DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenger Society for Marine Science Conference in Liverpool, 5Th-9Th September 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Challenger Society for Marine Science Conference in Liverpool, 5Th-9Th September 2016 Challenger Society for Marine Science Conference in Liverpool, 5th-9th September 2016 This document contains all the abstracts for talks and posters that are due to be presented at this conference, in order of the sessions. We thank the session conveners and co-conveners, whose assistance in organising the conference has been invaluable. Dr Joanne Willams and Dr Matthew Palmer National Oceanography Centre Joseph Proudman Building, 6 Brownlow St, Liverpool, UK SESSION TITLES AND LEAD CONVENERS S01 Marine Science for Society (Jacqueline Tweddle) S03 Science impacts through Open Data (Helen Snaith) S04 Renewable and low carbon energy: interactions with the marine system (Jeremy Blackford) S05 Technological advancement and democratisation of ocean observing systems (Malcolm Hearn) S06 Advances in monitoring natural waters via novel sensors and techniques (Allison Schaap) S07 Ocean remote sensing: emerging and future opportunities (Chris Banks) S08 Sea-level rise and variability: from global means to coastal floods (Angela Hibbert) S09 Palaeoceanography: marine environments of the past and the establishment of long baselines (Paul Butler) S10 The impacts of marine climate change and variability in the shelf seas (Jonathan Tinker) S11 Changes in the Arctic Ocean System (Yevgeny Aksenov) S12 Open session on Ocean Circulation and Processes (Xiaoming Zhai) S13 Atlantic Ocean Circulation and Variability (Barbara Berx) S14 Physical coastal processes; connections between land, ocean, and atmosphere (Lucy Bricheno) S15 Ocean Shelf Exchange (Mark Inall) S16 Internal waves and turbulent mixing processes: from lakes and coastal seas to the deep ocean (Robert Hall) S17 Transport and mixing in estuarine and coastal waters (Charlie Thompson) S18 Trace element and isotope exchange at ocean boundaries (William Homoky) S19 Water-column Biogeochemistry and Physics in Shelf Seas (Clare Davis) S20 Biogeochemistry, macronutrient and carbon cycling in the benthic layer of coastal and shelf-seas (Gary Fones) S21 Fine scale turbulence: theory, models and observations (Holly Pelling) S23 Overcoming the temporal and spatial complexities of open ocean nutrient cycling (Robyn Tuerena) S24 Drivers for patchiness and marine vertebrate dynamics (Peter Miller) S25 Complex topographies in the ocean: Techniques, recent advances and future challenges (Kostas Kiriakoulakis) S26 Use of Long Term Ecological Time Series to Monitor the Health of the Ocean (Martin Edwards) S27 Integrating ‘omic’ datasets to understand ocean systems (Thomas Bibby) S29 Observations and Earth system models: A synergistic relationship (Andrew Yool) S30 The Indian Ocean: recent research and questions for the future (Greg Cowie) S31 Beyond the bi-plot: State of the art approaches to using stable isotopes and biomarkers in marine trophic and spatial ecology (Rachel Jeffreys) S33 Open session on marine biogeochemistry (Stephanie Henson) Marine Science for Society (S01) Chairs: Abigail McQuattersGollop ([email protected]) Jacqueline F. Tweddle ([email protected]) ORAL PRESENTATIONS Each presentation has been assigned 15 mins. MCCIP: Ten years reporting on the impacts of climate change for marine decision makers Paul Buckley (MCCIP Secretariat, Marine Climate Change Centre, Cefas, Lowestoft), Stephen Dye (MCCIP Secretariat, Marine Climate Change Centre, Cefas, Lowestoft; CCSUS, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA, Norwich), Matthew Frost (Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth, UK), Bethany Stoker (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK), Bryony Townhill (Marine Climate Change Centre, Cefas, Lowestoft) In November 2006 the Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership launched its first report card focussed on providing a mechanism that would translate research allowing policy makers to understand the potential impacts of climate change on the UK's marine environment. We discuss how the development of understanding over the subsequent decade allows us to now consider implications for policy and industry and potentially design adaptation responses. Considering first the effectiveness of legislation for the marine environment it is important to understand ways in which marine ecosystems respond to both natural and anthropogenic changes in climate over a variety of temporal and spatial scales. Together these changes provide significant challenges to those setting and implementing legislation for the marine environment, and may have consequences in terms of achieving conservation targets and objectives. We examined 21 national and international obligations relevant to marine biodiversity over the last 50 years and show that that while climate change is rarely explicitly considered mechanisms generally exist that could enable climate change issues to be addressed. We then discuss potential impacts of climate change on marine protected areas including species being gained to or lost from sites and, in certain cases, the entire network. With over 1,250 designated features (species and habitats) in the UK marine protected area network, identifying where and how these habitats and species are likely to be affected by climate change will be a critical step in managing marine protected areas. Secondly, we show an example of working with industry and socioeconomic impacts experts to ‘”co produce” tools towards sustainable development in a changing marine environment. By reviewing climate change risks to both domestic and international sources of wild capture fisheries (altered ocean ecosystems; changes catch potential; shifts in stock distribution) we identified relevant seafood industry adaptation responses. From evidence to policy: developing biodiversity indicators for the MSFD Abigail McQuattersGollop (Marine Conservation and Policy Research Group, Plymouth University) Ecological timeseries data are essential for informing management and policy, particularly in supporting the new generation of marine legislative drivers, which take a holistic ecosystem approach to management. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) seeks to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of European seas through the implementation of such a management approach. This is a regional scale directive which recognises the importance of plankton communities in marine ecosystems; ecological data at the appropriate spatial, temporal and taxonomic scales are therefore required for implementation. At the base of the marine food web, plankton timeseries play an important role in delivering GES through the development and informing of MSFD biodiversity indicators, the setting of targets against a background of climate change and the provision of supporting information used to interpret change in nonplankton indicators. Efforts must be made to preserve longterm time series, which supply vital ecological information used to informed evidencebased environmental policy. Ecological tradeoffs as a strategic solution to multiple and sustainable use insights from a regional case study: CORPORATES Beth E. Scott (University of Aberdeen), Irvine, K.N. (James Hutton Institute), Byg, A. (James Hutton Institute), Gubbins, M. c, Kafas, A. (Marine Scotland Science , University of Aberdeen, ), Kenter, J. (Scottish Association for Marine Science), MacDonald, A. (University of Aberdeen), O’Hara Murray, R (Marine Scotland Science), Potts, T. (University of Aberdeen), Slater, AM. (University of Aberdeen), Tweddle, J. (University of Aberdeen, Marine Scotland Science), Wright, K. (Marine Scotland Science), Davies, I. (Marine Scotland Science) The transdisciplinary project “Cooperative participatory assessment of the impact of renewable technology on ecosystem services: CORPORATES” brought together natural and social scientists, experts in law and policy, and marine managers with the aim of promoting a more integrated decisionmaking framework using ecosystem services (ES) concepts in marine management. Using a realworld current issue – the colocation of wind farms, MPAs and industrial fishing in the Firth of Forth, Scotland – CORPORATES is developing a process to incorporate ES concepts and ecological tradeoffs into stakeholders’ awareness by bringing together representatives of maritime industries, regulatory/advisory partners and a range of stakeholders including NGOs, SMEs recreationalists and local government. The main project, based around two workshops, incorporated knowledge exchange about key ecological processes underpinning ES, mapping of different types of activities and ES benefits, participatory concept system modelling that illuminated potential ecological tradeoffs and deliberation on the impacts of potential future policy developments. A clear outcome was that greater and shared understanding of the range of ecological tradeoffs early in the process can reduce the potential for conflict and lead to more efficient negotiation based on trust and agreement on sustainable uses of our oceans. What also emerged was stakeholder recognition of an urgent need for greater understanding and at least qualification of the ecological tradeoffs in decision making. This talk will also cover the further evolution of CORPORATES outcomes after recent interactions with statutory agencies and a wide range of regional marine planners. We will propose a road map on how you get from improved renewable energy EIAs, through blue skies research on out to achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) for our Oceans though the collaborative efforts of Industry, NGOs, University led research and statutory Government
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 18 Exchanges of Carbon in the Coastal Seas Chen-Tung Arthur Chen
    Scope 62-II.qxd 11/12/03 4:20 PM Page 341 18 Exchanges of Carbon in the Coastal Seas Chen-Tung Arthur Chen In the natural carbon cycle, the time period for atmosphere-biosphere exchange ranges from only a few months to a few decades. The exchange of CO2 between the atmos- phere and the hydrosphere, by contrast, takes several hundred years if the interior of the oceans is taken into consideration. The exchange is much more rapid, however, on a time scale of a few years or even less, for only the terrestrial hydrosphere and the sur- face mixed layer of the oceans. The time for the atmosphere-lithosphere exchange is very long, requiring many thousands of years or more. The shallow sediments on the conti- nental shelves interact relatively readily with the atmosphere. Some terrestrial material even crosses the shelves, which have a mean width of 70 kilometers (km) and a total area of 26 × 106 km2, and efficiently reaches the slopes, which start at an average depth of 130 meters (m) (Gattuso et al. 1998). Dissolved organic matter may also be swiftly car- ried to the interior of the oceans through intermediate bodies of water in certain areas, including the Arctic, Okhotsk, Mediterranean, and Red Seas (Walsh 1995; Chen et al. 2003). The specific rates of productivity, biogeochemical cycling, and sequestration of CO2 are higher in the continental margins than in the open oceans. The end result is that it may take only years, as opposed to hundreds of years, for the atmosphere, lith- osphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere to interact in the continental margins.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Cycling in the North American Coastal Ocean: a Synthesis
    Biogeosciences, 16, 1281–1304, 2019 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-1281-2019 © Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Carbon cycling in the North American coastal ocean: a synthesis Katja Fennel1, Simone Alin2, Leticia Barbero3, Wiley Evans4, Timothée Bourgeois1, Sarah Cooley5, John Dunne6, Richard A. Feely2, Jose Martin Hernandez-Ayon7, Xinping Hu8, Steven Lohrenz9, Frank Muller-Karger10, Raymond Najjar11, Lisa Robbins10, Elizabeth Shadwick12, Samantha Siedlecki13, Nadja Steiner14, Adrienne Sutton2, Daniela Turk15, Penny Vlahos13, and Zhaohui Aleck Wang16 1Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax B3H 4R2, Nova Scotia, Canada 2NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA 98115, USA 3NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, FL 33149, USA 4Hakai Institute, Campbell River, BC, V9W 0B7, Canada 5Ocean Conservancy, USA 6NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA 7Department of Marine Science, Autonomous University of Baja California, Ensenada, Baja California, CP 228600, Mexico 8Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA 9School for Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, MA 02747, USA 10Department of Marine Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA 11Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA 12The Department is Oceans & Atmosphere. The Institution is CSIRO, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia 13Marine Sciences, University of Connecticut, Groton, CT 06340, USA 14Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sidney, BC V8L 4B2, Canada 15Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY 10964, USA 16Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA Correspondence: Katja Fennel ([email protected]) Received: 19 September 2018 – Discussion started: 20 September 2018 Revised: 28 February 2019 – Accepted: 8 March 2019 – Published: 27 March 2019 Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES an Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals
    OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES An Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals By Paul Rudy, Jr. Lynn Hay Rudy Oregon Institute of Marine Biology University of Oregon Charleston, Oregon 97420 Contract No. 79-111 Project Officer Jay F. Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 500 N.E. Multnomah Street Portland, Oregon 97232 Performed for National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Table of Contents Introduction CNIDARIA Hydrozoa Aequorea aequorea ................................................................ 6 Obelia longissima .................................................................. 8 Polyorchis penicillatus 10 Tubularia crocea ................................................................. 12 Anthozoa Anthopleura artemisia ................................. 14 Anthopleura elegantissima .................................................. 16 Haliplanella luciae .................................................................. 18 Nematostella vectensis ......................................................... 20 Metridium senile .................................................................... 22 NEMERTEA Amphiporus imparispinosus ................................................ 24 Carinoma mutabilis ................................................................ 26 Cerebratulus californiensis .................................................. 28 Lineus ruber .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 16 December 2020 1 5 May 2021 2 3 Preface: Developments in the Science and History of Tides 4 5 Philip L. Woodworth 1, J.A. Ma
    1 16 December 2020 2 5 May 2021 3 4 Preface: Developments in the Science and History of Tides 5 6 Philip L. Woodworth 1, J.A. Mattias Green 2, Richard D. Ray 3 and John M. Huthnance 1 7 8 1. National Oceanography Centre, Joseph Proudman Building, 6 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L3 5DA, 9 United Kingdom 10 11 2. School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, United Kingdom 12 13 3. Geodesy and Geophysics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA 14 15 Correspondence to: Philip L. Woodworth ([email protected]) 16 Abstract 17 18 This special issue marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Liverpool Tidal Institute (LTI), one 19 of a number of important scientific developments in 1919. The preface gives a brief history of how the 20 LTI came about and the roles of its first two Directors, Joseph Proudman and Arthur Doodson. It also 21 gives a short overview of the research on tides at the LTI through the years. Summaries are given of 22 the 26 papers in the special issue. It will be seen that the topics of many of them could be thought of 23 as providing a continuation of the research first undertaken at the LTI. Altogether, they provide an 24 interesting snapshot of work on tides now being made by groups around the world. 25 26 Keywords: ocean and earth tides; history of tidal science 27 28 29 1. Introduction 30 31 The idea for this special issue on tides came about when we realised that the 100th anniversary of the 32 founding of the Liverpool Tidal Institute (LTI) was coming up in 2019, and we thought that a special 33 issue of a journal would be one good way of celebrating it.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Sarah Tanedo/USFWS Common Tern with Chicks
    Appendix A Sarah Tanedo/USFWS Common tern with chicks Animal Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Table of Contents Table A.1. Fish Species Known or Suspected at Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). ..........A-1 Table A.2. Reptile Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR ............................A-8 Table A.3. Amphibian Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR .........................A-8 Table A.4. Bird Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR ..............................A-9 Table A.5. Mammal Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR.......................... A-27 Table A.6. Butterfly and Moth Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR. .................. A-30 Table A.7. Dragonfly and Damselfly Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR. ............. A-31 Table A.8. Tiger Beetle Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR ....................... A-32 Table A.9. Crustacean Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR. ....................... A-33 Table A.10. Bivalve Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy NWR. ......................... A-34 Table A.11. Miscellaneous Marine Invertebrate Species at Monomoy NWR. .................... A-35 Table A.12. Miscellaneous Terrestrial Invertebrates Known to be Present on Monomoy NWR. ........ A-37 Table A.13. Marine Worms Known or Suspected at Monomoy NWR. .......................... A-37 Literature Cited ................................................................ A-40 Animal Species Known or Suspected on Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Table A.1. Fish Species Known or Suspected at Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). 5 15 4 1 1 2 3 6 6 Common Name Scientific Name Fall (%) (%) Rank Rank NOAA Spring Status Status Listing Federal Fisheries MA Legal Species MA Rarity AFS Status Occurrence Occurrence NALCC Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Organic Matter Dynamics in a Temperate Shelf Sea ⁎ Clare E
    Progress in Oceanography xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Progress in Oceanography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pocean Seasonal organic matter dynamics in a temperate shelf sea ⁎ Clare E. Davisa, , Sabena Blackbirda, George Wolffa, Malcolm Woodwardb, Claire Mahaffeya a Department of Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, 4 Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK b Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Organic matter (OM) plays an important role in productive shelf seas and their contribution to global carbon (C) Organic matter and nutrient cycles. We investigated dissolved and particulate OM (DOM and POM, respectively) dynamics over Continental shelf a seasonal cycle in the Celtic Sea. The quantity of OC was largest during the spring bloom and lowest in autumn. Carbon export DOM was always C rich relative to the POM pool and the Redfield ratio (106C:16N:P). There was clear de- coupling between C, N and P and the response of OM composition to different seasons and nutrient statuses of the microbial community. The C:P stoichiometry was much more variable than the C:N stoichiometry, which was near constant. Downward OC fluxes were dominated by POM during bloom events and DOM during the stratified summer. In terms of partitioning, 92–96% of OC was in the DOM pool throughout sampling, which given its high C:N (12.4–17) suggests it was an efficient vehicle for potential off-shelf export of C during winter mixing. 1. Introduction food source for higher trophic levels. Thus, DOM production is in- extricably coupled to POM dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 16. Coastal Oceans and Continental Shelves
    SOCCR-2 Second Order Draft 11-08-16 Ch. 16 Coastal Oceans and Continental Shelves 1 Chapter 16. Coastal Oceans and Continental Shelves 2 Lead Author 3 Katja Fennel 4 Contributing Authors 5 Simone Alin 6 Leticia Barbero 7 Wiley Evans 8 Sarah Cooley 9 Richard Feely 10 Jose Martin Hernandez-Ayon 11 Xinping Hu 12 Samantha Joye 13 Steve Lohrenz 14 Frank Muller-Karger 15 Lisa Robbins 16 Elizabeth Shadwick 17 Samantha Siedlecki 18 Nadja Steiner 19 Daniela Turk 20 Penny Vlahos 21 Zhaohui Aleck Wang 22 Key Findings 23 1. Since the first SOCCR report significant progress has been made in quantifying coastal 24 carbon dynamics because of expanding carbon-observing networks, improved model 25 capabilities and better national and international coordination activities. Despite this, 26 critical uncertainties remain. 27 2. Available estimates of air-sea carbon fluxes indicate that the North American margins 28 act as a net sink for atmospheric CO2. This net uptake is primarily driven by fluxes in 29 high latitude regions. The magnitude of the net flux is not well constrained. 30 3. Existing data networks and high-resolution models are now available to begin the 31 construction of coastal carbon budgets, but separation of anthropogenic carbon 32 contributions from the natural background remains elusive. 33 4. Most efforts have focused on quantifying air-sea exchange of CO2, but some studies 34 have estimated other key fluxes, such as the exchange between shelves and the open 35 ocean, by combining observations and models. 36 5. While all North American coastal regions require further observations and model 37 development in order to facilitate full accounting of carbon budgets and human-caused 38 carbon contributions, the Gulf of Alaska, the North American Arctic and the Central 39 American Isthmus are particularly lagging.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Pump
    Biological pump The biological pump, in its simplest form, is the ocean's biologically driven sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere to the ocean interior and seafloor sediments.[1] It is the part of the oceanic carbon cycle responsible for the cycling of organic matter formed mainly by phytoplankton during photosynthesis (soft-tissue pump), as well as the cycling of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) formed into shells by certain organisms such as plankton and mollusks (carbonate pump).[2] Air-sea exchange of CO2 Contents Overview Primary production Calcium carbonate Marine snow Quantification Anthropogenic changes See also References Overview The biological pump can be divided into three distinct phases,[4] the first of which is the production of fixed carbon by planktonic phototrophs in the euphotic (sunlit) surface region of the ocean. In these surface waters, phytoplankton use carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and other trace elements (barium, iron, zinc, etc.) during photosynthesis to make carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins. Some plankton, (e.g. coccolithophores and foraminifera) combine calcium (Ca) and dissolved carbonates (carbonic acid and bicarbonate) to form a calcium carbonate (CaCO3) protective coating. Once this carbon is fixed into soft or hard tissue, the organisms either stay in the euphotic zone to be recycled as part of the regenerative nutrient cycle or once they die, continue to the second phase of the biological pump and begin to sink to the ocean floor. The sinking particles will often form aggregates as they sink, greatly increasing the sinking rate. It is this aggregation that gives particles a better chance of escaping predation and decomposition in the water column and eventually make it to the sea floor.
    [Show full text]
  • Abarenicola Pacifica Phylum: Annelida Class: Polychaeta Order: Capitellida the Lugworm, Or Sand Worm Family: Arenicolidae
    Phylum: Annelida Abarenicola pacifica Class: Polychaeta Order: Capitellida The lugworm, or sand worm Family: Arenicolidae Description reddish and are far from the lateral line. All Size: Individuals often over 10 cm long and 1 parapodia are absent in the caudal region. cm wide. Present specimen is approximately Setae (chaetae): (Fig. 3) Bundles of 4 cm in length (from South Slough of Coos notosetae arise from notopodia near Bay). On the West coast, average length is branchiae. Short neurosetae extend along 15 cm (Ricketts and Calvin 1971). neuropodium. Setae present on segments 1- Color: Head and abdomen orange, body a 19 only (Blake and Ruff 2007). mixture of yellow, green and brown with Eyes/Eyespots: None. parapodial areas and branchiae red (Kozloff Anterior Appendages: None. 1993). Branchiae: Prominent and thickly tufted in General Morphology: A sedentary branchial region with bunched setae. polychaete with worm-like, cylindrical body Hemoglobin makes the branchiae appear that tapers at both ends. Conspicuous bright red (Kozloff 1993). segmentation, with segments wider than they Burrow/Tube: Firm, mucus impregnated are long and with no anterior appendages burrows are up to 40 cm long, with typical (Ruppert et al. 2004). Individuals can be fecal castings at tail end. Head end of burrow identified by their green color, bulbous is collapsed as worm continually consumes pharynx (Fig. 1), large branchial gills (Fig. 2) mud (Healy and Wells 1959). Water is and a J-shaped burrow marked at the surface pumped through burrow by pulsating with distinctive coiled fecal castings (Kozloff movements of the body (Ruppert et al. 2004). 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Program Book
    DVORRUJMDSDQ Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography Meeting Program ASLO Contents Welcome! ..........................................................................................2 Conference Events ........................................................................12 Meeting Sponsors ...........................................................................2 Public Symposium on Global Warming...........................................12 Meeting Supporters .......................................................................2 Opening Welcome Reception.............................................................12 Organizing Committee .................................................................2 ASLO Membership Business Meeting .............................................12 Poster Sessions and Receptions .........................................................12 Co-Chairs ..................................................................................................2 Scientifi c Committee ..............................................................................2 Workshops and Town Hall Meetings ......................................12 Local Organizing Committee ...............................................................2 L&O e-Lectures Town Hall Meeting ................................................12 Advisory Committee ..............................................................................2 Workshop: Th e Future of Ecosystems Science ...............................12 ASLO Student
    [Show full text]
  • Current Status and Vulnerability to Climate Change
    University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Biogeochemical Assessment of the OCS Arctic Waters: Current Status and Vulnerability to Climate Change Principal Investigattor Jeremy Mathis1, 2 Graduate Student Jessica Cross1, 2 Co-Investigators Nicholas Bates3, Cathy Cosca2, Seth Danielson4, Wiley Evans1,2, Richard Feely2, Karen Frey5, Marlene Jeffries6, Michael Lomasa 7, Natalie Monacci1, Brradley Moraan8, Jennifer Questel4, Phyllis Stabeno2, and Taro Takahashi9 1Ocean Acidification Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks 2National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Marinee Environmental Laboratory 3Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences 4School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks 5Graduate School of Geography, Clark University 6Victoria Experimental Undersea Network, Ocean Networks Canada 7Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciencese 8Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island 9Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University FINAL REPORT October 2014 OCS Study BOEM 2014-668 Contact Information: email: [email protected] phone: 907.474.6782 fax: 907.474.7204 Coastal Marine Institute School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks P. O. Box 757220 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 This study was funded in part by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) through Cooperative Agreement M08AX12760 between BOEM, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. This report, OCS Study BOEM 2014-668, is available through the Coastal Marine Institute, select federal depository libraries and electronically from http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies/Alaska- Region/Index.aspx. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Transregional Linkages in the North-Eastern Atlantic — an ‘End-To-End’ Analysis of Pelagic Ecosystems
    Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 2009, 47, 1-76 © R. N. Gibson, R. J. A. Atkinson, and J. D. M. Gordon, Editors Taylor & Francis TranSregIOnaL LINKageS IN THE NOrtH-EAStern ATLantIC — AN ‘End-TO-End’ AnaLYSIS OF PELagIC ECOSYStemS CLIVE FOX1, ROger HarrIS2, SVEIN SUndBY3, ERIC ACHterBerg4, J. ICarUS ALLen2, JOHN ALLen4, ALEX BaKer5, CORIna P.D. BrUSSaard6, PAUL BUCKLEY7, ELIZABETH COOK1, StepHen R. DYE7, MartIN EDWardS8, LIam Fernand7, Peter KerSHAW7, JULIan METCALfe7, SVEIN ØSterHUS3, Ted POtter7, EGIL SaKSHAUG9, DOUGLAS SpeIRS10, ERLIng SteneVIK11, MIKE St. JOHN12, Frede THIngStad13 & Ben WILSON1 1Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, PA37 1QA, UK 2Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth, PL1 3DH, UK 3Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Allegata 55, N-5007 Bergen, Norway 4National Oceanography Centre, Waterfront Campus, Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK 5School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK 6NIOZ–Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, P.O. Box 59, 1790 AB Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands 7CEFAS, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, NR33 0HT, UK 8SAHFOS, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL1 2PB, UK 9Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Hogskoleringen 1, Gloshaugen, 7491 Trondheim, Norway 10University of Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower, Richmond Street, Glasgow, G1 1XH, UK 11Institute of Marine Research, Nordnesgate 50, P.O. Box 1870 Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway 12Hamburg University, Institute for Hydrobiology and Fisheries Science, Olbersweg 24, 22767 Hamburg, Germany 13University of Bergen, Jahnebakken 5, P.O. Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This review examines interregional linkages and gives an overview perspective on marine ecosystem functioning in the north-eastern Atlantic.
    [Show full text]