From the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University comes word of this paper in JGR.
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.
What would the ranking of these see cucumbers be as far as ‘sustainability’? There could be quite a market for them.
Lazy Teenager,
So given your 90/10 rule- changes in atmospheric CO2 cause how much of the changes we see in reef productivity.
philincalifornia:
Actually, lobsters benifit from a lowering of PH. Scripps did a study using actual co2, rather than acid to lower the ph, and found approx 1/2 of the crustacians produced larger and denser shells. Lobsters were one of the winners. Seems they are in a deficient state right now and will only gain in health and shell density when the PH becomes lower.
So if you are a lobster lover, you have it made….:)
Can I have that one back please LT ?
I really meant to say “Unlike you, I never studied the art of propaganda.”
Camburn says:
December 26, 2011 at 6:46 pm
philincalifornia:
Actually, lobsters benifit from a lowering of PH.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No kidding. Ocean organisms have evolved to address changes in pH over the 10s to 100s of millions of years ??
They can’t survive being boiled though. Bwahahahaha.
I still have problems deciding between a good Marlborough Sauvignon blanc and a good California Chardonnay though.
I once bought a live lobster in Boston, put it in my hand luggage, and flew back to San Francisco. Poor little bugger was still alive when I got home. I almost took it down to Ocean Beach to let it go, but knew that probably would not lead to a good outcome. So we ate it.
My general rule is that any report talking about a “delicate balance” in an eco-system deserves to be dismissed.
Rob Painting-
You told philincalifornia – “when seawater is strongly undersaturated (with respect to aragonite for instance) shells made from that material normally dissolve. Sounds corrosive to me. That’s why those oyster larvae up in Washington state and Oregon have been dying. The seawater dissolves their shells.”
Yet over on the Yale 360 site you finally admitted to me that with regards to these oysters-“No one is saying that upwelling plays no role. It’s a combination of factors including increasing acidity in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 that’s affecting the oyster spat.”
I asked you to tell me what percentage of this “combination of factors” was due to the recent changes in atmospheric CO2 and how you knew. Nor did you ever tell me why the exact same type of mortalities were seen in the 1940s, 1960s and 1970s. I’m still waiting.
Calling me a bully and at variance with THE TRUTH as you did at Yale 360 was certainly better than Dr. Safina who said I was a “semi-anonymous fox-in-the-henhouse idiologue signal-jamming death of science communicator” (I kind of liked the name given the source) and then promptly said time constraints prevented him from responding to my technical points.
You also never said why you use as your great example of ocean acidification the Pfister paper on Tatoosh Island that found “no clear causal variable” for the increased “corrosiveness” in the mussel proxy used (assuming the proxy has value). And states the increase in “corrosiveness” is an order of magnitude greater than can be explained by increasing CO2 levels. Doesn’t this argue my point? If you know how much an order of magnitude is you would never use this as a defense for the “corrosiveness” being anthropogenic fossil fuel in origin.
You claim “So far Pat, all I’ve read from you is a whole bunch of handwaving and glaring knowledge gaps in regard to ocean acidification” yet at Yale 360 I outlined some ten finely detailed points you and Safina needed to address. And you didn’t or couldn’t. After all if you are demanding my tax dollars be spent on this and using it to raise my electric rates- the burden falls largely on you to explain yourself. What I heard were the talking point distortion of your Skeptical Science blog posts -the only site that Anthony Watts stars as Unreliable-
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.
LazyTeenager says:
December 26, 2011 at 6:34 pm
“But considering some of the other claims you have made I’ll observe that many systems, no matter how complex, are subject to a 90% 10% law. That is to say: including 10% of the components of a system will capture 90% of it’s behavior.”
I am sure that you have analyzed many systems, no matter how complex, in your teenage years, being a lazy teenager. Maybe, once you reach the legal age, you should then quickly skip the university education, go directly to the exams and become the youngest system analyst of the world. Has the added advantage of fitting your laziness; you don’t have to endure all a dem lectures.
Care to share an example of the complex systems you have analyzed?
Lazy T
“So would it be sensible to avoid using descriptions like “the steel reinforcing in my skyscraper is suffering from corrosion” because it might [sic] decieve people.”
+1
Game set match.
Sorry phil, you lost that one big time. LazyT pwned you.
lazy teen…If I take three colors, black grey and white and add a little white to the black would I be making it white or bringing it closer to grey???….so it may seem to you as acidification but to me it would be bringing it closer to neutral and there bye being less os so much less DRAMATICALLY OVER STATED
Rob Painting says to Pat Moffitt
“It’s a bit late to trundle out an appeal to authority when you’ve already demonstrated you don’t understand the fundamentals of ocean chemistry.” OK-I Don’t understand ocean chemistry after spending 35 years in the field because much of it is not yet understood nor its future workings possible to predict at the precision you claim given its chaotic interplay of physical and biological variables – but I know enough to know when I see BS. So tell me what your years as a police officer have taught you that I have failed to understand. One piece of the environmental engineering, laboratory and services business I built -since you accuse me of appeals to authority- was an aquatic bio-assay lab where we raised all our own marine test organisms-I’m sure it wasn’t equal to what you learned at the Police Academy- but I’m always open to learning.
And please pick a value as to how much CO2 is being absorbed by the ocean- sure you want to hang your hat on 50%? And if the northeast Atlantic is a CO2 source but the average for the global oceans are a CO2 sink does this make the northeast increasingly corrosive as well? Global averages are meaningless if not an imperfect snapshot of a particular and ever changing ocean state.
philincalifornia – “Right, very serious, ha ha ha”
I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate some knowledge of this topic. You were the one claiming to be a chemist. Ha ha ha’s don’t impress.
Smokey – I’m talking about real science here. You know the stuff that appears in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Robert Phelan – have you read the Kump paper yet? I pointed to it above. Google is your friend.
Camburn – “It was bacteria, had nothing to do with PH changes”
Nope. See here for instance, quotes from the Oyster hatchery operators. http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/AJOC-December-25-2011/West-Coast-shellfish-farms-impacted-by-ocean-acidification/
The problem has been mitigated by pumping water from shallower intakes, where it is less corrosive, and studiously monitoring seawater pH levels. Unfortunately it poses the risk of taking in water near the surface which is more likely to be infected with bacteria, but so far it has worked to alleviate the problem. But what do you think is happening to oyster larvae recruitment in the wild, given that they cannot artificially alter the ambient seawater?
LazyTeenager says: December 26, 2011 at 3:03 pm pH depends on hydrogen ion concentration.
No, laddie, back to school for you. It’s not concentration, it’s activity. They are not the same.
steven mosher says:
December 26, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Lazy T
“So would it be sensible to avoid using descriptions like “the steel reinforcing in my skyscraper is suffering from corrosion” because it might [sic] decieve people.”
+1
Game set match.
Sorry phil, you lost that one big time. LazyT pwned you.
===============================================
Yeah right Steve. Despite your intelligence, you do have the tendency to make off the hip idiotic posts at will, and since I’ve pointed that out on here, I’m sure that’s the genesis of your “inaccurate” contribution.
So go on then, since the world is watching, explain how the inorganic chemistry analogy is a metaphor for a biological system.
…. and pwned is so last year dude.
Pat Moffit – furious handwaving is the same as handwaving. Remember you were the one to proclaim some sort of expertise here, and yet you don’t even understand that the oceans are a sink for carbon dioxide. One would think that Daltons Law of partial pressure, Henry’s Law and the observed decline in ocean pH might be a bit of a giveaway. But it all seems to be basic science of which you forgot or never knew in the first place. What does that say about your level of competence?
I have referred you to a peer-reviewed paper (Ocean acidification in deep time – Kump [2010]) which deals with the chemistry of the oceans over time, yet you don’t seem willing to read it. Are you prepared to read it and learn some actual science?
Rob Painting says to philincalifornia –
“when seawater is strongly undersaturated (with respect to aragonite for instance) shells made from that material normally dissolve. Sounds corrosive to me. That’s why those oyster larvae up in Washington state and Oregon have been dying. The seawater dissolves their shells.”
Over at the Yale 360 site you finally admitted that the upwellings and other natural variables were were involved in the oyster deaths but claimed that an increase in atmospheric CO2 some 4 decades ago that worked itself down into the deep waters and is now upwelling along the Oregon coast is also highly relevant. Very much different than what you have said here. You also never responded to my questions as to what percent of the oyster death given natural variability could be ascribed to anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuel use and why? The back and forth can be found here http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2466
You also hung your argument for increasing corrosivity on the Pfister paper on Tatoosh Island that found “no clear causal variable” for the increased “corrosiveness” in the mussel proxy used (assuming the proxy has value). And stated the increase in “corrosiveness” is an order of magnitude greater than can be explained by increasing CO2 levels. I never understood why you made my point for me- a second chance to explain here.
If I recall you said I was a Bully for asking questions but were not nearly as bad as Dr. Safina of the Blue Ocean something or other who responded to my ten rather detailed questions by calling me a “semi-anonymous fox in the hen house ideologue death of science jamming communicator” and then responded he could not afford the time to answer the questions. There was some mumbling on your part as well that my position was not in keeping with THE TRUTH.
The science I understand has no Truth.
Sorry about the repost I didn’t think it went through earlier
Camburn says:
“The lowering PH of the oceans is much more of a concern than the small effect that co2 will have on temperature.”
The error bars in pH measurements are far wider than the claimed pH changes, therefore “ocean acidification” is simply evidence-free speculation. If you or Mr Painting had taken the time to read even one of the articles I posted, along with the comments, you would still be working on increasing your understanding. But since neither of you could possibly have read all of the articles and comments, you’re just regurgitating debunked talking points from cartoonist John Cook’s pseudo-science blog. Read the articles I posted if you want to get up to speed on the subject – or, try to pass along your repeatedly deconstructed talking points. But we know the difference here at the internet’s Best Science site.
The only reason the “ocean acidification” nonsense is still being discussed is because those eror bars allow for a huge amount of wiggle room for the climate doomsday cult. But they also negate any proof – for the same reason that the sensitivity question is still being debated: if there was testable evidence showing pH changes, the issue would be settled. But there is no such proof, none at all. And as usual, the climate alarmist contingent only debates conjectures where there is no testable evidence.
“Ocean acidification” is a baseless conjecture, as the links I provided make crystal clear. There is no testable, empirical evidence for those alarmist claims… and that is the case for every climate alarmist claim. Evidence-free conjectures are all the alarmist crowd ever has. But the scientific method is not based on red-faced arm waving. Testable evidence is required by the scientific method, and that is where the alarmist crowd comes up empty-handed. There is zero evidence showing that ocean pH has changed as a result of human CO2 emissions. None. It is all based on True Belief, the same as any other religion.
Rob Painting says:
December 26, 2011 at 7:36 pm
philincalifornia – “Right, very serious, ha ha ha”
I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate some knowledge of this topic. You were the one claiming to be a chemist. Ha ha ha’s don’t impress.
================================================
You didn’t like me calling you a dupe did you ? Since you are one, I’m fairly sure that that would rankle you.
Go on, ask me a chemistry question. I’ll educate you (as well as I can), although I do know the old saying – “some fell on stony ground”.
Rob:
I looked at your link but this is not what was presented in a farm paper some months back.
IF true, the lower PH is of grave concern. Just as I typed earlier, the co2 and temp metric is marginal of importance as the actual valid science is as of yet very uncertain.
Lowering PH of the ocean is of tremendous concern, as the phyto plankton are one way that the coean absorbs co2 organically. They, at this time, seem somewhat sensative to lower PH.
Nick Stokes says: December 26, 2011 at 4:39 pm Re acid-alkaline balance conserved
Nick, the best for 2012. While I mostly agree with you, even to the “Nett”, there are exceptions such as catalysis, photolysis, free radical formation etc that are outside your invoked frame of reference sensu stricto. But that’s an academic observation.
BTW, the derivation of pH from measurement of other substances and reliance on equilibrium constants etc is error-prone.
I’ve never had a convincing explanation for pH variation of the type in the figure below. Perhaps you can help. Logically, if your explanation for the neutral role of the sea cucumber works, it should work for any closed system and by now, the connected oceans of the world should all be the same pH. Maybe. What’s the driver for the variation?
http://www.geoffstuff.com/OceanpH.jpg
R Painting says:
“I have referred you to a peer-reviewed paper (Ocean acidification in deep time – Kump [2010]) which deals with the chemistry of the oceans over time, yet you don’t seem willing to read it. Are you prepared to read it and learn some actual science?”
Yet your mind is closed when other sources are posted. Cherry-pick much?
LazyTeenager says:
December 26, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Iron left outside rusts. The process and the product is called corrosion. The iron is said to corrode. The agent is air and water. So by any reasonable definition air and water can be said to be corrosive; to iron. the pH of the water involved is near 7.
———————
Not pure iron and not in pure water, it requires an initiator to start corrosion. Steel in sea water will corrode, but the pH would still have to be slightly acid. It also requires very little of some substances to passivate the steel surface to pH’s below 5. Try reading a textbook on corrosion.
Even better try doing an old fashioned acid-base titration – NO. Better for you to stick to Liberal Art or Law or whatever you’re studying, and try to avoid comments on science. You will find you’re out of your depth.
philincalifornia – “Go on, ask me a chemistry question. I’ll educate you”
Thanks, but you’ve clearly illustrated you know nothing about ocean acidification. I’ll stick with the peer-reviewed literature. You know, real experts.
Smokey – peer reviewed literature. I’m not being subtle here.
That claim was retracted, IIRC. Something to do with a change in nutrient levels due to periodic variations in upwellings and water temps etc. pH changes do not affect living shells, only dead ones.