Project contract no. 036851 ESONET European Seas Observatory Network Instrument: Network of Excellence (NoE) Thematic Priority: 1.1.6.3 – Climate Change and Ecosystems Sub Priority: III – Global Change and Ecosystems D13 - Science Modules of the European Seas Observatory NETwork (ESONET) Due date of deliverable: Month 48 Actual submission date: Month 88 Start date of project: March 2007 Duration: 48 months Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: NOCS, H. A. Ruhl Authors for this deliverable: H. A. Ruhl, L. Géli, Y. Auffret, J. Grienert Other contributors: A. Colaço, J. Karstensen, P. M. Sarradin, D. De Beer, M. André, R. Person, L. Menot, A. Khripounoff, P.-M. Sarradin, J. Galéron, . J. Blandin, P. Bagley, P. Favali, J. Mienert, L. Thomsen, H. Villinger, N. Sultan, O. Pfannküche, E. Delory, J.M. Strout, C. Floquet, L. Beranzoli, N. Rothe. Revision [26, April 2011]: yearly update, 2011 version Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Dissemination Level PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services X RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary 4 1. Introduction 5 2. Generic Sensor Module 8 a. Provisional generic module parameters 9 b. Generic Sensors Impact 12 3. Science Specific Sensor Modules 16 a. Geosciences 16 b. Physical Oceanography 25 c. Biogeochemistry 26 d. Marine Ecology 31 4. Instrumentation module architecture 36 5. References: 40 6. APPENDIX 47 a. Demonstration Mission sensors. 47 b. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) variables: 53 c. US Ocean Observing Initiative (OOI) Coastal and Global Scale Nodes (CGSN) 53 d. IOOS core variables: 55 e. NEPTUNE Canada: 56 f. Seacycler: 57 g. POSEIDON-II seabed platform and PYLOS Buoy 58 h. GEOSTAR (and derived single-frame observatories) 59 i. SEAMON: 62 j. TEMPO: 65 k. DELOS: 66 7. Annex I – Ocean Acoustic Observatories report 69 8. Annex II – Sea Water Electrodes 180 3 Summary The European Seas Observatory NETwork Network of Excellence (ESONET NoE) has documented here several types of sensor modules that can be used in an ocean observatory setting. These modules include a provisional specification that we recommend for use at all sites and several other rather specialised specifications that can be used on an ad hoc basis to meet the science objectives relevant to a particular location. This modular nature will allow for a wide variety of configurations while also making progress towards standardization and interoperability. Examples of operating modules and systems of modules are also provided in an appendix. 4 1. Introduction The European Seas Observatory NETwork - Network of Excellence (ESONET NoE) has suggested a set of parameters to be collected at all European observatory sites, as well as a set of rather specific parameters that may only be measured at some sites. For practical purposes these sensors have therefore been divided into those that might be included in a generic module and those that might be part of science specific modules. Outlining provisional module specifications has allowed progress with studies of observatory design and operation. These specifications are provisional and can be changed to meet scientific priorities. For example, the configuration of the generic or one of the specific modules can be updated as science needs and feasibility change. The generic sensor module and the science-specific modules are both envisioned to address the key questions that have been identified in the four main areas covered by ESONET NoE: geosciences, physical oceanography, marine biogeochemistry, and marine ecology. These questions are fully listed in the ESONET NoE Deliverable D11 report. We will not repeat all of the key questions here, but will discuss many of the sensors that can be used to address them. In practice, many of the scientific questions addressed are interdisciplinary. Major questions that presently arise in geosciences, for example, are linked to fluid circulation, which, in turn, can control cold-seep bacterial activity, biogenic gas emissions, and deep-sea benthic ecology. A functional split not only comes between those modules that are considered generic or specific, but also the infrastructure setting in which those systems are used, such as seabed and mooring systems. Maybe rephrase: Functional differences exist between generic sensor modules and science-specific modules. They further depend on the infrastructure setting in which these systems are used, be it seadbed-fixed structures or mooring systems. The concept of recommending a specific set of parameters for collection at all European observatory sites was brought up at the All Regions Workshop in Barcelona (September 2007) and has also been discussed in detail at the Best Practices Workshop in Bremen, Germany (January 2008), at the General Assembly meeting in Faro, Portugal (October 2008), and was further reviewed at an Implementation Strategies meeting in Paris, France (January 2009). Initial suggestions for parameters to include at each node (e.g. Arctic, Marmara, etc.) were provided in the Global Change session report from the 2007 All Regions Workshop. Most recently the readiness of various sensors was addressed at the 2009 Best practices Workshop in Brest, France. Of the ‘core’ water-column or benthic parameters discussed in the Global Change session, the variables determined to continue to be considered included currents, temperature and salinity changes, oxygen, nutrients, biogeochemical quantities (e.g. C, N, P, etc.), pH, Eh, and CO2. A survey was also circulated to the ESONET NoE General Assembly to ask for suggestions on what parameters to include in a generic module, however, only limited input was provided. Since then a variety of potential instruments have been suggested for a generic module (i.e. a standard set of instruments to collect data parameters to be used at the nodes for local measurements, between-site comparisons, and hypothesis testing). The present discussion is also based on the experience that has been gained from the Demonstration Missions (DM) that were funded through ESONET NoE (Table 1). The sensors used in these DMs are summarized in tables included at the end of this document. Sensor module development activities in other observatory and research programmes are also considered here with some examples given in the Appendix. Most prominently this includes ongoing efforts within the EuroSITES and HERMIONE (Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man’s Impact On European Seas) programmes, as well as programmes in the US, Canada, Japan and elsewhere. Specific input came from a report on the use of biogeochemical sensors in the EuroSITES network (Coppola et al. 2009). The EuroSITES deliverable 1.1.3 outlines the existing platforms and sensors used throughout the network. This report includes descriptions of the observatory design in terms of mooring sensor arrangements. Additional experience is also being gained through the activities of KM3NeT, which has three sites in common with ESONET NoE. A great amount of effort by the US Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) and the NorthEast Pacific 5 Time-Series Undersea Networked Experiments (NEPTUNE Canada) has contributed to the diversity of sensors reviewed here. Indeed, NEPTUNE Canada is now in full operation and the OOI is fully into construction with calls for tender issued. The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) is an organization that is funded by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to evaluate sensors and provide a source for information on sensors in partnership with the US Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), a US contribution to GOOS. ACT efforts are resulting in detailed reporting of controlled assessments of sensor performance. Contributions to the OceanObs’09 Conference held in Venice Italy have also highlighted both observational needs and consensus on solutions through peer- reviewed community white papers (www.oceanobs09.net). These include documents that review ocean observatory needs from a wide range of perspectives covering natural and anthropogenic changes, potential influences of climate change, and geo-hazard early warning (e.g. Favali et al., 2010; Larkin et al., 2010; Meldrum et al., 2010; Merrifield et al., 2010; Send et al., 2010). ESONET NoE and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) co-convened the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS) Workshop XXVII on “Understanding the Integrated Ocean Observation Systems, including sub-surface sensors” in May 2009 to further garner discussion and prioritisation of observational needs. The recommendations of the GEOSS Workshop XXVII included further consideration of sea glider and AUV capacity building, continued progression of sensors for critical parameters such as CO2 and pH, as well as rather complex sensors like those using microbial probes. The value-added aspects of examining systems from the surface to the sub- seafloor over long time periods were presented as not only enhancing scientific capability but as an attractor for additional investigators and sensors through synergy. EuroGOOS, a contributor to GEOSS, has also conducted substantial research into observational requirements for various societal and industrial needs (e.g. Flemming et al., 2007), something that is