All posts by admin

MSNBC: Dispersant makes oil from spills 52 times more toxic & Environmental Pollution: Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50032789/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.ULoviN3c3X8

As in 2010 Gulf of Mexico disaster, it makes petroleum less visible, but much more harmful

This is important: I don’t think Corexit should EVER be used again in U.S. ocean waters. DV

By Douglas Main
updated 11/30/2012 6:46:08 PM ET

For microscopic animals living in the Gulf of Mexico, even worse than the toxic oil released during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster may be the very oil dispersants used to clean it up, a new study finds.

More than 2 million gallons (7.5 million liters) of oil dispersants called Corexit 9527A and 9500A were dumped into the gulf in an effort to prevent oil from reaching shore and to help it degrade more quickly.

However, when oil and Corexit are combined, the mixture becomes up to 52 times more toxic than oil alone, according to a study published online this week in the journal Environmental Pollution.

“There is a synergistic interaction between crude oil and the dispersant that makes it more toxic,” said Terry Snell, a study co-author and biologist at Georgia Tech. Using dispersants breaks up the oil into small droplets and makes it less visible, but, “on the other hand, makes it more toxic to the planktonic food chain,” Snell told LiveScience.

Toxic mixture
That mixture of dispersant and oil in the gulf would’ve wreaked havoc on rotifers, which form the base of the marine food web, and their eggs in seafloor sediments, Snell said.

In the study, Snell and colleagues tested ratios of oil and dispersant found in the gulf in 2010, using actual oil from the well that leaked in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the dispersant. The mixture was similarly toxic at the various ratios tested, the study found. His group exposed several varieties of rotifers to concentrations of the oil-dispersant mixture likely seen over a large area of the gulf.

“The levels in the gulf were toxic, and seriously toxic,” Snell said. “That probably put a big dent in the planktonic food web for some extended period of time, but nobody really made the measurements to figure out the impact.” [ Deepwater Horizon: Images of the Impact ]

The dispersant makes the oil more deadly by decreasing the size of the droplets, making it more “bio-available” to small organisms, said Ian MacDonald, a researcher at Florida State University. “The effect is specifically a toxic synergy – the sum is worse than the parts,” said MacDonald, who was not involved in the research.

A cautionary tale
This is one of the first studies to look at the impact of the oil-dispersant mixture on plankton. A decline in populations of plankton could impact larger animals all the way up to whales, he said. In general, plankton can rebound quickly, although the toxicity to larvae in sediments is concerning, since it reduces the size of the next generation. This ocean-bottom oil slurry could also have impacted other species that spend part of their life cycles here like algae and crustaceans.

“This is an important study that adds badly needed data to help us better understand the effects of oil spills and oil spill remediation strategies, such as the use of dispersants,” said Stephen Klaine, an environmental toxicologist at Clemson University who wasn’t involved in the research. “Species’ differences in the sensitivity to any toxic compounds, including the ones in this discussion, can be huge.”

The results contrast with those released by the Environmental Protection Agency in August 2010. That study found that a mixture of oil and Corexit isn’t more toxic than oil alone to both a species of shrimp and species of fish. However, several studies have found the mixture is more toxic than oil to the embryos of several fish species. The EPA could not immediately be reached for comment.

“To date, EPA has done nothing but congratulate itself on how Corexit was used and avow they would do it the same way again,” MacDonald said.

However, Snell said the dispersant should not be used. It would be better to let the oil disperse on its own to minimize ecological damage, he said.

“This is a cautionary tale that we need to do the science before the emergency happens so we can make decisions that are fully informed,” Snell said. “In this case, the Corexit is simply there to make the oil disperse and go out of sight. But out of sight doesn’t mean it’s safe in regard to the food web.”

“It’s hard to sit by and not do something,” Snell said. “But in this case, doing something actually made it more toxic.”

Reach Douglas Main at dmain@techmedianetwork.com.

_____________

NOAA
This photograph shows windrows of emulsified oil (bright orange) sprayed with dispersant. The photo was taken on April 26, 2010 as part of an aerial observation overflight.

______________

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749112004344

Environmental Pollution

Volume 173, February 2013, Pages 5-10

Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera)
Roberto Rico-Martíneza, , , Terry W. Snellb, Tonya L. Shearerb
a Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, Centro de Ciencias Básicas, Departamento de Química, Avenida Universidad 940, Aguascalientes, Ags., C.P. 20131, Mexico
b Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Biology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0230, USA
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.09.024, How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Permissions & Reprints
Special thanks to Richard Charter

Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems Program — Smithsonian Marine Station Belize 2012 Annual Report

The Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems (CCRE) Program is a long term field study dedicated to investigations of coral reefs and associated mangroves, seagrass meadows, and sandy bottoms. Field operations are based at the Carrie Bow Cay Field Station on the Meso-American Barrier Reef in Belize, while logistical and administrative operations are based at the Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce, Florida. Follow the link for the 2012 Annual Report.

http://www.ccre.si.edu/

SI NMNH Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems Home

Nature Climate Change | Letter : Nutrient enrichment can increase the susceptibility of reef corals to bleaching

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1661.html

Similar to findings of Dr. James Cervino about ten years ago, yet we are still debating the human impacts that trigger climate change instead of implementing policies to address them. DV

Jörg Wiedenmann,
Cecilia D’Angelo,
Edward G. Smith,
Alan N. Hunt,
François-Eric Legiret,
Anthony D. Postle
& Eric P. Achterberg

Nature Climate Change (2012)

Received 20 April 2012
Accepted 11 July 2012
Published online 19 August 2012

Mass coral bleaching, resulting from the breakdown of coral–algal symbiosis has been identified as the most severe threat to coral reef survival on a global scale1. Regionally, nutrient enrichment of reef waters is often associated with a significant loss of coral cover and diversity2. Recently, increased dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations have been linked to a reduction of the temperature threshold of coral bleaching3, a phenomenon for which no mechanistic explanation is available. Here we show that increased levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen in combination with limited phosphate concentrations result in an increased susceptibility of corals to temperature- and light-induced bleaching. Mass spectrometric analyses of the algal lipidome revealed a marked accumulation of sulpholipids under these conditions. Together with increased phosphatase activities, this change indicates that the imbalanced supply of dissolved inorganic nitrogen results in phosphate starvation of the symbiotic algae. Based on these findings we introduce a conceptual model that links unfavourable ratios of dissolved inorganic nutrients in the water column with established mechanisms of coral bleaching. Notably, this model improves the understanding of the detrimental effects of coastal nutrient enrichment on coral reefs, which is urgently required to support knowledge-based management strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Main

Shallow-water coral reefs owe their success to the symbiosis of the cnidarian host with dinoflagellates of the genus Symbiodinium (zooxanthellae)4. Recent reports predict that most coral reefs will be lost in the near future as a result of an average surface ocean temperature rise of 1–2 °C and an increased frequency of strong short-term temperature anomalies1. Thermal stress is considered to induce a malfunctioning of the photosynthetic apparatus of the algal symbiont and contribute to a breakdown of the symbiosis manifested by the loss of zooxanthellae and the often fatal bleaching of the corals5. In addition to other factors, anthropogenic eutrophication of coastal waters has been linked to coral reef degradation1. Recently, a connection between terrestrially sourced dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) loading and the upper thermal bleaching thresholds of inshore reefs on the Great Barrier Reef was established3. However, the view that nutrient enrichment is responsible for coral reef decline has been challenged as corals can thrive in high-nutrient water and several experimental studies using increased nutrient levels did not find obvious negative impacts on the physiology of corals6, 7, 8. The lack of consensus can potentially lead to confusion over policy development, government inaction and continued environmental degradation2. Therefore, understanding of the nutrient-dependent processes needs to be urgently improved to promote coral reef resilience by knowledge-based management efforts.

Anthropogenic nutrification often results not only in an increase of dissolved inorganic nutrients such as ammonium, nitrate and phosphate but it also usually modifies the ratio of their concentrations9. In different phytoplankton species, growth becomes chemically unbalanced when the availability of a specific type of nutrient decreases relative to the cellular demand10. This condition is defined as nutrient starvation and results in detrimental effects such as reduced photosynthetic efficiency, measurable as a decrease in fluorescence-based maximum quantum yield of photosystem II photochemistry (Fv/Fm; ref. 10).

Among other factors, phosphate limitation plays a potentially important role in the control of zooxanthellae numbers in the host tissue11. However, several studies have reported an increase in algal cell densities in response to increased concentrations of DIN in the water2, 12, indicating a strong influence of the external nitrogen levels on the proliferation rates of zooxanthellae.

Despite the nutrient limitation that zooxanthellae experience in hospite, the steady-state population of algal cells remains functional because of their full acclimation to this condition. In fact, the limited access to nutrients allows the zooxanthellae to transfer a substantial amount of their photosynthetically fixed carbon to the host cells4 and is therefore of high importance for the functioning of the symbiosis. Recycling of nutrients derived from feeding of the host supports the maintenance of the standing crop of zooxanthellae, but is not sufficient to account for their growth under reef conditions where the supply with food tends to be low4, 13.

In analogy to the findings in phytoplankton10, we hypothesize that an increased concentration of DIN in the water can be expected to accelerate proliferation of zooxanthellae2, resulting in phosphate starvation when phosphate availability is low. This scenario might apply particularly to symbiotic algae in corals from coastal regions where the naturally low phosphate and DIN concentrations are altered by anthropogenic inputs14. Here, we tested whether increased DIN levels in combination with limiting phosphate concentrations increases the susceptibility of corals to temperature- and light-induced bleaching.

Using our multicompartment mesocosm15, we cultured seven species of scleractinian corals under a photonflux of ~90 μmol m−2 s−1 in artificial sea water with low nutrient (low DIN/low phosphate; LN/LP); nutrient-replete (high DIN/high phosphate; HN/HP) and imbalanced nutrient (high DIN/ambient phosphate; HN/AP) levels as detailed in the Methods. Over a period of 12 weeks, the low nutrient conditions resulted in pronounced paling of the corals caused by a strong decrease in the density of algal cells (Fig. 1a,b and Supplementary Fig. S1). However, Fv/Fm determined as a measure of the photosynthetic efficiency of zooxanthellae16 was high (>0.5) in nutrient-replete and low nutrient conditions (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Fig. S1). These findings are in close agreement with studies on phytoplankton that demonstrated that Fv/Fm is high and insensitive to nutrient limitation as long as the cells are fully acclimated to this condition10. Montipora foliosa cultured for >five weeks under imbalanced nutrient levels showed higher zooxanthellae densities compared with corals from the nutrient-limited conditions (Fig. 1a,b). In the red- and a purple–green-colour morphs of this species and four other species exposed to imbalanced nutrient levels, however, Fv/Fm dropped below values of zooxanthellae from low nutrient and nutrient-replete conditions, in most cases below the healthy values >0.5 (Fig. 1b,h and Supplementary Fig. S1), indicating a common response among corals from a broad taxonomic range. When corals incubated at imbalanced nutrient levels were exposed to light levels >180 μmol m−2 s−1 they showed strong signs of bleaching, particularly in the light-exposed parts of the colony (Fig. 1c–g). This resembled bleaching patterns often observed during natural bleaching events17. The bleached colonies died partially or completely (Fig. 1g), whereas specimens exposed to lower light levels survived (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. S1). We incubated replicate samples of Euphyllia paradivisia under a photonflux of ~80 μmol m−2 s−1 in replete and imbalanced nutrient conditions to further investigate the role of light in nutrient-mediated bleaching. After four weeks, individuals from both treatments exhibited healthy Fv/Fm values (>0.5) and no visible signs of bleaching. At this point, the light intensity was doubled, reaching a level known to saturate photosynthesis in other shade-acclimated corals18. After 14 days, the samples experiencing imbalanced nutrient levels showed a steep drop in Fv/Fm, suggesting severe photo-inhibition of the zooxanthellae (Fig. 1h). In contrast, photosynthetic competence of algae in the control samples remained essentially unaltered. After three weeks, the corals from imbalanced nutrient conditions lost ~ 50% of their zooxanthellae and also the chlorophyll a content of the algal cells was reduced by >50% (Fig. 1i,j). Increased light levels can cause a reduction in Fv/Fm associated with photodamage of zooxanthellae, stimulate the production of reactive oxygen species and contribute to coral bleaching, particularly if the photosynthetic apparatus was impaired by other factors including temperature stress18, 19. In our experiments, corals in the different treatments were exposed to the same quantity and quality of light, hence the reduction in Fv/Fm and the loss of algal cells suggest that the imbalanced nutrient levels in the water rendered the zooxanthellae more sensitive to light stress.
Figure 1: Bleaching patterns of corals at different nutrient concentrations.
Bleaching patterns of corals at different nutrient concentrations.

a, Representative replicate colonies of M. foliosa cultured under photonfluxes of ~90 μmol m−2 s−1 and HN/HP, LN/LP or HN/AP conditions. b, Fv/Fm and zooxanthellae densities of colonies exposed to different nutrient concentrations. c–g, Bleaching of corals from HN/AP conditions under photonfluxes >180 μmol m−2 s−1. c–e, Pronounced bleaching of light-exposed areas in A. microphthalma (c) and M. foliosa (d). Arrows indicate the direction of the incident light the corals experienced during the treatment. e, Replicate colonies of E. paradivisia exposed to ~90 μmol m−2 s−1 (left colony) and ~180 μmol m−2 s−1 (right colony). f, Acropora valida. g, Bleaching of Porites lobata colonies resulted in complete or partial mortality. h–j, Effects of increased light intensity on E. paradivisia incubated under HN/HP or HN/AP conditions. h, Fv/Fm is strongly reduced in corals from HN/AP after the doubling of the light intensity. i,j, Bleaching of these samples is caused by loss of zooxanthellae and reduced chlorophyll a content per algal cell. The horizontal dashed line in b and h signifies the level above which Fv/Fm values are considered to be in a healthy range. Colour scales are provided in a and g to facilitate the comparison of coral colours. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences (*p<0.05; **p<0.01) as detailed in the Supplementary Information. We evaluated whether this reduced photosynthetic efficiency could be caused by phosphate starvation of a proliferating symbiont population. First, we allowed M. foliosa colonies to adjust for six weeks in low-nutrient sea water to photonfluxes of ~30 μmol m−2 s−1. This acclimation was necessary to prevent a light-stress-driven loss of zooxanthellae after the transfer to sea water with imbalanced nutrient levels. Within 14 days after this transfer, the symbiont densities doubled, reporting an accordingly increased nutrient demand (Supplementary Fig. S2). Accordingly, zooxanthellae from corals kept under imbalanced nutrient conditions and a photonflux of ~90 μmol m−2 s−1 showed increased acidic and alkaline phosphatase activity indicating an increased demand for phosphorus20 (Fig. 2a). a, Increased activity of acidic and alkaline phosphatases in zooxanthellae from HN/AP treatments. b, Mass spectrometric analysis of the algal lipid content revealed a strong increase in SQDG in phosphate-starved zooxanthellae as determined by a precursor scan of the characteristic fragment of a mass of 225 under positive ionization (225+) c, Under phosphate starvation, the ratios of the zooxanthellae lipids, SQDG, PG and PC, are disturbed by the strong increase of SQDGs. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences (*p<0.05; **p<0.01) as detailed in the Supplementary Information. Photosynthetic organisms respond to LP stress by substituting phospholipids such as phosphatidylglycerol (PG) with sulpholipids, in particular with sulphoquinovosyldiacylglycerol (SQDG), to maintain the functionality of photosynthetic membranes and the embedded photosystems21. We observed a marked increase of SQDGs by one order of magnitude in zooxanthellae of M. foliosa kept under imbalanced nutrient conditions (Fig. 2b,c). These findings demonstrate that the stress symptoms observed under increased light intensities resulted indeed from phosphate starvation of the algal cells in hospite. The changes in the algal lipid complement offer potential explanations for the detrimental effects of phosphate starvation. The increase in SQDGs results in a shift in lipid ratios that will presumably alter the normal ionic character of photosynthetic membranes required for maintaining the proper assembly and functioning of the photosynthetic apparatus21. Most interestingly, malfunctioning photosystems and increased oxidative stress associated with photoinhibition of zooxanthellae have been shown to promote coral bleaching5, 22. Moreover, Tchernov and colleagues found that the specific lipid composition of different zooxanthellae strains is correlated with their susceptibility to thermal bleaching23. Taken together, our results allow to link the effects of phosphate starvation conveniently with established downstream processes of coral bleaching5, 19. As temperature stress is the main cause of mass coral bleaching on the global scale, we tested the impact of increased temperatures and the influence of additional light stress on phosphate-starved corals. After incubation (>five weeks) at ambient temperatures under a photonflux of ~90 μmol m−2 s−1 and imbalanced nutrient levels, Acropora polystoma showed a reduction in photosynthetic efficiency (Fig. 3a). The Fv/Fm values, though, were still in the healthy range of >0.5. Photosynthetic efficiency diminished slightly with increasing temperature. A subsequent increment in light intensity resulted in a remarkable decrease in Fv/Fm, which dropped earlier below critical levels (<0.5) in phosphate-starved individuals compared with nutrient-replete controls (Fig. 3a). A similarly pronounced decrease of Fv/Fm was observed when higher light levels were followed by an increase in temperatures, suggesting that light and temperature act together to promote bleaching in phosphate-starved corals (Fig. 3c). These results are in agreement with reports that bleaching of the fire coral Millepora alcicornis from a high-light habitat occurred one week earlier compared with a low-light habitat during the period of heat stress in 1998 (ref. 24). Over the full duration of our experiments, Fv/Fm of phosphate-starved zooxanthellae was always lower compared with the controls and at the end their density reached only ~ 40% of the nutrient-replete counterparts (Fig. 3b,d), resulting in a bleached appearance of the corals from imbalanced nutrient levels (Supplementary Fig. S3). The changes in light and temperature conditions over time are indicated by the labels of the abscissas. a,c, Time courses of combined stress experiments indicate that phosphate starvation, temperature and light stress result in reduced Fv/Fm values in zooxanthellae of A. polystoma. The horizontal dashed line in a and c indicates the threshold above which Fv/Fm values are considered to be in a healthy range. b,d, The lower photosynthetic efficiency is associated with reduced zooxanthellae numbers determined at the end of the respective experiment. e, Survival rates of replicate colonies of A. microphthalma from HN/HP or HN/AP sea water exposed to light and temperature stress. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences (*p<0.05; **p<0.01) as detailed in the Supplementary Information. In a combined light- and temperature-stress experiment we tested whether phosphate starvation also affects survival rates of corals. After a three-week treatment period, 100% mortality was observed among phosphate-starved Acropora microphthalma (Fig. 3e). In contrast, all control samples were visibly bleached, but survived the treatment. In phosphate-starved M. foliosa, the cover of the skeleton with living tissue was reduced by ~ 70% (Supplementary Fig. S4). Our findings indicate that phosphate starvation lowers the threshold of corals to suffer from light- and temperature-driven bleaching. We propose a new conceptual model of nutrient effects on coral bleaching (Fig. 4). This model assumes that a transition of zooxanthellae from a nutrient-limited to a nutrient-starved (here: phosphate) state leads to changes in the lipid composition of the algal membranes. Under thermal stress and in combination with light exposure, the altered photosynthetic membranes and embedded photosystems would show the previously described malfunctions of photosynthesis23, 25 that ultimately result in the breakdown of the coral–algal symbiosis and loss of zooxanthellae. Stress from low nutrient concentrations can arise owing to increased cellular demand during chemically unbalanced growth, but also may occur in waters in which specific nutrients become exhausted over time. Our findings suggest that the most severe impact on coral health might actually not arise from the over-enrichment with one group of nutrients (for example, DIN) but from the resulting relative depletion of other types (for example, phosphate) that is caused by the increased demand of proliferating zooxanthellae populations. This view is substantiated by the finding that the photosynthetic efficiency of zooxanthellae is reduced under a combination of limited iron availability and high temperatures26. Figure 4: Conceptual model of nutrient-starvation stress in zooxanthellae using the example of phosphate starvation. Conceptual model of nutrient-starvation stress in zooxanthellae using the example of phosphate starvation. a, Nutrient limitation in a steady-state population where the growth rate is determined by the rate of nutrient supply. Cells are fully acclimated and show no signs of stress. b, Phosphate starvation of zooxanthellae is induced by the transition from a nutrient-limited (a), to nutrient-starved state (b), owing to an increased cellular P demand caused by growth rates being accelerated through an increased DIN supply. The prioritized distribution of phosphate resources by the algae results in an altered composition of (thylakoid) membranes and a reduced threshold for light- and heat-induced bleaching. Our results have strong implications for coastal management. They suggest that reef resilience could benefit from considering local nutrient profiles and adjusting agricultural and tertiary wastewater-treatment practices in the proximity of coral reefs to reach favourable nutrient ratios in reef waters while working towards overall lower nutrient loadings. Finally, our findings support the view that local management of nutrient enrichment could reduce the effects of global climate change on coral reefs2, 3 and should help the design of functioning marine reserves. Methods The experiments were conducted in the coral mesocosm of the coral reef laboratory at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton. A detailed description of the experimental set-up is provided in ref. 15. This aquarium system has been running since 2007 and comprises three identical units. Each unit consists of two reservoir bins containing heating and filtration equipment and several experimental tanks. In the connected mode, a body of 2,250 l of artificial sea water circulates through the system. The artificial sea water was prepared by dissolving PRO-REEF salt mixture (Tropic Marin) in demineralized water. Five per cent of the water is changed on a weekly basis and an iron supplement is added daily. For the present experiment, phosphate levels were kept at low levels (<0.07 μM) by the application of Rowaphos phosphate-removal matrix (Rowa) and the addition of ethanol (2.5 ml per 1,000 l per day; ref. 15). Phosphate and nitrate levels were increased or maintained by continuous low-level dosing of sodium nitrate or disodium hydrogen phosphate solutions using peristaltic pumps. Corals were fed with frozen rotifers (Tropical Marine Centre) at a density of 0.5 g (frozen weight) per 135 l twice a week. If not stated otherwise, the temperature of the system was kept constant at 24 °C. Temperature-stress treatments were conducted in experimental tanks (40 l) equipped with precision heaters (Jaeger). These tanks were supplied with water from the connected unit with a flow rate of 80 l h−1. Current inside the experimental tanks (flow rate: 1,800 l h−1) was generated by Nanostream 6015 (Tunze). Corals were illuminated with metal halide lamps fitted with Aqualine 10000 burners (Aqua Medic) on a 10 hr/14 hr light/dark cycle. Changes in light intensity were achieved by altering the distance of the lamps to the samples. The corals used here were kept in our system for at least 2.5 years. For experimental purposes, the mother colonies were fragmented and the fragments were glued on tiles. They were allowed to regenerate and grow for at least two months before entering an experiment. Diagnostic restriction digests of the polymerase chain reaction-amplified small subunit ribosomal DNA gene of zooxanthellae of the corals under study revealed clade C as the dominant symbiont strain in the brown-, red- and purple–green-colour morphs of Montipora spp. (foliosa) and A. microphthalma27. Using the same approach, we found a prevalence of clade C also in E. paradivisia; Porites lobata and in the encrusting Montipora species. The zooxanthellae complement of A. polystoma consisted of a combination of clade C (~ 40%) with a yet unidentified strain (~ 60%). A detailed description of the methods is provided in the Supplementary Information. Briefly, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate at micromolar concentrations were determined using standard colourimetric techniques with a nutrient autoanalyser (Seal Analytical)28. Nanomolar levels of phosphate were determined with a colourimetric method using a 2 m liquid waveguide capillary cell with a miniaturized detector (Ocean Optics)29. Ammonium measurements were undertaken following a modified version of the method by Holmes using a FP-2020 Fluorescence Detector (Jasco). Ammonium levels found in our mesocosm were very low (<0.7% of total DIN) compared with the combined nitrite (~10%) and nitrate concentrations (~ 90%). Therefore, here DIN was considered to be represented by nitrite+nitrate values. Different units of the tank system were adjusted to low-nutrient (DIN ~0.7 μM/phosphate ~0.006 μM), nutrient-replete (DIN ~6.5 μM/phosphate ~0.3 μM) and imbalanced-nutrient (DIN >3 μM/phosphate ~0.07 μM) conditions15.

Zooxanthellae were counted using a haemocytometer and their pigment content was determined by spectrophotometric analysis of acetone extracts as described previously30. The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II photochemistry of zooxanthellae was measured with a submersible pulse-amplitude modulated fluorometer (Diving-PAM) according to previous recommendations16. The hydrolysis of para-nitrophenyl phosphate was determined colourimetrically as measure of alkaline and acidic phosphatase activity in zooxanthellae as described20. Specific lipids of interest for these studies, SQDG, PG and phosphatidylcholine (PC) molecular species, were analysed in detail using a Waters Micromass Quattro Ultima triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (Micromass) equipped with an electrospray ionization interface. To quantify the loss of tissue, coral fluorescence was documented and analysed for live tissue quantification using ImageJ (http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/) and MATLAB (MathWorks).
References

Hughes, T. P. et al. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301, 929–933 (2003).

Fabricius, K. E. Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs: Review and synthesis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50, 125–146 (2005).

Wooldridge, S. A. Water quality and coral bleaching thresholds: Formalising the linkage for the inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 745–751 (2009).

Dubinsky, Z. & Jokiel, P. L. Ratio of energy and nutrient fluxes regulates symbiosis between zooxanthellae and corals. Pacif. Sci. 48, 313–324 (1994).

Tchernov, D. et al. Apoptosis and the selective survival of host animals following thermal bleaching in zooxanthellate corals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9905–9909 (2011).

Szmant, A. M. Nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: Is it a major cause of coral reef decline? Estuaries 25, 743–766 (2002).

Atkinson, M. J., Carlson, B. & Crow, G. L. Coral growth in high-nutrient, low-pH seawater: A case study of corals cultured at the Waikiki Aquarium, Honolulu, Hawaii. Coral Reefs 14, 215–223 (1995).

Bongiorni, L., Shafir, S., Angel, D. & Rinkevich, B. Survival, growth and gonad development of two hermatypic corals subjected to in situ fish-farm nutrient enrichment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 253, 137–144 (2003).

Brodie, J., Devlin, M., Haynes, D. & Waterhouse, J. Assessment of the eutrophication status of the Great Barrier Reef lagoon (Australia). Biogeochemistry 106, 281–302 (2011).

Parkhill, J-P., Maillet, G. & Cullen, J. J. Fluorescence-based maximal quantum yield for PSII as a diagnostic of nutrient stress. J. Phycol. 37, 517–529 (2001).

Miller, D. J. & Yellowlees, D. Inorganic nitrogen uptake by symbiotic marine cnidarians: A critical review. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 237, 109–125 (1989).

Muscatine, L., Falkowski, P. G., Dubinsky, Z., Cook, P. A. & McCloskey, L. R. The effect of external nutrient resources on the population dynamics of zooxanthellae in a reef coral. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 236, 311–324 (1989).

Rahav, O., Dubinsky, Z., Achituv, Y. & Falkowski, P. G. Ammonium metabolism in the zooxanthellate coral, stylophora pistillata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 236, 325–337 (1989).

Berkelmans, R. & Willis, B. L. Seasonal and local spatial patterns in the upper thermal limits of corals on the inshore Central Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 18, 219–228 (1999).

D’Angelo, C. & Wiedenmann, J. An experimental mesocosm for long-term studies of reef corals. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 92, 769–775 (2012).

Warner, M. E., Lesser, M. P. & Ralph, P. J. in Chlorophyll Fluorescence in Aquatic Sciences: Methods and Applications (eds Suggett, D. J., Prasil, O. & Borowitzka, M.) (Springer, 2010).

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 50, 839–866 (1999).

Jones, R. J. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Diurnal changes in the photochemical efficiency of the symbiotic dinoflagellates (Dinophyceae) of corals: Photoprotection, photoinactivation and the relationship to coral bleaching. Plant Cell Environ. 24, 89–99 (2001).

Smith, D. J., Suggett, D. J. & Baker, N. R. Is photoinhibition of zooxanthellae photosynthesis the primary cause of thermal bleaching in corals? Glob. Change Biol. 11, 1–11 (2005).

Annis, E. R. & Cook, C. B. Alkaline phosphatase activity in symbiotic dinoflagellates (zooxanthellae) as a biological indicator of environmental phosphate exposure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 245, 11–20 (2002).

Frentzen, M. Phosphatidylglycerol and sulphoquinovosyldiacylglycerol: Anionic membrane lipids and phosphate regulation. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7, 270–276 (2004).

Warner, M. E., Fitt, W. K. & Schmidt, G. W. Damage to photosystem II in symbiotic dinoflagellates: A determinant of coral bleaching. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 8007–8012 (1999).

Tchernov, D. et al. Membrane lipids of symbiotic algae are diagnostic of sensitivity to thermal bleaching in corals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 13531–13535 (2004).

Banaszak, A. T., Ayala-Schiaffino, B. N., Rodriguez-Roman, A., Enriquez, J. & Iglesias-Prieto, R. Response of Millepora alcicornis (Milleporina : Milleporidae) to two bleaching events at Puerto Morelos reef, Mexican Caribbean. Rev. Biol. Trop. 51, 57–66 (2003).

Lesser, M. P. Oxidative stress in marine environments: Biochemistry and physiological ecology. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 68, 253–278 (2006).

Shick, J. M., Iglic, K., Wells, C. G., Trick, J. D. & Dunlap, W. C. Responses to iron limitation in two colonies of Stylophora pistillata exposed to high temperature: Implications for coral bleaching. Limnol. Oceanogr. 56, 813–828 (2011).

Hartle-Mougiou, K. et al. Diversity of zooxanthellae from corals and sea anemones after long-term aquarium culture. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 92, 687–691 (2012).

Gordon, L. I., Jennings, J. C. J., Ross, A. A. & Krest, J. M. A suggested protocol for continuous flow automated analysis of seawater nutrients in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study. OSU Coll. of Oc. Descr. Chem. Oc. Grp. Tech. Rpt. 92-1 (1992).

Patey, M. D. et al. Determination of nitrate and phosphate in seawater at nanomolar concentrations. Trends Anal. Chem. 27, 169–182 (2008).

D’Angelo, C. et al. Blue light regulation of host pigment in reef-building corals. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 364, 97–106 (2008).

Special thanks to Coral-list

Crown of Thorns is a symptom of reef decline: let’s address the cause

Theconversation.edu.au: Crown of Thorns is a symptom of reef decline: let’s address the cause

http://theconversation.edu.au/crown-of-thorns-is-a-symptom-of-reef-decline-lets-address-the-cause-9932

3 October 2012, 2.39pm AEST

A recent report on coral loss from the Great Barrier Reef has pointed the finger at cyclones and Crown of Thorns starfish. The real culprit is human activity, and until we reduce port activity and pollution, coral will be unable to bounce back. Three recent studies, published in 2004, 2007 and this…
Author

Terry Hughes
Terry Hughes

Federation Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University

Disclosure Statement

Terry Hughes does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The Conversation provides independent analysis and commentary from academics and researchers.

We are funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, La Trobe, Murdoch, QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, UTAS, UWS and VU.
Articles by This Author
14 June 2012 New marine reserves won’t address UNESCO’s Reef concerns
Rn7jm488-1349228774 Killing starfish one by one is no long-term solution. Paul Cizek

A recent report on coral loss from the Great Barrier Reef has pointed the finger at cyclones and Crown of Thorns starfish. The real culprit is human activity, and until we reduce port activity and pollution, coral will be unable to bounce back.

Three recent studies, published in 2004, 2007 and this week, have shown that at least 50% of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef have disappeared in recent decades.

Last year, another report claimed the declines were more modest and the result of a natural cycle. But the latest report, from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, confirms earlier studies – the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble.

Corals are the backbone of the reef, providing habitat for many other species. Measuring coral cover on a reef is the simplest way to monitor its condition. But other metrics – like counts of sharks, dugongs and turtles – also show alarming downward trajectories. The decline in coral cover highlights UNESCO’s concerns about the dwindling Universal Heritage Values of the Barrier Reef.

The key question now is, what are we going to do about these losses?
Storms do affect coral, but cyclone activity has been reduced in the last 100 years. NASA
Click to enlarge

First, we need to consider why coral cover changes. The amount of coral goes down when they reproduce less, grow more slowly or die more frequently. Even under ideal conditions, about one-quarter to one-third of a coral population dies each year from background mortality. They can die from old age, disease, predation, competition with a neighbour, erosion of their skeleton, smothering by sediment, severe coral bleaching, and from storms.

On a healthy reef, loss of cover is balanced by new recruitment of young corals and by new growth. It’s just like a human population – we measure births, deaths and net migration to track demographic changes. Measuring mortality alone won’t help us to plan for schools or new roads.

Next consider where the loss of coral cover is greatest. The 50% decline in coral cover is averaged over the whole Great Barrier Reef (GBR). However, there has been no net loss of coral cover in the remote north beyond Cooktown or on reefs far from shore. Consequently, most reefs that are close to the coast (and to people) have lost far more than 50% of their cover.

Coastal reefs have been obliterated by runoff of sediment, dredging and pollution. Once-thriving corals have been replaced by mud and seaweed (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Dramatic loss of coral cover on Queensland’s coastal reefs. Both photographs are from the same site, indicated by the hilly backdrop. Modern photo taken by David Wachenfeld
Click to enlarge

The latest study attributed 100% of the loss of coral cover solely to higher mortality, due to just three causes – cyclones (48%), crown-of-thorns starfish (42%) and coral bleaching due to climate change (10%). However, reefs have coped with cyclones for millions of years, and – despite some claims to the contrary – the number of cyclones per decade has actually dropped slightly in the past 100 years. Too many starfish is a symptom of the decline of the Great Barrier Reef, not the direct cause.

In reality, we are responsible for the loss of corals, not storms and starfish. Before people, corals recovered from routine shocks like recurrent cyclones, and now they don’t (except in the most remote places).

The rush by many reef scientists to focus solely on climate change research has distracted attention from other ongoing threats to the reef that, so far at least, have been much more destructive. Four outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish have occurred on the Great Barrier Reef since the 1960s, and widespread damage from the first two of them led to the initiation of formal monitoring of corals in the 1980s.

There are two plausible but unproven theories about the causes of outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish. One suggests that dredging and runoff of nutrient pollution from land promotes blooms of phytoplankton which speeds up the development of starfish larvae, contributing to outbreaks. The other surmises that the changes we have made to the structure of foodwebs have resulted in fewer juvenile starfish being eaten.

Planned marine parks could help reduce damage to coral. Matt Kieffer

The best way to restore foodwebs and rebuild fish stocks is to create a network of no-take fishing reserves. The success of the GBR green zones in rebuilding depleted fish stocks bolsters the Commonwealth’s plan for a national system of marine reserves.

There is no shortage of crackpot solutions being proposed to fix the problems of the Great Barrier Reef – like covering corals with shade cloth to prevent bleaching, moving corals out of harm’s way, or killing millions of starfish one at a time with a syringe. There is a new outbreak of crown-of-thorns underway, the fourth in 50 years, and it is far too late to stop it. Direct intervention to kill starfish is expensive and time consuming. At best, it just might help to control numbers adjacent to a tourist pontoon, but it won’t change the trajectory of the current outbreak.

To increase coral cover, we need to improve the conditions that help them reproduce, survive and grow. The capacity for coral recovery is impaired on a reef that is muddy, polluted or overfished. The ongoing decline of corals demonstrates that the Great Barrier Reef is very poorly positioned to recover from future bouts of coral bleaching. Governments need to focus on controlling pollution and dredging, reducing carbon emissions, and placing a ban on new coal ports.

Special thanks to Terry Hughes, Coral-list@noaa.gov

The Ocean Foundation: Deadly Serious: Acid Oceans and What We Must Do

http://www.oceanfdn.org/blog/?p=1159

by Mark J. Spalding, President of The Ocean Foundation
A magnified image of the coccolithophore, Gephyrocapsa oceanica Kamptner. Coccolithophores are single-celled algae, protists, and phytoplankton and considered especially vulnerable to ocean acidification due to their calcium carbonate shells. (Image: Gephyrocapsa oceanica Kamptner from Mie Prefecture, Japan. SEM:JEOL JSM-6330F. Scale bar = 1.0 micron. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.)

Last week I was in Monterey, California for the 3rd International Symposium on the Ocean in a High CO2 World, which was simultaneous to the BLUE Ocean Film Festival at the hotel next door (but that is a whole other story to tell). At the symposium, I joined hundreds of other attendees in learning about the current state of knowledge and potential solutions to address the effects of elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) on the health of our oceans and the life within. We call the consequences ocean acidification because the pH of our oceans is getting lower and thus more acidic, with significant potential harm to ocean systems as we know them.

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

The 2012 High CO2 meeting was a huge leap from the 2nd meeting in Monaco in 2008. Over 500 attendees and 146 speakers, representing 37 nations, were gathered to discuss the issues at hand. It included a first major inclusion of socio-economic studies. And, while the primary focus was still on marine life organism responses to ocean acidification and what that means for ocean system, everyone was in agreement that our knowledge about effects and potential solutions has greatly advanced in the last four years.

For my part, I sat in rapt amazement as one scientist after another gave a history of the science around ocean acidification (OA), information on the current state of science knowledge about OA, and our first inklings of specifics about the ecosystem and economic consequences of a warmer ocean that is more acidic and has lower oxygen levels.

As Dr. Sam Dupont of The Sven Lovén Centre for Marine Sciences – Kristineberg, Sweden said:

What do we know?

Ocean Acidification is real
It is directly coming from our carbon emissions
It is happening fast
Impact is certain
Extinctions are certain
It is already visible in the systems
Change will happen

Hot, sour and breathless are all symptoms of the same disease.

Especially when combined with other diseases, OA becomes a major threat.

We can expect lots of variability, as well as positive and negative carry over effects.

Some species will alter behavior under OA.

We know enough to act

We know a major catastrophic event is coming

We know how to prevent it

We know what we don’t know

We know what we need to do (in science)

We know what we will focus on (bringing solutions)

But, we should be prepared for surprises; we have so completely perturbed the system.

Dr. Dupont closed his comments with a photo of his two children with a powerful and striking two sentence statement:

I am not an activist, I am a scientist. But, I am also a responsible father.

The first clear statement that CO2 accumulation in the sea could have “possible catastrophic biological consequences” was published in 1974 (Whitfield, M. 1974. Accumulation of fossil CO2 in the atmosphere and in the sea. Nature 247:523-525.). Four years later, in 1978, the direct linkage of fossil fuels to CO2 detection in the ocean was established. Between 1974 and 1980, numerous studies began to demonstrate the actual change in ocean alkalinity. And, finally, in 2004, the spectre of ocean acidification (OA) became accepted by the scientific community at large, and the first of the high CO2 symposia were held.

The following spring, the marine funders were briefed at their annual meeting in Monterey, including a field trip to see some cutting edge research at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). I should note that most of us had to be reminded of what the pH scale means, although everyone seemed to recollect using the litmus paper to test liquids in middle school science classrooms. Fortunately, the experts were willing to explain that the pH scale is from 0 to 14, with 7 being neutral. The lower the pH, means lower alkalinity, or more acidity.

At this point, it has become clear that the early interest in ocean pH has produced some concrete results. We have some credible scientific studies, which tell us that as ocean pH falls, some species will thrive, some survive, some are replaced, and many go extinct (the expected result is loss of biodiversity, but a maintenance of biomass). This broad conclusion is the result of lab experiments, field exposure experiments, observations at naturally high CO2 locations, and studies focused on fossil records from previous OA events in history.

WHAT WE KNOW FROM PAST OCEAN ACIDIFICATION EVENTS

While we can see changes in ocean chemistry and ocean sea surface temperature over the 200 some years since the industrial revolution, we need to go back further in time for a control comparison (but not too far back). So the Pre-Cambrian period (the first 7/8s of Earth’s geological history) has been identified as the only good geological analog (if for no other reason than similar species) and includes some periods with lower pH. These previous periods experienced a similar high CO2 world with lower pH, lower oxygen levels, and warmer sea surface temperatures.

However, there is nothing in the historical record that equals our current rate of change of pH or temperature.

The last dramatic ocean acidification event is known as PETM, or the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which took place 55 million years ago and is our best comparison. It happened rapidly (over about 2,000 years) it lasted for 50,000 years. We have strong data/evidence for it – and thus scientists use it as our best available analog for a massive carbon release.

However, it is not a perfect analog. We measure these releases in petagrams. PgC are Petagrams of carbon: 1 petagram = 1015 grams = 1 billion metric tons. The PETM represents a period when 3,000 PgC were released over a few thousand years. What matters is the rate of change in the last 270 years (the industrial revolution), as we have pumped 5,000 PgC of carbon into our planet’s atmosphere. This means the release then was 1 PgC y-1 compared to the industrial revolution, which is 9 PgC y-1. Or, if you are just an international law guy like me, this translates to the stark reality that what we have done in just under three centuries is 10 times worse than what caused the extinction events in the ocean at PETM.

The PETM ocean acidification event caused big changes in the global ocean systems, including some extinctions. Interestingly, the science indicates that total biomass stayed about even, with dinoflagellate blooms and similar events offsetting the loss of other species. In total, the geological record shows a wide range of consequences: blooms, extinctions, turnovers, calcification changes, and dwarfism. Thus, OA causes a significant biotic reaction even when the rate of change is much slower than our current rate of carbon emissions. But, because it was much slower, the “future is uncharted territory in the evolutionary history of most modern organisms.”

Thus, this anthropogenic OA event will easily top PETM in impact. AND, we should expect to see changes in how change occurs because of we have so disturbed the system. Translation: Expect to be surprised.

ECOSYSTEM AND SPECIES RESPONSE
Brilliant shades of blue and green explode across the Barents Sea just north of the Scandinavian peninsula in this natural-color image, created by a massive bloom of phytoplankton that are common in the area each August. The milky blue color strongly suggests that the bloom contains coccolithophores, microscopic plankton that are plated with white calcium carbonate. When viewed through ocean water, a coccolithophore bloom tends to be bright blue. The species is most likely Emiliana huxleyi, whose blooms tend to be triggered by high light levels during the 24-hour sunlight of Arctic summer. Ocean acidifications impact on plankton species is of particular concern given the potential to undermine the base of the ocean food chain. (Image: NASA Earth Observatory)

Brilliant shades of blue and green explode across the Barents Sea just north of the Scandinavian peninsula in this natural-color image, created by a massive bloom of phytoplankton that are common in the area each August. The milky blue color strongly suggests that the bloom contains coccolithophores, microscopic plankton that are plated with white calcium carbonate. When viewed through ocean water, a coccolithophore bloom tends to be bright blue. The species is most likely Emiliana huxleyi, whose blooms tend to be triggered by high light levels during the 24-hour sunlight of Arctic summer. Ocean acidifications impact on plankton species is of particular concern given the potential to undermine the base of the ocean food chain. (Image: NASA Earth Observatory)

Ocean acidification and temperature change both have carbon dioxide (CO2) as a driver. And, while they can interact, they are not running in parallel. Changes in pH are more linear, with smaller deviations, and are more homogenous in different geographical spaces. Temperature is far more variable, with wide deviations, and is substantially variable spatially.

Temperature is the dominant driver of change in the ocean. Thus, it is not a surprise that change is causing a shift in distribution of species to the extent they can adapt. And we have to remember that all species have limits to acclimation capacity. Of course, some species remain more sensitive than others because they have narrower boundaries of temperature in which they thrive. And, like other stressors, temperature extremes increase sensitivity to the effects of high CO2.

The pathway looks like this:

CO2 emissions → OA → biophysical impact → loss of ecosystem services (e.g. a reef dies, and no longer stops storm surges) → socio-economic impact (when the storm surge takes out the town pier)

Noting at the same time, that demand for ecosystem services is rising with population growth and increasing income (wealth)

To look at the effects, scientists have examined various mitigation scenarios (different rates of pH change) compared to maintaining the status quo which risks:

Simplification of diversity (up to 40%), and thus a reduction of ecosystem quality
There is little or no impact on abundance
Average size of various species decreases by 50%
OA causes shift away from dominance by calcifiers (organisms whose structure is formed of calcium-based material):
No hope for survival of corals which are utterly dependent on water at a certain pH to survive (and for cold water corals, warmer temperatures will exacerbate the problem);
Gastropods (thin-shelled sea snails) are the most sensitive of the mollusks;
There is a big impact on exoskeleton-bearing aquatic invertebrates, including various species of mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms (think clams, lobsters and urchins)
Within this category of species, arthropods (such as shrimp) are not as bad off, but there is a clear signal of their decline
Other invertebrates adapt faster (such as jellyfish or worms)
Fish, not so much, and fish may also have no place to migrate to (for example in SE Australia)
Some success for marine plants that may thrive on consuming CO2
Some evolution can occur on relatively short time scales, which may mean hope
Evolutionary rescue by less sensitive species or populations within species from standing genetic variation for pH tolerance (we can see this from breeding experiments; or from new mutations (which are rare))

So, the key question remains: Which species will be affected by OA? We have a good idea of the answer: bivalves, crustaceans, predators of calcifiers, and top predators in general. It is not difficult to envision how severe the financial consequences will be for the shellfish, seafood, and dive tourism industries alone, much less others in the network of suppliers and service. And in the face of the enormity of the problem, it can be hard to focus on solutions.

WHAT OUR RESPONSE SHOULD BE

Rising CO2 is the root cause (of the disease) [but like smoking, getting the smoker to quit is very hard]

We must treat the symptoms [high blood pressure, emphysema]
We must reduce other stressors [cut back on drinking and over-eating]

Reducing the sources of ocean acidification requires sustained source reduction efforts at both the global and the local scale. Global carbon dioxide emissions are the biggest driver of ocean acidification at the scale of the world’s ocean, so we must reduce them. Local additions of nitrogen and carbon from point sources, nonpoint sources, and natural sources can exacerbate the effects of ocean acidification by creating conditions that further accelerate pH reductions. Deposition of local air pollution (specifically carbon dioxide, nitrogen and sulfur oxide) can also contribute to reduced pH and acidification. Local action can help slow the pace of acidification. So, we need to quantify key anthropogenic and natural processes contributing to acidification.

The following are priority, near-term action items for addressing ocean acidification.

Quickly and significantly reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide to mitigate and reverse the acidification of our oceans.
Limit nutrient discharges entering marine waters from small and large on-site sewage systems, municipal wastewater facilities, and agriculture, thus limiting the stressors on ocean life to support adaptation and survival.
Implement effective clean water monitoring and best management practices, as well as revise existing and/or adopt new water quality standards to make them relevant to ocean acidification.
Investigate selective breeding for ocean acidification tolerance in shellfish and other vulnerable marine species.
Identify, monitor and manage the marine waters and species in potential refuges from ocean acidification so they may endure concurrent stresses.
Understand the association between water chemistry variables and shellfish production and survival in hatcheries and in the natural environment, promoting collaborations between scientists, managers, and shellfish growers. And, establish an emergency warning and response capacity when monitoring indicates a spike in low pH water that threatens sensitive habitat or shellfish industry operations.
Restore seagrass, mangroves, marsh grass etc. that will take up and fix dissolved carbon in marine waters and locally prevent (or slow) changes in the pH of those marine waters
Educate the public about the problem of ocean acidification and its consequences for marine ecosystems, economy, and cultures

The good news is that progress is being made on all of these fronts. Globally, tens of thousands of people are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (including CO2) at the international, national and local levels (Item 1). And, in the USA, item 8 is the primary focus of a coalition of NGOs coordinated by our friends at Ocean Conservancy. For item 7, TOF hosts our own effort to restore damaged seagrass meadows. But, in an exciting development for items 2-7, we are working with key state decision-makers in four coastal states to develop, share and introduce legislation designed to address OA. The existing effects of ocean acidification on shellfish and other marine life in Washington and Oregon’s coastal waters have inspired action in a number of ways.

All of the speakers at the conference made it clear that more information is needed—especially about where pH is changing rapidly, which species will be able to thrive, survive, or adapt, and local and regional strategies that are working. At the same time, the takeaway lesson was that even though we do not know everything we want to know about ocean acidification, we can and should be taking steps to mitigate its effects. We will continue to work with our donors, advisors, and other members of the TOF community to support the solutions.

Special thanks to Mark Spalding, The Ocean Foundation