3News » Home

Bryozoans: ‘canary in the mine’

Bugula species (Photo: Dr Abigail Smith) Bugula species (Photo: Dr Abigail Smith)
Fri, 21 May 2010 3:19p.m.

By Fiona Hodge

Staring Bryozoans as the Canary-In-The-Mine in “THE SOURING OF THE OCEANS”

Some of the most beautiful filter feeders in our oceans are the bryozoans (watch them here). Bryozoans are a diverse looking lot. Some look like tiny stiffened feathers (e.g. Pterocella scutella), whilst others form exquisitely patterned crusts (eg Membranipora membranacea). What they share is a common threat from the oceans souring. The souring of our oceans may sound a lot like a science fiction dystopia. However, the oceans have already soured since the industrial revolution, and are set to sour further.

Ocean acidification, the proper name for this souring, is a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution carbon dioxide has increased by 40 percent in the atmosphere. Oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in water it changes the chemistry of the sea water, reducing the concentration of carbonate ions and making it more acidic (the pH of seawater has decreased by 0.3 units since the industrial revolution). Watch this video for a brief outline of ocean acidification.

So what does this mean for bryozoans? Bryozoans produce their skeletons from a range of calcium carbonate compounds. Their ability to secrete and maintain these skeletons is likely to be affected by ocean acidification. The diversity in morphology and skeleton composition suggests bryozoans will have a broad range of vulnerability to ocean acidification.

Membranipora on kelp (Photo: Dr Abigail Smith)

Otago University researcher Dr Abigail Smith is interested in the mineralogy of skeletons. Dr Smith has used information of the diverse mineral composition and morphology of bryozoan skeletons to create a ‘canary in the mine’ system to monitor small scale ocean acidification. This ‘canary in the mine’ system aims to allow scientists to use the skeleton morphology of different bryozoan species in an area to determine the local extent of ocean acidification.

Research into the implications of ocean acidification is generally finding that it can affect species with calcium carbonate skeletons. These include some of the plankton, tube worms, echinaderms like kina and sea dollars, molluscs like snails, crustacea like crabs and crayfish, corraline algae, and corals. It can also affect the development of the larvae, the tiny tadpole-like babies, of some species. Research on one species of pteropods, a group of planktonic sea snails, found their shells began to dissolve within just two days of exposure to sea water with the chemistry predicted for 2100.

We need more ocean acidification studies on a broader range of species. The studies should be long term and incorporate natural environmental conditions. The interactions between the losers and the few winners are currently hard to predict, and also require more study. For example pteropods (the planktonic sea snails) make up greater than 60 percent of the juvenile pink salmon diet. Will all the pteropods begin to dissolve in 2100 conditions like the species mentioned above? What will happen if they do? Will the salmon be stubborn or flexible in their dining choices? If flexible, what will their new prey be? How will this affect other species? Etc etc…

The only thing that is clear is the urgent need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. These anthropogenic emissions drive both ocean acidification and climate change. It is economically far more rational to act now to reduce ocean acidification and climate change, than to attempt to mitigate their effects in the future.

 

Fiona Hodge gets excited by all things green and growing. She has battled giant waves to collect seaweed hybrids, climbed mountains for alpine flowers, and braved persistent rain in pursuit of botanical data from the depths of New Zealand's temperate rainforests.

 

Her blog will showcase some of the many charms and delights of The Silent Majority: the prolific collection of plants, seaweeds, lichens, slime moulds and other fascinating non-vocals that quietly share our world.

 

The blog is also a tribute to the secret-hunters: the scientists who reveal the stories of those who cannot speak.

 

The Silent Majority Entries

Comments [9]

V
28 May 2010 09:29p.m.

Its interesting to read "Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change " apparently they will get back to science and stop promoting lies, exaggerations, fabrications, and wishful thinking…

Caroline Marrowline
27 May 2010 05:30p.m.

TWE, I couldn't argue with your logic before because you were not clear what you disagreed with. But now you have been clear so let me reply with pleasure.

As V said, we are not arguing that the oceans will become acidic, but more acidic than they are currently (they are slightly alkaline). It is like a cup of boiling water is said to 'cool down' if left to stand, even though it may still be hot. This small change in pH would be not be so bad if it were happening over thousands of years, but it is a measurable difference over 200 years: evolution does not work at this pace and we are talking about creatures who have specialised to live in particular conditions.

With this underlying premise, your logic is doomed. Logic is all very well but if the underlying premises are faulty it doesnt matter how good the logic is, you are still not going to get the right answer. May I suggest that you read studies by reliable scientific 'authorities' to broaden your understanding of the subject before applying your logic, you may do a little better.

By the way, my appeal to a scientific authority is the best way I can argue this, as any joe off the street can make misinformed judgements about a subject and pass them off as proven facts. Peer-reviewed studies from subject experts affiliated with independent & reputable scientific bodies are, or should be, the last word on the subject.

and how do you know so much about research funding in this area, do you know any of these scientists that you are slandering? It sounds as though your understanding of how research is reviewed and published is a bit bare.

Po marie.

Fiona Hodge
27 May 2010 11:39a.m.

Note the linked Seafriends article is not peer-reviewed science, but an opinion review article by a doctor with a Phd in Computer Science. I suggest those interested refer to scientific journals, such as Trends in Ecology and Evolution, for reviews written and peer reviewed by unbiased experts in their field.

V
26 May 2010 08:06p.m.

The oceans are alkaline, not acidic. http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

TWE
26 May 2010 03:03p.m.

I was saying that if the theory of high CO2 concentrations causing acidic oceans was true, the calcium carbonate organisms could not have existed in the Cambrian, but we know they did. Calcium carbonate is calcium carbonate, the composition of the shells has not changed and it is chemically impossible for the shell to precipitate in acid conditions. You appeal to an authority to justify your argument because there is no other way you can logically dispute mine. You assume that they are 100% correct, when mankind knows so little about how CO2 actually affects the climate, oceans and everything else they say it affects. If only you realised how little we really do know, and how the system of research funding works today. Climate science has become so politicized that scientists can only continue getting research funding (of which a great deal comes from governments) if they come to conclusions that support the current official beliefs. If their studies were inconclusive or went against the current beliefs, that would be the end of their funding and livelihood. I can understand why people cannot believe this, but maybe one day they will see it. It might come as a shock but that is reality unfortunately.

Caroline Marrowline
26 May 2010 09:34a.m.

Kia ora again

TWE I'm not sure i understand your argument. Are you saying that the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were not matched with more acidic oceans in the Cambric period, and so increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause ocean acidification? Or that the calcium carbonate-shelled sea-creatures that emerged then were able to survive in these conditions?

Either way I think the problem is more the rate of change for the current crop of shelled things, they have evolved for a certain pH and now the conditions they live in are changing faster than they can evolve.

The Royal Society of London published a comprehensive overview of ocean acidification, and its potential consequences, in June 2005. I still believe them sorry.

"Evidence indicates that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities over the past 200 years have already led to a reduction in the average pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units and could fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times greater than at any time over this period."

http://royalsociety.org/Ocean-acidification-due-to-increasing-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

Have a nice day

TWE
24 May 2010 11:55p.m.

These findings are not accurate. Calcium carbonate-shelled organisms first appeared during the Cambrian Period, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were much much greater than today. This would not have been possible if the oceans were acidic.

Caroline Marrowline
24 May 2010 04:04p.m.

Dear Fiona. An interesting post and very well written.

Dear V. If you are going to dismiss this as BS (by which I presume you mean incorrect) I would be interested to see your sources. The logic seems very sound to me, all very much in line with what I learned in 7th form chemistry and what I have read about climate change. I am not a scientist but I would take the position of those who are (one example being the members of the Royal Society) over someone who dismisses without giving any reasons or sources and who doesn't back themself enough to leave their name on their post. Troll posts are boring. Have a nice day everyone.

V
21 May 2010 09:56p.m.

Political Chemistry BS.

Post a comment

Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:


3News Video 3News Audio

Blogs