Sea cucumbers: Dissolving coral reefs?

From the Carnegie Institution  and Stanford University comes word of this paper in JGR.

Sea Cucumbers
A box of Sea Cucumbers - Image by mdid via Flickr

Washington, D.C. — Coral reefs are extremely diverse ecosystems that support enormous biodiversity. But they are at risk. Carbon dioxide emissions are acidifying the ocean, threatening reefs and other marine organisms. New research led by Carnegie’s Kenneth Schneider analyzed the role of sea cucumbers in portions of the Great Barrier Reef and determined that their dietary process of dissolving calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from the surrounding reef accounts for about half of at the total nighttime dissolution for the reef. The work is published December 23 by the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Reefs are formed through the biological deposition of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Many of the marine organisms living on and around a reef contribute to either its destruction or construction. Therefore it is crucial that the amount of calcium carbonate remain in balance. When this delicate balance is disrupted, the reef ceases to grow and its foundations can be weakened.

In order to fully understand a reef’s ability to deposit carbonate and grow, it is necessary to understand the roles that the various elements of sea life play in this process. This is especially important because increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is predicted to decrease the amount of carbonate available due to acidification.

The research group set out to examine the role that sea cucumbers play in the reef environment.

Schneider’s team included Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira, as well as Jacob Silverman, of the Israeli Limnology and Oceanography Institute; Maria Byrne and Erika Woolsey, both of the University of Sydney and the latter also from James Cook University; and Hampus Eriksson of Stockholm University.

They studied the growth and dissolution of One Tree Reef, which surrounds One Tree Island in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Focusing on an area of the reef known as “DK13”, they found that sea cucumbers were abundant. They collected some of these sea cucumbers and placed them in aquaria to study the effect on sea water resulting from the sand and rubble transported through their gut system as part of their digestive process.

As part of another ongoing study in this area, the team found that the coral reef was dissolving at night. They found that sea cucumbers play a crucial part in this process. They live off the bits of organic matter in the carbonate sand and rubble that they ingest; in this process, their digestive systems produce acids that dissolve parts of these carbonate minerals. The dissolved carbonate minerals are then released into the surrounding environment. The researchers found that these lowly organisms might be responsible for half of the CaCO3 of the reef observed at night.

The burning of coal, oil, and gas releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which is later absorbed by the ocean, causing the ocean to acidify. Ocean acidification is expected to slow reef growth. With slower reef growth, the dissolution of CaCO3 within the guts of sea cucumbers is expected to become even more important to the reef CaCO3 budget.

“Even though the sea cucumbers dissolve CaCO3 on the reef, in a lagoon such as the one at One Tree Reef, where there is limited seawater exchange with the surrounding ocean, they can be important in recycling of nutrients to support primary productivity. They also increase sea water buffer capacity to partially offset ocean acidification effects, helping to maintain the overall health of the coral reef,” Schneider said. “Although sea cucumbers may play a part in reef dissolution, they are also an important part of an incredible marine environment.”

###

This research was supported by the Moore foundation. The authors thank the University of Sydney’s One Tree Island Research Station facility.

The Department of Global Ecology was established in 2002 to help build the scientific foundations for a sustainable future. The department is located on the campus of Stanford University, but is an independent research organization funded by the Carnegie Institution. Its scientists conduct basic research on a wide range of large-scale environmental issues, including climate change, ocean acidification, biological invasions, and changes in biodiversity.

The Carnegie Institution for Science (carnegiescience.edu) is a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with six research departments throughout the U.S. Since its founding in 1902, the Carnegie Institution has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kbray in california
December 26, 2011 12:25 pm

Girl to friend,
“Are you happy to see me, or is that a sea cucumber in your pocket ?”
That design seems to have a very long and successful reproductive history…

björn
December 26, 2011 12:28 pm

Cucumbers?
Thats not what comes to my mind when I see that picture.
But I suppose that if I had only sea-“cucumbers” to eat, that I would die from starvation no matter how nutritious they were.
So, this was somehow related to… global warming?
Happy new year everyone!

Richard G
December 26, 2011 12:36 pm

To add to Willis 11:11
From the text above, “they can be important in recycling of nutrients to support primary productivity. They also increase sea water buffer capacity to partially offset ocean acidification effects, helping to maintain the overall health of the coral reef,” Schneider said.
Schneider obviously gets it. Carnegie doesn’t. Available calcium is what the corals seek. Nocturnally.
Time for a little “Buckwheat sings the classics”: (to the tune of ‘Looking for Love’)
“Wookin’ fa Woe in aw da wong paces, wookin fa Woe.”

ChE
December 26, 2011 12:49 pm

björn says:
December 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Cucumbers?
Thats not what comes to my mind when I see that picture.

This guy seems to see a connection:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/10/the-fatwa-against-women-touching-bananas-and-other-stupid-islamic-orders.html

Pat Moffitt
December 26, 2011 1:05 pm

Would not the organic acids coming from the nearby mangrove swamps and the shallow water photosynthetic responses make any impact from changes in atmospheric CO2 almost impossible to discern?
Given these offshore cay’s geology make them highly influenced by upwellings -one would think changes in wind pattern and intensity would be far more relevant to DIC than changes in atmospheric concentrations.
Many of the world’s reef systems face very real challenges- that the limited resources we have to address them are being squandered on politically expedient “theoretical problems” is a tragedy.

December 26, 2011 1:06 pm

Willis Eschenbach says: December 26, 2011 at 11:11 am
Willis,
I think that sentence is important, but balances another oversight. Sea cucumbers can’t create nett acid or base. They can by use of energy reverse a neutralization. So they can create a local acid environment which dissolves CaCO3. But to do it, they must excrete a corresponding amount of base, which is what that para refers to. In the end, that will precipitate the CaCO3 dissolved – no ultimate effect.
External CO2 can change the nett balance.

ChE
December 26, 2011 1:33 pm

Nett?

Brian H
December 26, 2011 1:44 pm

ChE;
Nett seems to be the cutsey “in” spelling of “net” for economists and other pseudo-scientists these days.

ChE
December 26, 2011 1:48 pm

Okk.

December 26, 2011 1:52 pm

It’s a cold night in New Hampshire. I want to go study a coral reef.

December 26, 2011 1:54 pm

Both Corals and sea cucumbers go way back in geologic history. I guess no one ever told them about this problem. On the other hand maybe corals and sea cucumbers understand something about their ecosystem these researchers have yet to discover. For me I go with the critters they have been here way longer then Standord University.

Editor
December 26, 2011 1:58 pm

Nick Stokes says:
December 26, 2011 at 1:06 pm

Willis Eschenbach says: December 26, 2011 at 11:11 am
Willis,
I think that sentence is important, but balances another oversight. Sea cucumbers can’t create nett acid or base.

Thanks, Nick. That’s an interesting thought, but I’m not sure it’s true. Chemical reactions, particularly life-driven reactions, as far as I know, are under no restriction that they should produce equal amounts of acids and bases. What am I missing?
w.

Rob Painting
December 26, 2011 2:10 pm

Alcheson – funny how you contradict what Ferd Berple wrote and yet neither of you seem to pick up on this. Of course, neither of you are totally correct.
Yes, natural processes, such as carbonate and silicate weathering and the shoaling (rising) of the carbonate compensation depth, can supply alkalinity back to the ocean. This prevents the ocean from becoming corrosive, but only works on the timescales of hundreds of thousands of years. Rapid increases in CO2 (such as today) overload the system, causing surface waters to become corrosive.
This is why in the past when the Earth saw rapid pulses of CO2, from massive volcanic activity or the release of methane hydrates from seafloor sediments, the oceans acidified and coral went extinct, or nearly did.
The crucial difference is the rate of change. Gradual increases in atmospheric CO2 occurring over hundreds of thousands of years won’t make the oceans corrosive. It seems counter-intuitive but a great explanatory paper on this topic is: Ocean acidification in deep time – Kump (2010).
It’s much more complicated than that because the concentration of calcium and magnesium in seawater has varied substantially over multimillion-year timescales, and the cycling or carbon by living things (the carbonate pump) has changed much too. But when you delve a bit deeper the pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

Editor
December 26, 2011 2:29 pm

ChE says:
December 26, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Nett?

One of those “Queen’s English” – v – “Derivative English”
Having had the benefit of an English Classical Education, I have always spelt Nett, Initialise, Customise, Colour, etc
In more modern times, now resident in New Zealand, I have resisted numerous attempts from friends to “correct” my spelling
Perhaps Modern Scientists are recognising at least one of their faults
Season’s Greetings
Andy

December 26, 2011 2:40 pm

I’m always forced to educate biologists who twist chemistry to meet their requirements. The cuke lives in the sea and thus can not create excess acid without without creating a compensating equal alkalinity. Sea creatures’ chemical activities are constrained to be neutral – changes have to come from outside the ocean as a system and it surely does with CO2 but ya know, inorganic carbonates are abundant in land and sea, too, and they are busy buffering any acidification that comes along.

bouldersolar
December 26, 2011 2:58 pm

When RFK jr was giving a speech on the Boulder Courthouse lawn a few years ago he launched into his usual mercury scaremongering and the evil coal powerplants. When he started yelling about the 50 tons of mercury I started heckling him by asking about the other 4000 tons of mercury. I was manhandled and hustled away from this public venue while the Boulder police looked on. RFK jr had no response to my question.

LazyTeenager
December 26, 2011 3:03 pm

StudioBronze says
acidify= to make or become acid. Bad Science, bad, bad.
———
Nup. Used in this context acidify means decrease the pH.
Chemical and biological processes could not give a rat’s a–e about whether the water is above or below pH = 7, which is the definition of acid you are thinking of. That definition of acid is largely a convention for human terminlogical purposes. Chemical and biological processes care about hydrogen ion concentration. There is no magical threshold at pH 7 that causes chemical process to be different above 7 and below 7.
Scientists know how to interpret terms like acidity based on context.

Mooloo
December 26, 2011 3:07 pm

Brian H says:
ChE;
Nett seems to be the cutsey “in” spelling of “net” for economists and other pseudo-scientists these days.

It’s been a standard variant for centuries. Economists use it to distinguish it from gross. In this case it is the usage, being the difference between two amounts.
(Amusing that you use “cutesy” to bag someone, given that “cutesy” could be thought cutesy http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cutesy ).

Pat Moffitt
December 26, 2011 3:16 pm

Rob Painting,
“Yes, natural processes, such as carbonate and silicate weathering and the shoaling (rising) of the carbonate compensation depth, can supply alkalinity back to the ocean. This prevents the ocean from becoming corrosive, but only works on the timescales of hundreds of thousands of years. Rapid increases in CO2 (such as today) overload the system, causing surface waters to become corrosive.’
Hundreds of thousands of years- Do you just make this stuff up or what? And exactly how much CO2 is needed to “overload the system’?

Lawrie Ayres
December 26, 2011 3:23 pm

Andy @2:29,
Nett is absolutely correct. It is only the lazy and uneducated that use net.
I am sorry to say that this research was conducted at the same university that harbours that famous and always correct Greenpeace warrior with a PhD , Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. I was surprised his name didn’t appear as a co-author since he is convinced the GBR is dying all because of the human induced elevation of CO2 concentration. What is it? 15 ppm over 150 years or so. And that changes the oceans ph by what amount? These researchers remind me of an ad ” when you’re on a good thing stick to it”.

Country Ham
December 26, 2011 3:32 pm

I cannot help wondering the dollar amount of the research grant that funded this “research.” Even on second blush this seems like a wedging open of a new field of grantsmanship.

December 26, 2011 3:32 pm

Lazy says:
“There is no magical threshold at pH 7 that causes chemical process to be different above 7 and below 7.”
And there is no empirical, testable measurement that shows ocean pH changing due to human emitted CO2. To even imply that is ‘Bad Science, bad, bad.’
But it it were not for bad science, the alarmist crowd would be mute.

December 26, 2011 3:40 pm

Rob Painting says:
December 26, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Rapid increases in CO2 (such as today) overload the system, causing surface waters to become corrosive.
=====================
Could you please explain to this Ph.D. chemist how water at an alkaline pH moving slightly closer to neutrality causes it to become corrosive.

LazyTeenager
December 26, 2011 3:43 pm

Brian H on December 26, 2011 at 10:50 am said:
IIRC, a paper recently established that lowered alkalinity increased the dissolution of “dead” coral and shells, but accelerated the uptake of CaCO3 into new growth. I.e., the whole cycle ran at greater speed. There would thus be a decrease in the speed with which limestone and chalk was laid down, and an increase in the quantity and number of “living corals”, etc.
———–
Almost right. You left out the sea slugs.
There is a balancing act. The sea slugs help dissolve the corral rubble returning soluble calcium to the water. The corrals absorb that calcium to produce new reef to replace that turned into rubble. If the corrals have to work harder to extract calcium from the water at lower alkalinity reef growth slows. If the rate of growth does not equal or exceed the processes producing rubble then the reef will eventually disappear.

December 26, 2011 3:49 pm

Lazy opines:
“Almost right. You left out the sea slugs.”
A …HA!
So sea slugs are the key to the whole AGW riddle. Now why didn’t I think of that?☺