Increased carbon dioxide enhances plankton growth, opposite of what was expected

Science study reports that coccolithophores’ abundance has increased by an order of magnitude since 1960s, significantly changing ocean garden

From the BIGELOW LABORATORY FOR OCEAN SCIENCES

45 years of data show coccolothiphores growth is enhanced with increasing ocean acidification. CREDIT Ocean Ecology Laboratory, Ocean Biology Processing Group NASA Goddard Space Center
45 years of data show coccolothiphores growth is enhanced with increasing ocean acidification. CREDIT
Ocean Ecology Laboratory, Ocean Biology Processing Group NASA Goddard Space Center

Coccolithophores–tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web–have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period. This finding was diametrically opposed to what scientists had expected since coccolithophores make their plates out of calcium carbonate, which is becoming more difficult as the ocean becomes more acidic and pH is reduced.

These findings were reported in the November 26th edition of Science and based on analysis of nearly a half century of data collected by the long-running Sir Alister Hardy Foundation (SAHFOS) Continuous Plankton Recorder sampling program.

“The results show both the power of long-term time-series of ocean observations for deciphering how marine microbial communities are responding to climate change and offer evidence that the ocean garden is changing,” said Dr. William Balch, senior research scientist at Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences and a co-author of the paper. “We never expected to see the relative abundance of coccolithophores to increase 10 times in the North Atlantic over barely half a century. If anything, we expected that these sensitive calcifying algae would have decreased in the face of increasing ocean acidification (associated with increasing carbon dioxide entering the ocean from the burning of fossil-fuels). Instead, we see how these carbon-limited organisms appear to be using the extra carbon from CO2 to increase their relative abundance by an order of magnitude.

“This provides one example on how marine communities across an entire ocean basin are responding to increasing carbon dioxide levels. Such real-life examples of the impact of increasing CO2 on marine food webs are important to point out as the world comes together in Paris next week at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change,” Balch added.

“Something strange is happening here, and it’s happening much more quickly than we thought it should,” said Anand Gnanadesikan, associate professor in the Morton K. Blaustein Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Johns Hopkins and one of the study’s five authors.

Gnanadesikan said the Science report certainly is good news for creatures that eat coccolithophores, but it’s not clear what those are. “What is worrisome,” he said, “is that our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function.” The result highlights the possibility of rapid ecosystem change, suggesting that prevalent models of how these systems respond to climate change may be too conservative, he said.

Coccolithophores are often referred to as “canaries in the coal mine.” Some of the key coccolithophore species can outcompete other classes of phytoplankton in warmer, more stratified and nutrient-poor waters (such as one might see in a warming ocean). Until this data proved otherwise, scientists thought that they would have more difficulties forming their calcite plates in a more acidic ocean. These results show that coccolithophores are able to use the higher concentration of carbon derived from CO2, combined with warmer temperatures, to increase their growth rate.

When the percentage of coccolithophores in the community goes up, the relative abundance of other groups will go down. The authors found that at local scales, the relative abundance of another important algal class, diatoms, had decreased over the 45 years of sampling.

The team’s analysis was of data taken from the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea since the mid-1960s compiled by the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey. The CPR survey was launched by British marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy in the early 1930s. Today it is carried on by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Sciences and is conducted by commercial ships trailing mechanical plankton-gathering gear through the water as they sail their regular routes. Dr. Willie Wilson, formerly a senior research scientist at Bigelow Laboratory, is now director of SAHFOS.

“In the geological record, coccolithophores have been typically more abundant during Earth’s warm interglacial and high CO2 periods. The results presented here are consistent with this and may portend, like the “canary in the coal mine,” where we are headed climatologically,” said Balch.

###

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
201 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ke
November 27, 2015 12:28 pm

Do you want coccolithophores or not?
Here is NASA (for kiddies) on the coccolithophore:
…Many of the smaller fish and zooplankton that eat normal phytoplankton also feast on the coccolithophores.
… each time a molecule of coccolith is made, one less carbon atom is allowed to roam freely in the world to form greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming. Three hundred twenty pounds of carbon go into every ton of coccoliths produced. All of this material sinks harmlessly to the bottom of the ocean to form sediment.
…The chemical reaction that makes the coccolith also generates a carbon dioxide molecule, a potent greenhouse gas, from the oxygen and carbon already in the ocean. While much of the gas is sucked back in by the coccoliths (all plants take in carbon dioxide for food) some of it escapes into the atmosphere and immediately becomes part of the greenhouse gas problem. Scientists are concerned in the short term that greenhouse gases will cause the upper layers of the ocean to become more temperate and stagnant. This would increase the number of coccoliths in the world, which would produce more greenhouse gas.
…The coccolithophores also affect the global climate in the short term by increasing the oceans’ albedo. …Coccolithophore blooms reflect nearly all the visible light that hits them. Since most of this light is being reflected, less of it is being absorbed by the ocean and stored as heat..
[http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Coccolithophores/coccolith_3.php]

November 27, 2015 12:35 pm

Not at all sure about these coccolithophores.
NASA [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Coccolithophores/coccolith_3.php]
…Many of the smaller fish and zooplankton that eat normal phytoplankton also feast on the coccolithophores.
…. each time a molecule of coccolith is made, one less carbon atom is allowed to roam freely in the world to form greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming. Three hundred twenty pounds of carbon go into every ton of coccoliths produced. All of this material sinks harmlessly to the bottom of the ocean to form sediment.
….The coccolithophores’ short-term effect …The chemical reaction that makes the coccolith also generates a carbon dioxide molecule, a potent greenhouse gas, from the oxygen and carbon already in the ocean. While much of the gas is sucked back in by the coccoliths (all plants take in carbon dioxide for food) some of it escapes into the atmosphere and immediately becomes part of the greenhouse gas problem….Scientists are concerned in the short term that greenhouse gases will cause the upper layers of the ocean to become more temperate and stagnant. This would increase the number of coccoliths in the world, which would produce more greenhouse gas.
The coccolithophores also affect the global climate in the short term by increasing the oceans’ albedo.

November 27, 2015 12:48 pm

Reducing the pH has not yet made the oceans acidic, it has made them less alkaline. Let’s be precise here for a change. pH varies each day and each year more than any long term trend. These results are yet another vote of thanks from the Plant World for the extra CO2 from wherever it comes.

Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 1:09 pm

Quoting the article-
“What is worrisome,” he said, “is that our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function.”
Troublesome thought to these ‘science cowboys’, having to make several lifetimes of observation before having any idea of the interactions involved, their scales and cyclic tendencies.
We must watch and learn from nature before assuming that we are its predominant affectation.
Our stay on this rock is too brief to recognize and chronicle all of the cycles which ultimately form the machine of our cosmos voyaging star system, and recognize chaos from order

Louis
November 27, 2015 1:44 pm

These people are so predictable. When the bad news they expected is proven wrong by actual observations, they are compelled to find a way to turn the good news into bad news. It’s almost like they want a disaster to happen.

Reply to  Louis
November 27, 2015 2:50 pm

Almost?

nickshaw1
Reply to  Louis
November 27, 2015 3:14 pm

I KNOW, right? I can almost hear them cheering at the slightest disturbance in the East Atlantic during hurricane season!

Duncan
November 27, 2015 2:54 pm

[Quote] “as carbon input into ocean waters has increased…….Coccolithophores …..Some of the key coccolithophore species can outcompete other classes of phytoplankton……… in warmerable to use the higher concentration of carbon derived from CO2
Does that not contradict the oceans CO2 out-gassing theory and why CO2 rises (or contributes to it) when ocean temperature rises?I am confused on that now???

RH
November 27, 2015 3:18 pm

They expected the Coccolithophores to decrease due to increased co2 and temperature AND they claim increased Coccolithophores are a sign of increasing co2 and temperature. Huh?

lyn roberts
November 27, 2015 3:36 pm

I learn’t that little bit of information when I was about 13, plants breathe in carbon dioxide, and breathe out Oxygen, and animals including us breathe in Oxygen, and breathe out Carbon dioxide. I also as a child had neighbours with a greenhouse, and he explained he could not go in the greenhouse and pick tomatoes as and when he liked, because he was feeding them carbon dioxide, and if we did we would die, but it was really good for the plants. DUHHHHH

MarkW
November 27, 2015 3:59 pm

Victory of reality over models.
Again.

Berényi Péter
November 27, 2015 4:00 pm

Believe it or not, it’s a standard lab procedure among these “scientists” to add hydrochloric acid to decrease pH of seawater, in order to study effects of “ocean acidification”.
The only minute detail they dismiss out of hand is that CO2 and water can be turned into sugar by photosynthesis, while chlorine can’t be used that way, what is more, it’s toxic.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
November 27, 2015 6:19 pm

… answered one of my questions. Thanks.
(leads me back to my overriding question… what is ignorance/malfeasance ratio associated with this those that are making their living off of this?)

1saveenergy
Reply to  Berényi Péter
November 27, 2015 11:18 pm

Berényi Péter , have you a reference for this please

Reply to  Berényi Péter
November 28, 2015 10:47 pm

Strictly speaking, the species present in hydrochloric acid is chloride, not chlorine.
In solution, HCl yields hydronium ions and chloride ions.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
November 30, 2015 3:45 am

The only minute detail they dismiss out of hand is that CO2 and water can be turned into sugar by photosynthesis, while chlorine can’t be used that way, what is more, it’s toxic.
And yet that toxic chemical is present in the ocean at a level of ~19,000 ppm!

November 27, 2015 4:05 pm

The first thing that struck me in the paper was this: “The … filtering system was designed to trap larger microplankton [but some] coccolithophores are trapped. … It is not possible to accurately quantify organisms that are smaller than the mesh-size … our sampling underestimates natural abundances … the fraction of samples containing [any] coccolithophores …”
In the supplementary material, ” Coccolithophore presence was not regularly recorded until 1965. Coccolithophores [and some others] were not counted until 1993.
So nobody noticed what was happening to coccolithophores before because the system was never designed to count them, and we don’t actually have counts of coccolithophores, only a “proxy”. The “20%” was not *”20% of individuals are coccolithophores” but “20% of samples contain some of them.” As for diatoms, figure 3 of the paper shows a graph of counts. That exhibits a plunge in absolute numbers from 1960 to 1970 followed by no apparent trend from 1970 to 2010. (No relationship between diatom numbers and CO2 or coccolithophore numbers is apparent or suggested.)
In short, this is actually a pretty good paper doing the best they can with the best available data, which turn out to be just barely good enough to be surprising, and they don’t just say “more research is needed”, they identity specific areas of ignorance that have to be addressed if you want to understand what’s happening with coccolithophores.

Mike the Morlock
November 27, 2015 4:45 pm

“The CPR survey was launched by British marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy in the early 1930s. Today it is carried on by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Sciences and is conducted by commercial ships trailing mechanical plankton-gathering gear through the water as they sail their regular routes.”
ugh, ships emitting CO2 possibly interacting with the water behind them. where said ship is dragging “mechanical plankton-gathering gear ” .
Did anyone say greenhouse with CO2 priming and it’s effect?
Nah, just me, tow ship can’t be feeding the plankton. Silly
michael

Michael Jankowski
November 27, 2015 5:11 pm

[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
November 27, 2015 7:13 pm

😎
“OH NO!!! Something changed! (Now how do we phrase our grant proposal to blame it on CO2?)”

RD
November 27, 2015 6:04 pm

The ignorant reporters who regurgitate the blizzard of climate press releases would pray to pass a developmental/remedial chemistry/physics class. How could they possibly understand the science?

November 27, 2015 7:42 pm

Well, no sh*t. Who expected the opposite of this?

SAMURAI
November 27, 2015 7:47 pm

CAGW alarmists obfuscate that CO2 levels are still at very dangerously low levels.
At the end of the last glaciation period just 12,000 years ago, CO2 levels were at 170ppm, which is just 20ppm from photosynthesis shutting down and all life on earth going extinct….
We should be celebrating that manmade CO2 emissions have managed to beneficially increase CO2 to safer levels.
I also find it amusing that CAGW alarmists are still beating the “ocean acidification” dead horse, when all scientists know that from the Cambrian to the Devonian (600~400 million years ago), CO2 levels were around 4,000ppm, and oceans thrived with corals, plankton, shellfish and fish, even with 10 TIMES more CO2 dissolved in the oceans as carbonic acid and oceans were STILL alkaline at a pH of around 7.6…
Historians will eventually laugh at this generation for believing in such an absurd hypothesis when all empirical evidence so overwhelmingly showed it to be an impossible premise…

FeSun
November 27, 2015 10:24 pm

Could this be in part due to the increased runoff of fertilizers used over the last 50 years?

Reply to  FeSun
November 28, 2015 1:06 am

No then you would be thinking like a scientist not a model of one.

Julian Williams in Wales
November 28, 2015 1:40 am

Wikipedia tells me: Role in the food web : Coccolithophores are one of the more abundant primary producers in the ocean. As such, they are a large contributor to the primary productivity of the tropical and subtropical oceans, however, exactly how much has yet to have been recorded.
….and regards to CO2 absorption: over the long term coccolithophores contribute to an overall decrease in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. During calcification two carbon atoms are taken up and one of them becomes trapped as calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate sinks to the bottom of the ocean in the form of coccoliths and becomes part of sediment; thus, coccolithophores provide a sink for emitted carbon, mediating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
More Coccolithophores equals more food production and more green house gas emissions – just what the greens wanted to hear, they should be celebrating, this is a good news story on the eve of their conference on saving the world from CO2 poisoning (or whatever they want to call it).

Julian Williams in Wales
November 28, 2015 1:42 am

sorry that should have been more absorption of green house gas emissions……

November 28, 2015 5:06 am

If the concentration of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere is increased then land plants thrive.
If the carbon dioxide content of sea water in the photic zone is increased then why is anyone surprised that marine plankton also thrive? Perhaps because the increased concentration of carbonic acid damages the coccoliths within the cells and so stops the Coccolithophores from growing? Surely not, all phytoplankton need for survival is access to carbon dioxide, if it is available as a dissolved gas in the sea water then fine, that is the easiest resource to exploit.
But if the marine waters are too alkaline and the main resource is ionic carbonate then nature has devised a neat trick which costs energy, but the payoff is worth it. The Coccolithophores convert dissolved calcium bicarbonate into insoluble calcium (mono) carbonate precipitate and so release the 2nd (bi) carbonate ionic fraction for their life processes as accessible carbon dioxide gas. It took a lot of evolution to develop this capability, so in the presence of increased dissolved carbon dioxide fraction why waste the energy doing this? The coccolithophores naturally thrive on the enhanced carbon dioxide content of the fertilised marine waters.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
November 29, 2015 12:30 pm

Philip Mulholland November 28, 2015 at 5:06 am
But if the marine waters are too alkaline and the main resource is ionic carbonate then nature has devised a neat trick which costs energy, but the payoff is worth it. The Coccolithophores convert dissolved calcium bicarbonate into insoluble calcium (mono) carbonate precipitate and so release the 2nd (bi) carbonate ionic fraction for their life processes as accessible carbon dioxide gas.

Your chemistry is flawed, calcium bicarbonate is the outdated name for calcium hydrogen carbonate, consequently there is no second carbonate ion.
HCO3- + H2O + H3O+ -> CO3– + 2H3O+

Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 2:19 am

Phil,
You say:-

Your chemistry is flawed, calcium bicarbonate is the outdated name for calcium hydrogen carbonate, consequently there is no second carbonate ion.

Thank you for the nomenclature correction and also for so clearly demonstrating why knowledge of the old nomenclature has merit.
Calcium is an alkaline earth metal, its atoms have two valence electrons and the calcium cation has an electronic charge of plus 2. Its soluble ionic salt Calcium Chloride has the chemical formula CaCl2 one calcium cation combines with two chloride anions to form an electrically neutral highly deliquescent salt that occurs in nature (in combination with Magnesium) as the rare hydrous mineral tachyhydrite. Sodium is an alkali metal, its atoms have one valence electron and the sodium cation has an electronic charge of plus 1. Its soluble salt Sodium Carbonate has the formula Na2CO3 two sodium cations combine with one carbonate anion to form the hydrous mineral natron.
Calcium carbonate is an insoluble salt with the chemical formula CaCO3 it occurs in nature as the polymorphous twin minerals calcite & aragonite. Calcium hydrogen carbonate, (aka Calcium bicarbonate) has the chemical formula Ca(HCO3)2, this compound does not exist as a solid, it only occurs in solution, however the bivalent calcium cation clearly requires two mono-valent HCO3 anions to achieve electrical neutrality, not one.
What’s in a name? Those who do not know their history of science are condemned to repeat it.

Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 6:04 am

Your chemistry is flawed, calcium bicarbonate is the outdated name for calcium hydrogen carbonate, consequently there is no second carbonate ion.
HCO3- + H2O + H3O+ -> CO3– + 2H3O+

Sorry about this, the two ‘minus signs’ which I put after the CO3 to indicate the double negative charge merged into a longer dash, I’ll see if the sup tag works:
HCO3- + H2O + H3O+ -> CO32- + 2H3O+
Then:
Ca2+ + CO32- -> CaCO3(s)
The calcium carbonate in the case of coccoliths is calcite for which the solubility product is:
3.36×10-9
So the coccolith will form when the product of the two ions exceed that value, they will dissolve when the coccolith descends below the lysocline, by the time the calcite compensation depth is reached it’s all dissolved.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413/images/nature11360-f1.2.jpg

Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 6:51 am

Evidently the ‘sup’ tag doesn’t work.

Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 7:14 am

Phil,
Your biology is flawed. Coccolithophores are phytoplankton, they live in the photic zone and they consume CO2 for a living. More “carbonic acid” means more phytoplankton food.
Including calcite generating phytoplankton in the ocean acidification scare was a mistake.

Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 10:13 am

Philip Mulholland November 30, 2015 at 7:14 am
Phil,
Your biology is flawed. Coccolithophores are phytoplankton, they live in the photic zone and they consume CO2 for a living. More “carbonic acid” means more phytoplankton food.

Nothing wrong with my biology:
“Phil. November 29, 2015 at 1:00 pm
Coccolithophores compete poorly with other phytoplankton which is why they thrive in nutrient-poor regions where other phytoplankton do not survive. Consequently a substantial increase in coccolithophores implies an increase in nutrient-poor habitats.”

george e. smith
Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 12:32 pm

I only did one full year of University Chemistry in my bachelor’s degree, so a chemist I am not.
But as near as I can remember, the pH of a solution was (back then) something like the log (base 10) of the concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution.
And I don’t remember if that was in SI units or CGS units. I’m guessing the latter; so maybe 10^7 Hydrogen ions per cc, in a sample of pure H2O at STP, from which a pH of 7.0 would arise. But back then, most people were still going gaga over Chadwick’s discovery of the neutron, so I could be remembering wrongly.
Of course the thing about water; H2O is that in a solution of H2O in water, if you get 10^7 Hydrogen ions per cc. you also get 10^7 Hydroxyl ions per cc; but those don’t count in the pH.
So now here’s my dilemma as to ocean acidification, which Phil says is defined as adding an acid to the solution.
What the heck is an acid ? Well evidently it is a something that has more Hydrogen ions than Hydroxyl ions.
So can somebody who IS a chemist please explain to me how; if I add carbon dioxide (gas) to a pre-existing solution of this and that.
Where the heck do the EXTRA Hydrogen ions come from; or alternatively, where the heck do the extra Hydroxyl ions go ??
I’m confused. Seems to me that CO2 brings no change to the pH of the ocean as a whole. If some parts go down, other parts must go up.
But as I said; I’m still intrigued by those new neutron things, so I don’t really understand pH.
g

Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 3:13 pm
Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 3:16 pm

pH = -Log([H+]) [H+] is in mole/L so at pH 7 [H+] = 10^-7 mole/L

1saveenergy
Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 6:37 pm

Phil. November 30, 2015 at 3:13 pm
George, here it is:
H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3 -> H+ + HCO3-
http://employees.oneonta.edu/viningwj/modules/CI_carbon_dioxide_as_lewis_acid_17_13.html
true for pure water but sea water is more complex, so having got to HCO3 it doesn’t just stop there, you then get more reactions

Reply to  Phil.
November 30, 2015 7:33 pm

1saveenergy November 30, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Phil. November 30, 2015 at 3:13 pm
George, here it is:
H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3 -> H+ + HCO3-
http://employees.oneonta.edu/viningwj/modules/CI_carbon_dioxide_as_lewis_acid_17_13.html
true for pure water but sea water is more complex, so having got to HCO3 it doesn’t just stop there, you then get more reactions

George asked how CO2 could function as an acid without having a Hydrogen, “Where the heck do the EXTRA Hydrogen ions come from”.
That’s how CO2 acts as a Lewis acid regardless of whether it’s pure water or sea water, other reactions are irrelevant.

Reply to  Phil.
December 10, 2015 4:47 am

David Bennett Laing March 25, 2015 at 3:19 pm
David,
On a previous thread, now closed to new comments, you said:-

No. The complete, balanced process, comprising photosynthesis and test formation is: Ca2+ + HCO3- → CaCO3 + CH2O + O2.

Your equation is wrong, it does not balance in the number of atoms nor in the electrical charge of the ions.
On the left your equation has 6 atoms viz:- Calcium (1) Hydrogen (1) Carbon (1) Oxygen (3)
On the right your equation has 11 atoms viz:- Calcium (1) Hydrogen (2) Carbon (2) Oxygen (6)
In order for the equation to balance there must be two hydrogen carbonate polyatomic anions and not one.
The correct form of the equation which balances both in atoms and charge is :-
Ca2+ + 2(HCO3-) → CaCO3 + CH2O + O2
One Calcium cation plus two hydrogen carbonate polyatomic anions produces one crystalline calcite molecule; one formaldehyde molecule and one oxygen molecule.

Phil's Dad
November 28, 2015 7:50 pm

On the one hand Balch says;
“In the geological record, coccolithophores have been typically more abundant during Earth’s warm interglacial and high CO2 periods.
Yet earlier he said;
“If anything, we expected that these sensitive calcifying algae would have decreased in the face of increasing ocean acidification (associated with increasing carbon dioxide entering the ocean from the burning of fossil-fuels).”
Is it any wonder then, that he says;
“Our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function.”
I suggest he repeat this last sentence three times a day until he is able to learn from history.

November 28, 2015 9:48 pm

I don’t think the people who wrote this paper are scientists, I think it’s a cleverly encrypted message of some kind…

Patrick MJD
November 29, 2015 6:47 am

So the study had pre-defined expectations, and they were proven wrong? Isn’t this science?

Frederik Michiels
November 29, 2015 6:16 pm

shouldn’t we be happy to see the CO2 sinks perform 10 times better then we thought?
yes that’s worrysome as that may be an indication that CAGW is again being debunked by observations…

jimmyjoe
November 29, 2015 11:16 pm

Plankton and plants like CO2, why don’t you?