article:
“In the very deepest waters, no significant pH changes were seen.”
While they were in the deep waters, did they by any chance discover Trenberth’s missing heat there?
So what did these researchers have to say about all the competing gobblers of organinc and inorganic carbon; that will take over the ocean when this little pest goes green side up and adopts room temperature.
Mother Gaia abhors a vaccuum, and she will find some other little monstres to fill the gap..
To paraphrase General Electric, “In Climate Science, weasel words are our most important product.”
“”””” ANH says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Please can someone explain what this article has to do with Cornwall?
No mention of it that I can find but map at top of article is definitely the south west corner of England. “””””
It’s where the Pirates of Penzance hung out while they were going to St Ives. An ex of mine went to Penzance Grammar School.
anticlimactic says:
October 15, 2011 at 8:24 am
As the pH is not mentioned I do not know if this happened at levels which are in any way possible in the foreseeable furure, or even likely in the next billion years!
===============================================
In the lab you can add an acid until all of your buffer is used up………
They faked it…………..
…for this to work, first you have to assume that there will be enough CO2 to actually use up enough buffer in the oceans for the pH to drop
Then you have to add even more CO2/acid to lower the pH until you get these results….
Without recognizing that C(arbon)O2 is what it is……………
Mike Jowsey says:
October 15, 2011 at 10:32 am
Obligatory pedantic nitpick: might effect coccolith development.
Should be “might affect coccolith development.”
Actually, you appear to assume that the good researchers at SFSU did not mean what they wrote, even in a Freudian slippery way. As a verb, of course, effect means “to cause something to come to completion”. Some of the comments above validate this reading of the original.
Here is an example sentence that contrasts affect and effect as verbs:
Taken in isolation of other factors, and given enough of it, CO2 might, speculatively, on some theoretical grounds, as proven by climate models designed to prove just that, affect climate by effecting a concomitant rise in atmospheric temperature.
Sparks says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:49 am
Scientific papers that have conclusions of what would happen due to Anthropogenic climate change, Are Not proof that Anthropogenic climate change is Actually happening.
—————-
That is perfectly correct. But if the predicted consequences do come to pass then that IS evidence for global warming.
J Calvert N says:
October 15, 2011 at 5:08 am
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 suspect the answer to this question is already known.
I suspect the answer is weathering of continental rocks.
harry says:
October 14, 2011 at 7:51 pm
An acid donates protons.
Oceans are alkaline and becoming slightly less alkaline, their tendency to donate protons is exactly zero and has been zero throughout the Industrial revolution.
———–
No. The oceans are largely water and water has no trouble donating protons.
Alkaline and acidic is just a simple way describe the ratio of protons to hydroxyl ion concentrations in water.
———–
Oceans are not acidifying, they are becoming less alkaline.
————
No. More acidic and less alkaline are synonyms.
————
For Jeff D, and James Sexton:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL040999.shtml
Global ocean acidification is a prominent, inexorable change associated with rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Here we present the first basin-wide direct observations of recently declining pH, along with estimates of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic contributions to that signal. Along 152°W in the North Pacific Ocean (22–56°N), pH changes between 1991 and 2006 were essentially zero below about 800 m depth. However, in the upper 500 m, significant pH changes, as large as −0.06, were observed. Anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic contributions over the upper 800 m are estimated to be of similar magnitude. In the surface mixed layer (depths to ∼100 m), the extent of pH change is consistent with that expected under conditions of seawater/atmosphere equilibration, with an average rate of change of −0.0017/yr. Future mixed layer changes can be expected to closely mirror changes in atmospheric CO2, with surface seawater pH continuing to fall as atmospheric CO2 rises.
I clicked on the full text PDF link and it worked. Apparently you can make single copies for personal use.
I took a look through it and biological activity is accounted for (paragraph 16, “respiration”). Also, they cross check the pH change with changes in total alkalinity and total CO2.
Since it’s available online, review it yourself. Send the authors a copy of your review for their comments.
Lew Skannen says:
October 14, 2011 at 7:47 pm
This process is so clear even the doziest schlub can .
I wonder whether there are any branches of science which don’t try and crowbar AGW into their funding requests.
————
it’s quite likely that the doziest schlub is unaware that many granting bodies —require—- that the researcher makes a statement about the potential impacts of their research. Evidently the government or whatever body is providing the money is keen to ensure the public is getting value for its money.