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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It looks like Rob Painting and Lazy Teenager were lured to this post by see cucumbers and led into a debate where they were handed their ass. Better to stick with the see cucumbers and leave the technical discussions to others.
LazyTeenager says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Smokey says
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.’
———-
The way I look at it, from the viewpoint of someone who raised livestock and used corrals only to herd cattle into, it would be difficult even for less discerning people to prove that “human-emitted CO2” has any impact and that it can be in any way be separated from the impact of the 97 percent that come from natural sources.
I cannot think of anyone at all who would be capable of providing evidence of that distinction that would be acceptable even to himself. To repeat Smokey, “To even imply that is ‘Bad Science, bad, bad.’”
Only acids are corrosive? Let me just pop you in a bath with caustic soda bath salts, LT.
Did you ever study basic science at high school? That’s where I learned about acids and bases, at age 14. ‘Acid’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.
TomRude @ur momisugly December 26, 2011 at 10:22 am
I thought your comment very quick, if not crutch-grabbing.
Perhaps you could encourage the Moore Foundation to fund education of young women so they may be able to speak up or find employment and escape FGM (femal genital mutilation) or at the very least decent hospital services with anaesthetics/pain relief for young men in the developing nations. Those nations that still require and practice on young men (not babes) to endure home/community-based initiation using the rusty kitchen and bathroom cutlery (circumcision and sub-incision). Or where the govts subsidise and medicare pays for flights (inc elder escort) and hospitalisation of these young men to be circumcised. occurs……. as a collective ritual.
Perhaps the 60% interest in the media on the Bobbitt case could be transferred to the 60% of the youth population (girls and boys) that endure such torture in developing nations?
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/severed_penis/index.html
In my educational days, “corrosion” was associated with a volume reduction of a solid, caused by a chemical mechanism. Rusting of iron is an example.
OTOH, “erosion” is a reduction in volume by a physical mechanism. Sand blasting of iron is an example).
Mr. Watts, in this all too brief time of good will towards man(not Mann) I would like assurances that no warmists were harmed in the production of that picture included with this article.
Rational Debate – “If you have long term elevated levels of CO2, you would have to have correspondingly high rates of rock weathering to continually make up for it, using this logic. Only problem is that if those long term high weathering rates are possible, then it could also occur sufficiently to counter a rapid shift from ‘low’ CO2 levels to ‘high’ CO2 levels as in the present times”
You did so well with the first sentence, but blew it with the second. It is the rate of change that is important. Now if you were to watch a rock, how long do you suppose it might take for it to be worn down? Do you think the rate of weathering would be fast enough to counter the rate of fossil fuel burning over the last 2 centuries?
Consider this: volcanic activity has pumped trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over time. And yet CO2 is still measured in parts per million. What happened to all that CO2?
philincalifornia – “I’m sorry Rob, when it comes to strawmen …..”
Phil, is this some game where up means down? You claimed to be a chemist, a highly published one at that, and yet have not grasped the basics. I still await an answer, and you’ve had plenty of time to google it.
eyesonu – that’s the up-is-down thing again isn’t it?
Rational Debate – no point linking to Freeman Dyson, he’s no expert on ocean acidification. At least I’ve never come across a peer-reviewed scientific paper by him on the topic. I trust you’ll point one out should it exist.
You also do not understand what Dalton’s law of partial pressure and Henry’s Law stipulate. It has absolutely nothing to do with increased plant growth on land. Together they mandate the absorption of CO2 by the ocean as the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Kind of the basics really, and something that both philincalifornia and Pat Moffitt know nothing about.
Rob the Science Kop Painting,
It has been my experience that those without a background in chemistry simply throw out “peer reviewed” papers as evidence of some belief because they have neither the understanding not the experience to discuss the particular details.
Lets use a police analogy- something closer to your work experience. Lets say we have a cop that has walked the beat for 30 years and we have a young Ph.D. who has done a sociological model on how police are supposed to interact in any given situation. We arrive at a crime scene and shooting breaks out- who are you going to trust- the cop who has been trained to handle these situations and has lived it for 30 years or the Ph.D that has been sheltered in his ivory tower? What if the cop also has a PhD but chose to use that knowledge in applied field of actual police work? You would have us to believe that we should pay no attention to the cop who may have been through this many times because he has never written a theoretical paper on the subject. I’m sure there would be many police officers that would beg to differ
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Gary Pearse says:
December 26, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“What am I missing here? If the life in the aquarium can’t change the acid/base balance, how does the aquarium pH go bad?”
The aquarium is a very artificial system in which you have selected a tiny portion of an ecology with no symbiotic partners and to which you add a high proportion (in volume terms) of food from outside to the aquarium. It is not the “life” in the aquarium but rather the death and eutrophication in the absence of other “clean-up” partners that acidifies the water through bacterial action and release of CO2, H2S, etc.
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/acidification-of-subsurface-coastal-waters-enhanced-by-eutrophication/
Gary Pearse- Willis-
Life can absolutely change the pH. Ammonia is a product of fish respiration which is then nitrified by bacteria consuming alkalinity. Denitrification will at best give you half of it back. A better example perhaps is fill you aquarium with bog plants and they will actively drive pH down with the active sequestering of Ca and other processes. However I do agree no lab or aquarium system can duplicate the more complex real system. But bog communities are a real world example that higher life (other than bacteria) can change the pH.
Gary Pearse says:
December 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm
I appreciate your reply, Gary. However, I don’t understand. You say that life in the ocean can’t change the pH. I give you the example of coral reefs, where life definitely changes the pH. I also mention the aquarium.
In your reply, you are arguing against yourself. Your claim now is that when the pH goes wrong in the aquarium, it is because the aquarium is missing living “clean-up” partners … beings whose job is to RESTORE THE pH … so how do those “clean-up” creatures manage to change the pH of the water?
You also say that “eutrophication” can change the pH. However, eutrophication is the overgrowth of life due to unlimited nutrients. So it seems to me that in eutrophication is assuredly is life that is changing the pH.
You say that there are underwater processes that can change the pH, but that underwater life can’t change the pH. Why not? Why is life somehow forbidden from doing something that happens by chemistry.
Finally, you did not comment on coral reefs. Coral reefs are a net source of CO2. This leaves them generally with a slightly lower pH than the surrounding open ocean waters. If life can’t affect the ocean’s pH, how do they do that?
Thanks,
w.
Willis,
Eutrophication is too often used improperly like acidification- being marketed now as synonymous with pollution. I’m sure you know its not either an “overgrowth” nor necessarily nutrient related and were just using it as an example. Eutrophication being simply the increasing rate in the supply of organic carbon to an aquatic ecosystem.
Don’t mean to nit-pick here but in the middle of an important fight over a local estuary where the press is spinning some “scientists” claims that the Bay’s eutrophication is proof of nutrient enrichment when the real stressors are the loss of grazers (oysters), inlet modifications that changed the tidal prism and perhaps a silica deficiency promoting a proliferation of the more noxious pico-nano-phytoplankton.
Eutrophication has no value judgement assigned to it and can be a consequences of any number of parameters of which nutrients are only one possibility. Eutrophication does not even require a change in trophic state. (Although some at NOAA are trying like hell to change the accepted definition in pure regulatory self interest so as to limit all causes to nitrogen in keeping with the new Nitrogen Cascade crisis. NOAA’s new Asset model assumes all eutrophication is nitrogen caused- even when its not.)
Willis,
You’ll love the Asset Model- it first assumes every change in an estuary is caused by Nitrogen and the allows the modeler to make a projection of what the future of an estuary will be like without nitrogen controls and derive a factor that is then to adjust the current data! The future now controls the present and I wish this was hyperbole. http://ian.umces.edu/neea/pdfs/assets.pdf
Nitrogen is the new CO2. They are just replacing one molecule that is necessary for life and cycle in complex ways with another.
Any scientist that dares speak up is being smeared in the Press by the NGOs.
If you want to read a really unsettling report look at the recent Science Advisory Report prepared for EPA on the uses of nitrogen regulations. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/67057225CC780623852578F10059533D/$File/EPA-SAB-11-013-unsigned.pdf
I’m now convinced Nitrogen is actually more dangerous than CO2 in regulatory hands and unfortunately EPA has all the regulatory authority it needs to wield it like a weapon. The Bay that I am working on if they succeed will be used to justify crippling emission standards.
re post: Rob Painting says: December 28, 2011 at 3:12 am
And you manage to miss the point entirely. Rob, if you were to watch a rock, tell me just how that rock is going to have its ‘rate of change’ as you put it, alter so radically that weathering would be able to keep up with constant high atmospheric levels of CO2 over millions of years, higher CO2 than present day levels? Conversely, if rock weathers so rapidly that it would manage to buffer extended high levels of CO2, then tell me why we’ve got any CO2 remaining in our present day atmosphere? Remember, I’m playing devil’s advocate here using YOUR logic.
As to your final question – don’t you think that we would have to have shown, scientifically, just where naturally occurring CO2 sources and sinks actually exist, not in a static picture either, but in our very complex and dynamic system (including atmosphere, biosphere, bodies of water, land masses/rocks, space interactions, etc) before proclaiming what happened to volcanic CO2 (or other) releases? You’re championing handy little theories, each of which has merit in the lab, but aren’t anything close to the complete picture once you actually include all of the players in the system – nor is there currently a body of comprehensive science available to support your claims.
re post by: Rob Painting says: December 28, 2011 at 3:30 am
Now you are really displaying your blatant bias, lack of objectivity, and unscientific mindset. Why don’t you try actually listening to the Dyson video before spouting off? It’s all of a whopping 6 minutes long, what have you to lose, other than your talking points?
As to who understands what about Dalton and Henry – you first try explaining to me how the atmospheric CO2 level has suddenly become completely uncoupled to biota, ok? When you can show us how the amount, mass, and growth of plants has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 levels, then I’m sure you’re in for a Nobel and we’ll all really perk up when you start talkin’.
[loud chorus of chirping crickets….] Rob Painting? Rob Painting??