U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Minutes
Miami, FL --- 18-19 Feb 93
Summary of Day One.
The U.S. GLOBEC SSC meeting was preceeded by a one-half day joint session
meeting of the SSC's from the U.S. GLOBEC and U.S. JGOFS programs in the
Auditorium at RSMAS. Following introductions and welcoming remarks by Otis
Brown (JGOFS Chair) and Tom Powell (GLOBEC Chair), the joint session
proceeded with several presentations (of science issues rather than logistics
of joint interest to JGOFS and GLOBEC) followed by question and answer
periods. The speakers and topics are listed below:
James Murray (JGOFS) -- US JGOFS EqPac Process Studies
Sharon Smith (JGOFS) and Charlie Miller (GLOBEC) -- Arabian Sea Process Study
Hugh Livingston (JGOFS) and William Peterson (GLOBEC) -- Discussion of data
collected by the Russains (esp. from Arabian Sea) and plans for U.S-Russian
collaboration of a workshop in Sevastopol
Roger Anderson (JGOFS) and Eileen Hofmann (GLOBEC/JGOFS) -- Southern Ocean
Process Study
Hugh Ducklow (JGOFS) and Mark Huntley (GLOBEC) -- North Atlantic JGOFS/GLOBEC
Overlap
Ted Strub (GLOBEC) -- US GLOBEC activities in the California Current
Otis Brown (JGOFS), Glenn Flierl (JGOFS) and Leonard Walstad (GLOBEC) --
Coordination of JGOFS and GLOBEC Data Management
Jorge Sarmiento (JGOFS), Eileen Hofmann (GLOBEC/JGOFS) and Alan Robinson
(GLOBEC) -- Common modelling needs between JGOFS and GLOBEC
Peter Ortner (GLOBEC) -- Acoustical studies of zooplankton
Dave Karl (JGOFS) -- Zooplankton studies at HOTS and BATS
Tommy Dickey (JGOFS and GLOBEC) -- Common technology, e.g., acoustics and
optics to JGOFS and GLOBEC
The joint session provided direct communication between the two major
biological oceanography programs in the U.S. science community, which should
lead to better integration, coordination and collaboration between the two
programs. Collaboration will be especially valuable in (1) Arabian Sea
studies, (2) data management, (3) modelling, and (4) common technology
development.
WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS
The U.S. GLOBEC SSC meeting on the afternoon of
18 February 1993 was called to order at 1350 by Tom Powell, Chair. Attending
from the SSC were Dickey, Eckman, Hedgecock, Hofmann, Hunter, Huntley,
Mountain, Olson, Ortner, Powell, Robinson, Paul Smith, Sharon Smith, Steele
and Walstad. Rothschild was present as representative from GLOBEC.INT and
U.S. GLOBEC (Ex Officio). Federal agency representatives attending were
Linda Duguay (NSF), Eric Itsweire (NSF), Polly Penhale (NSF-DPP), William
Peterson (NOAA/NSF Interagency Program Coordinating Office), Neil Swanberg
(NSF-DPP), Michael Reeve (NSF) and Philip Taylor (NSF). Also attending were
Hal Batchelder (U.S. GLOBEC SSC Coordinating Office), Van Holliday (Tracor),
Sharon Lynch (U.S. GLOBEC SSC Coordinating Office), Charles Miller (Oregon
State University) and Ted Strub (Oregon State University). The agenda was
reviewed and no significant changes were made.
AGENCY REPORTS
Phil Taylor and Bill Peterson reported on the U.S. GLOBEC funding situation
for FY93. On the NSF side, the request for FY93 was $7.1M. However, only
$3.8M was allocated to US GLOBEC. Of that amount $1.1M goes to facilities
(ships, etc.), leaving $2.7M available for science. Ca. $1.0M of the $2.7M
has already been committed to ongoing projects, leaving ca. $1.7M available
for new starts in FY93. When questioned about the FY94 budget, Taylor
responded that the FY94 request for NSF support of U.S. GLOBEC was not yet
known. On the NOAA side, the FY93 funds for U.S. GLOBEC are not yet known,
although $2.7M were requested. Already, $0.7M are committed to ongoing
studies; therefore if the full request of $2.7M is received, ca. $2.0M will
be available for new starts in FY93. Peterson thought that the actual amount
available might be known within ca. one month.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
FUTURE MEETINGS
1. U.S. GLOBEC SSC meetings. The next SSC meeting was scheduled for 2-3
June 1993 at the St. James Hotel in Washington, DC. The fall 1993 SSC
meeting was scheduled to be held on the 7-8 October 1993 in Woods Hole, MA
(at WHOI).
2. Other Meetings/Conferences.
a. Hofmann and Powell outlined the goals of the 23-25 February 1993 meeting
on Secondary Production Modelling in Savannah, GA. A goal of the workshop is
to provide the attendees hands-on experience using well-formulated biological
models of different types (stage and size-structured populations). Attendees
will be provided with source code for the models so that they may modify them
as desired. We discussed whether or not the workshop should result in a
recommendation that U.S. GLOBEC support in some way a "community biological
model".
b. Eckman provided an overview of the U.S. GLOBEC modelling meeting that is
to be held 9-10 March 1993 in La Jolla, CA. All funded U.S. GLOBEC modelling
groups will be participating and will provide manuscripts to Eckman at the
meeting. Topical Studies in Oceanography has agreed to publish the papers.
Approximate time for publication of the issue, assuming no problems arise, is
Jan-Feb 1994. The US GLOBEC office in Davis may publish the papers more
quickly as a "white paper--not to be cited" document. How U.S. GLOBEC will
proceed with future modelling efforts will be discussed at the La Jolla
meeting as well.
c. International meetings were discussed extensively. An abbreviated list
of meetings that were discussed includes (this list is not meant to be
comprehensive):
Secondary Production Modelling 23-25 Feb 93 Savannah,GA
U.S. GLOBEC Modelling(Eckman) 9-10 March 93 La Jolla, CA
ICES Study Grp Zoopl. Production March 93 Tenerife
GLOBEC.INT SOS (Dickey) early April 93 Paris, France
Time Series Workshop (Gamble) May 93 Plymouth, UK
Subtropical EBC(Baumgartner) 10-12 May 93 La Paz, Bolivia?
GLOBEC.INT ICES Cod and Climate 7-11 June 93 Lowestoft, UK
working group
GLOBEC.INT Southern Oc. (Stromberg) 14-18 June 93 Norfolk, VA
Modelling Meeting(Gurney) 14-18 June 93 Glasgow, Scotland
Seabird Workshop (Fraser) 14-18 July 93 St. Paul, MN
CoOP/EBC Planning (Brink) 14-16 July 93 Portland, OR
GLOBEC.INT Modelling WG(Robinson) 11-13 July 93 Villefranche
ICES Cod and Climate 23-27 Aug 93 Reykjavik, Iceland
ICES West Coast wk4 Oct 93 ???
CalCOFI Population Genetics 1-3 Nov 93 Lake Arrowhead, CA
d. Gordon Research Conference on Coastal Ocean Circulation on 14-18 June
1993. (Malcolm Bowman is contact). Very little biology represented in the
program.
e. Gordon Research Conference on Predictive Theory in Biological
Oceanography and its Evaluation scheduled for 16-20 August 1993. (Pete Jumars
is contact). Several of the sessions are relevant to GLOBEC.
3. General Discussion on Requesting U.S. GLOBEC funding for meetings. We
discussed a procedure for requesting funds for U.S. GLOBEC meetings. For
future meetings and/or U.S. GLOBEC participation of U.S. scientists at
GLOBEC.INT meetings, Powell would like to have a small proposal submitted to
the U.S. GLOBEC office in Davis which describes the tentative agenda and
budget for the proposed meeting. The proposal must also include a list of
expected participants and provide the context of how the proposed meeting
contributes or conflicts with other programs and/or meetings, at both the
national and international levels. The proposal should be received by the US
GLOBEC office in Davis at least four months prior to the proposed date of the
meeting.
SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
At the September 1992 meeting it was decided to solicit nominations from the
community for two new SSC members. After reviewing the nominations the SSC
approved the addition of three new SSC members: Ann Durbin (Univ. Rhode
Island; zooplankton and fish ecology), Daniel Costa (ONR; cetacean and
seabird ecology and physiology), and Steven Gaines (Brown Univ.; benthic
ecology). Powell informed the SSC that Brian Rothschild was departing the
ExCOMM of U.S. GLOBEC and that Sharon Smith would be joining the ExCOMM.
Powell also informed the SSC that he had asked Huntley and Olson to act as
U.S. GLOBEC "delegates" to GLOBEC.INT. They both agreed to accept the
responsibility and will coordinate and communicate with Rothschild
(GLOBEC.INT Chair).
U.S. GLOBEC COORDINATING OFFICE ACTIVITIES
Batchelder presented an outline of themes, target submission dates, and
target publication dates for the next four issues of the U.S. GLOBEC
newsletter. Preliminary themes for the next four issues are (1) NW
Atlantic/Georges Bank, (2) Modelling, (3) Southern Ocean, and (4) Eastern
Boundary/California Current. Batchelder also requested suggestions for
newsletter articles. Some were offered immediately: (1) Brander article on
Cod and Climate Change, (2) Brown and Powell "thoughtful" report of
JGOFS/GLOBEC joint session, (3) regular GLOBEC.INT column by Rothschild, and
(4) a regular Interagency Program Coordinating Office column by Peterson.
Olson mentioned that there were several newsletter items that were "lost in
limbo" during the change in chairmanship from Peterson to Powell. Powell and
Batchelder agreed to look again in the transition boxes for the lost items.
Olson agreed to send his item to the Davis GLOBEC office again. Dickey
suggested that he prepare an instrumentation paper for EOS, as well as for
Sea Technology. Huntley suggested that all article submissions on U.S.
GLOBEC should be circulated through Batchelder at the U.S. GLOBEC office in
Davis.
GLOBEC INTERNATIONAL
RAVELLO REPORT/REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
The report of the Ravello meeting of GLOBEC International (hereafter, GI) has
been published and was included in the briefing book. Powell reported that
he had received comments on the Ravello draft from many of the US GLOBEC SSC
members. After compiling the comments he wrote a draft memo of the US GLOBEC
SSC response to the Ravello Report which was circulated to the SSC members
who had made comments. He then mailed the review to Brian Rothschild (GI -
Chair).
Rothschild then reviewed the purpose of the Ravello documentÑwhich is to
provide a structure for inquiry into the factors and mechanisms controlling
animal abundance in the sea. The document intends to provide the foundation
for establishing the direction and research strategy for launching a major
global ocean ecosystem dynamics research program (which complements other
global programs like JGOFS) during the next decade. Rothschild stated that
the carbon question, i.e., the role of zooplankton in global carbon issues,
needs more research and he hopes that GI can foster the exchange of ideas
between JGOFS and GLOBEC on the carbon question. Rothschild emphasized
repeatedly that GI wants interaction with U.S. GLOBEC SSC and is certainly
willing to listen to U.S. GLOBEC suggestions. Robinson suggested that
someone (possibly Bob Dickson) should be asked (and funded?) to scout out
archived data for PRUDENCE. Olson commented that reanalysis, i.e., the use
of old data sets with new models, was particularly valuable. Hunter
commented that data mining and archiving must go on concurrently with field
process studies. Hunter observed that there was no EBC (or U.S. West Coast
Plan) yet formulated by GI. He suggested that a GLOBEC.INT PRUDENCE analysis
and PICES coordinated plan could provide the basis for an Upwelling Region GI
plan. Steele expressed the opinion that we do not need to create new
organizations, but rather we should use existing regional organizations (like
SCAR, PICES, ICES, etc.), to implement international programs.
FIZZYPOP MEETING REPORT
Huntley and Peterson reported on the discussions that took place at the GI
FizzyPop meeting that was organized by David Cushing and held in Plymouth,
UK. It was an international meeting attended by approximately 25 scientists.
There was one and one-half days of invited presentations followed by working
group discussions and report writing. Discussions were perhaps a little more
focused on grazing and less on fish population dynamics than would be liked
by U.S. GLOBEC, but overall, as reported by Huntley and Peterson to the SSC,
the intent of the population dynamics and physical variability working group
of GI is similar in concept and intent to U.S. GLOBEC's goals and should
result in an excellent report.
ARABIAN SEA
Charlie Miller presented an overview of the implementation plan for an
Arabian Sea U.S. GLOBEC project. The implementation plan (mailed to the SSC
members before the meeting) resulted from discussions initiated at a U.S.
GLOBEC sponsored workshop held in Denver in June 1992. Subsequently, Charlie
Miller, Hal Batchelder, Sharon Smith and Don Olson collaborated to develop a
plan for U.S. GLOBEC scientific research in the Arabian Sea. It was clear
from the discussions at the Denver workshop that the scientifically most
interesting question involved the reportedly large stocks of myctophids in
the northern Arabian Sea. How are such massive biomasses of an upper trophic
level consumer supported by the monsoonal-driven production cycles? What are
the trophic linkages between the primary production and the fish production?
Two levels of research plan were formulated for U.S. GLOBEC Arabian Sea
research. The first is a modest-scale add-on program that utilizes ship and
logistics resources already present in the Arabian Sea for JGOFS, WOCE and
NOAA investigations during 1994-1996. The focus of studies for this plan is
improved understanding of the population dynamics and general ecology of
zooplankton, especially the copepods, euphausiids and salps that are
potential food resources for myctophid fishes; and studies of the larval and
adult biology, ecology, and distribution of the myctophid fishes. The
extraordinary temporal and spatial physical forcing (monsoonal reversals,
several upwelling regions) should have effects on the pelagic ecosystem,
including the zooplankton and fish. The add-on program proposes study of
these effects. It was unclear how much ship-time could be allocated to the
add-on study. Ortner noted that a NOAA vessel would be in the Arabian Sea in
1995 and that U.S. GLOBEC like studies could potentially be done from that
vessel as well as from the UNOLS vessels. The second level plan outlined a
potential full-scale study that focuses on the myctophid fishes specifically.
This plan was provided as an incentive for a future larger-scale U.S. GLOBEC
or international effort in studying the ecology of the Northern Arabian Sea.
After discussion, a motion was passed to adopt the implementation plan,
specifically to proceed with the add-on plan study of the Arabian Sea if
sufficient funds were available and if such funding did not seriously impact
other U.S. GLOBEC projects (i.e., Georges Bank). The only significant
comment mentioned during the discussion of the IP related to the reliability
of the 100 million mTon biomass of Benthosema pterotum published by
Gjosaeter. Justification of the Arabian Sea plan is highly determined by the
enormous stock size of this midwater fishÑif that number is inflated by a
factor of 10X (which was suggested by some present at the meeting (Hunter,
Holliday) then the Arabian Sea science plan is much less compelling. Powell
suggested that SSC members who wanted to provide written comments on the
Arabian Sea plan, send them to Hal Batchelder in the GLOBEC office before 19
March. After the comment period, a final version of the Arabian Sea workshop
report and implementation plan would be sent to the printer.
Summary of Day Two.
OPTICS WORKSHOP REPORT
Batchelder presented the optics report recommendations from the workshop held
in Savannah, GA in February 1992. Those recommendations called for (1)
better integration of acoustical, optical and physical sensors so that they
sample the same parcel of water at similar spatial and temporal scales; (2)
development of improved modes of deployment and of less-invasive optical
instruments; (3) development of techniques or sampling systems that provide
for the interrelation of measurements or rate processes and physical
structures among different spatial and temporal scales; and (4) development
of image analysis techniques that provide near-real time identification of
organisms from video images. Following Batchelder's summary, we discussed
the appropriateness of including the detailed information on specific
instruments in the appendices. Several members of the SSC felt that the
inclusion of the appendices provided an unfair "endorsement" of specific
technologies should an RFP result from the workshop report. Other SSC
members felt that the appendices provided examples of technologies in place
or under development, and that the material would provide useful background
material for future instrument development proposers. Eventually, it was
moved and passed (by 7-to-5 vote) that the appendices be removed from the
optics workshop report and that the report be published by U.S. GLOBEC.
U.S. GLOBEC OUTREACH AND VISIBILITY
Huntley showed a graph projecting the estimated funds required to support
U.S. GLOBEC research activities in the next eight years (approximately). The
message was clearÑU.S. GLOBEC will not be able to accomplish all its goals
unless it is able to stimulate funding. Huntley argued that U.S. GLOBEC
needs to better show its importance in terms of fisheries, global change,
etc., so that there is greater awareness in the federal agencies and general
public of what U.S. GLOBEC is doing and why it is important to the average
citizen. The funds to sustain U.S. GLOBEC are derived from taxpayers and are
mandated by congress. Thus, he suggests that agencies, taxpayers and
congress need to be better apprised of the goals of GLOBEC and urged to
support those goals. He recommends that the GLOBEC office in Davis, with
assistance from a core group of the SSC, develop a suite of public relations
materials, including slides, overheads, glossy brochures. We should educate
the taxpaying public through the media (press releases, articles in popular
press). Other avenues for gaining support include existing entities like the
Ocean Studies Board, Polar Research Board, Council on Ocean Affairs, and the
Joint Oceanographic Institutions. Dickey mentioned that he will follow
through with his Sea Technology and EOS articles on technology. There was
mention that U.S. GLOBEC funded modelling studies have already produced some
nice resultsÑpossibly some of that could be written up as an article for EOS
or other outlet. Paul Smith suggested that the U.S. GLOBEC outreach effort
must describe the problem from the average citizen perspective, not just from
the educated scientist perspective. He suggested including figures in
presentation materials showing the time-series of increasing human
population, how this has impacted the coastal marine environment, and how
U.S. GLOBEC fits in. Huntley mentioned that U.S. GLOBEC should have someone
representing their interests at the March 1993 Council on Ocean Affairs
Fourth Annual Congressional Oceans Forum. Powell agreed, and asked Huntley
to attend.
SOUTHERN OCEAN
Huntley spoke about plans for the development of an international Southern
Ocean GLOBEC program. Southern Ocean planning began at a May 1991
implementation meeting held in La Jolla. Representatives from ca. ten
countries were present during the five day meeting. Due to the unique nature
of the Southern Ocean, and immense interest of many nations in a Southern
Ocean GLOBEC study, the implementation plan is going to be written following
an international meeting in Norfolk, VA in June 1993. U.S. GLOBEC
investigations will probably focus on the Bellinghausen Sea/Antarctic
Peninsula and possibly also a region in the Indian Ocean sector of the
Southern Ocean. The probable structure of a Southern Ocean study was
provided by Huntley. It likely will target krill, copepods, salps, birds and
mammals. Studies are anticipated to begin in 1997 and continue for two years
(hopefully). The focus will be on the interaction between the physical
circulation of the Bellinghausen Sea and the population dynamics of the
target species. The goal is to resolve at least one complete (preferably
two) annual cycles, hopefully through the use of multiple platforms provided
by the participating countries. Countries expressing interest in GLOBEC
studies of the Southern Ocean include the U.S., Germany, UK, France,
Scandinavian countries, Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and several
South American countries. Eckman and Penhale expressed concerns that benthos
issues were underrepresented in the international plans for the Southern
Ocean. Olson and Penhale expressed concern that physicists and modellers
were underrepresented in the preliminary list of invitees to the Norfolk
planning meeting. At the request of Olson, Hofmann agreed to contact Jarl
Stromberg (Organizer of the Norfolk meeting) and suggest that a Southern
Ocean physical oceanographer be invited to the Norfolk meeting. Powell
suggested that the U.S. GLOBEC SSC might want to invite an international
scientist to the June 1993 SSC meeting to present a science talk. The
suggestion was made to invite Stromberg.
NORTHWEST ATLANTIC UPDATE
Powell felt that the implementation review ("relevancy review") panel of the
proposals received in response to the NWAtl/Georges Bank GLOBEC RFP was
useful. Peterson and Taylor on the other hand felt that that particular
procedure of the proposal review process was not particularly useful in
providing them with rationales for funding vs. not funding specific
proposals. We discussed how the RFP and proposal review process could be
improved. Overall, it was agreed that the RFP for the NW Atlantic was too
specific. Furthermore, the wording of the RFP apparently encouraged
collaboration of investigators to "split the science pie", resulting in the
submission of a few very expensive, multi-investigator proposals, rather than
many smaller competing proposals. It also made evaluation of the proposals
difficult because it was not clear which PI was doing each science component
in the large proposals. Ortner commented that there was a wide-divergence of
opinion about relevancy within the review panel chaired by Powell. Ortner
suggested that the relevance review would be improved by having both the
implementation plan and "blind" abstracts of the proposals. It was mentioned
that Sharon Smith has been tasked by JGOFS to produce a document describing a
procedure for "scientific relevancy and prioritization" of JGOFS Arabian Sea
proposals. Sharon was asked to communicate her recommendations to U.S.
GLOBEC as well. It was commented that JGOFS has a similar problem evaluating
relevancy; that in fact no two of their major programs have used the same
procedure because they have not found one that works very well. Walstad
commented that the quality of the proposed science should be of paramount
importance, not peoples perceptions of "insider information". Taylor and
Peterson felt that there would be a post-mortem analysis which might result
in a second NWAtl/Georges Bank RFP to fill science gaps caused by missing or
poor quality proposals.
Taylor and Peterson reviewed the current status of the NW Atlantic proposals.
Thirty-seven proposals were received requesting ca. $13M for year one. Some
have been declined outright, leaving 25-26 proposals remaining for a total
request of ca. $11M in year one. Peterson said that letters will be mailed
within the next two weeks to the remaining proposers informing them of their
funding status.
Rothschild updated the SSC on the activities of the Cod and Climate Change
(CCC) program. Keith Brander is the chair of the ICES working group and is
planning a meeting in Lowestoft, UK in June 1993. Rothschild suggested that
U.S. GLOBEC encourage U.S. scientists to start a dialog now so that those who
attend the June meeting have well formulated ideas about U.S. scientific
interests (in connection with CCC) in the North Atlantic. Steele recommended
that the U.S. should be represented at the meeting by 3-4 scientists.
Peterson suggested that some member of the Atlantic Climate Change Program
(ACCP; a NOAA program) should attend the CCC meeting in June. Olson noted
that U.S. GLOBEC might want to consider sending a representative to the ACCP
steering committee meeting to be held in March 1993. It was decided that
Rothschild and Powell will endeavor to get "some" of the funded NW Atlantic
PI's to attend the CCC meeting.
PACIFIC STUDIES
Ted Strub reported on the results of the California Current implementation
planning group workshop, attended by ca. 18 scientists, that was held in San
Francisco in January 1993. Most of the participants were biologists or
physicists, but there were modellers and atmospheric scientists present as
well. Also attending were three members of the CoOP steering committee. Two
major research themes emerged from the workshop. The first was a latitudinal
study of mesoscale physical and biological processes. Ideally,
comprehensive studies of mesoscale processes in two (or three) different
locations along the west coast of North America, specifically to evaluate how
the spatial and temporal variability of mesoscale physical dynamics impacts
the abundances, species composition, growth, transport, recruitment, etc., of
holo-, mero-, and ichthyoplankton. The second major theme to emerge from the
meeting was evaluation of the existence and nature of "regime" shifts in the
California Current ecosystem. Hunter felt that the name "regime shift" was a
poor choice of title, that perhaps Southern California Bight Science or Time-
Series Analysis were better (and more encompassing) titles. Strub and Powell
then provided a timeline for future California Current planning activities.
First, the SSC should review the report of the San Francisco meeting and
comment back to Strub by 19 March 1993. After review, the report will be
communicated to the CoOP steering committee. U.S. GLOBEC will designate
scientists to attend the CoOP planning meeting, scheduled for 14-16 July
1993, and they will make a presentation to that group about U.S. GLOBEC's
plans at some point late in the discussion (this is to prevent undue
persuasion of that group and to allow them to formulate their plans almost
independently of U.S. GLOBEC). Following the CoOP meeting, and assuming that
scientific and political overlap still exists between the two programs, a
coordinated implementation committee will be formed to develop a California
Current implementation plan.
ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS AND RATES INTERCALIBRATION
Huntley and Peterson lead a discussion involving several general issues
related to zooplankton biomass and rate estimation. First, they described an
ICES recommendation that there be an "at-sea workshop" for intercomparison of
methods for estimating zooplankton biomass and an "in the lab workshop" for
intercalibration of zooplankton vital rate measurements. They wanted to know
if the U.S. GLOBEC SSC would be interested in supporting and contributing
funds towards such workshops. Second, they reported that there are plans
within ICES to produce an updated manual on "standard zooplankton methods for
biomass and rate estimation." Huntley felt that this endeavor is worthy of
U.S. GLOBEC support and could provide the foundation for participation of
third-world countries in an International GLOBEC effort. The GLOBEC
contribution of some countries could be measurements of condition factor,
fecundity indices, etc.,Ñi.e., fairly low-tech, mundane laboratory
measurements. Holliday commented that the Fisheries Acoustics Science
Technology (FAST) Working Group of ICES is documenting the accepted practice
in fisheries acoustics. We requested that Huntley, Peterson, Ortner, Olson
and possibly others produce a report on this issue for discussion at the next
SSC meeting.
LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
Robinson presented an outline of the long-range plan for U.S. GLOBEC that has
been developed in the last six months. Discussions and planning were mostly
done at a meeting in Boston attended by Peterson, Powell, Robinson and
Rothschild. Much of the details of the plan still need to be produced,
however the framework provided by the plan included an activities chart and a
timeline. The LRP report will be fleshed out within the next several months
and circulated first to the LRP committee and then the full SSC for comments.
BLUE WATER ISSUES
John Steele summarized activities of the blue-water committee. First, he
opined that U.S. GLOBEC, which a priori hypothesizes that the physical
environment will strongly affect the dynamics of marine animal populations,
cannot reasonably not expect to find such effects since U.S. GLOBEC has
specifically chosen to study "physically dynamic" regions, like the NW
Atlantic, Southern Ocean and Arabian Sea. He believes that U.S. GLOBEC
should also be studying deep-water open-ocean environments, where perhaps the
physics are less dominant and biological interactions are more important in
structuring the ecosystem dynamics. That said, he notes that the JGOFS HOTS
and BATS sites would like to expand their studies of zooplankton populations.
He also noted that Sarmiento found that his model was particulary sensitive
to the zooplankton component and that better data on zooplankton abundance
and dynamics are needed. Finally, he proposed to the SSC that there be a
relatively small workshop (8-10 participants), cochaired by Larry Madin and
Dave Karl, during summer 1993 to produce a document on blue-water studies
that U.S. GLOBEC should pursue. Hunter commented that if tuna were included
in the workshop, then NOAA would perhaps be more interested in blue-water
science. Hunter suggested including George Boehlert (NOAA-Hawaii) in the
list of invitees to the workshop. Powell agreed to write a letter to Karl
and Madin asking them to submit a proposal for this workshop. Proposal to
include a budget, list of invitees, agenda, and relevance to U.S. GLOBEC
programmatic goals. Included on the agenda should be discussion of the JGOFS
time-series sites, but also generic blue-water needs of U.S. GLOBEC and how a
blue-water program is related to climate change.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Dickey led a discussion on technology development. Issues discussed included
(1) the need for a testbed for ocean technology (this might be a mooring
facility that could be visited regularly and often); (2) the need for methods
of specific identification of zooplankton taxa; (3) the need to link broad
temporal and spatial scales of observation; (4) the need to determine the
relative merits of many inexpensive instruments versus fewer, more expensive,
but possibly better instruments; and (5) the need for real-time evaluation of
remote data using telemetry. Dickey felt that the technology issue of U.S.
GLOBEC (and JGOFS, as well) offered good opportunities for increased funding
because it linked high technology and the environment, which are two themes
in favor with the current administration. The mooring testbed facility would
be of interest to multiple agencies and/or programs (ONR, JGOFS, GLOBEC,
NASA). We decided to form a joint JGOFS/GLOBEC committee (including Dickey,
Mel Briscoe, Sharon Smith and others) to draft a statement on the community
wide need for such a mooring testbed facility. Dickey, Powell and Otis Brown
agreed to approach NSF to determine interest. Reeve responded that yes NSF
is "keenly interested"Ñwhat next?
Dickey discussed progress on the optics and acoustics technology RFP. Dickey
suggested that any action on a technology RFP should be delayed until after
the GLOBEC International Sampling and Observation Systems (SOS) meeting in
April.
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 1530 passed.
QUOTE OF THE MEETING,
you're not brain-dead yet, you haven't been there [in Washington, DC]
long enough.
--- Sharon Smith to Bill Peterson
