U. S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Meeting
Hotel Adagio
San Francisco, CA
24-25 May 2006
Wednesday, 24 May 2006
Members in attendance were Dale Haidvogel, Chairperson (Rutgers), Nick Bond (NOAA), Jennifer Burns (UA Anchorage), Kendra Daly (USF), Cabell Davis (WHOI), Michael Fogarty (NOAA/NMFS), Jonathan Hare (NOAA), Eileen Hofmann (ODU), Pat Livingston (NMFS/NOAA), Arthur Miller (Scripps), David Mountain (NOAA/NMSF), Jeff Polovina (NOAA/NMFS), Thomas (Zack) Powell (UC Berkeley), Kenneth Rose (LSU), Suzanne Strom (WWU) ,
Guests in attendance included Enrique Curchitser (LDEO), Madeline Gazzale (Rutgers), Linda Lagle (Rutgers), John Quinlan (Rutgers), Phil Taylor (NSF), Beth Turner (NOAA). Mary-Elena Carr (NSF), Roberta Marinelli (NSF).
Members not in attendance included Michael Alexander (NOAA-CIRES), Hal Batchelder (OSU), Dennis McGillicuddy (WHOI), Steven Murawski (NOAA/ NMSF), and Francisco Werner (UNC).
Dale Haidvogel, Chairperson of the SSC, called the meeting to order at 0900 hours.
After the initial welcome and introductions of those present, Dale reviewed the agenda which included agency reports, regional updates by chairpersons, an invited science talk, and a review of the synthesis plan, and synthesis projects and meetings.
The minutes from the U. S. GLOBEC SSC Fall 2005 Meeting were discussed and approved.
Agency Reports: NSF
Roberta Marinelli of the NSF Polar Programs stated that all but one of the Southern Ocean GLOBEC proposals had been fully funded. The budget is looking brighter. International Polar Research is hoping for a larger budget this year. The ice sheet work may be appropriate for the U. S. GLOBEC group. Additional solicitations will be forth coming from NSF.
Phil Taylor stated that although there has been no official announcement, the overall budget should be good. Award letters resulting from discussions at the last panel review should be out soon. NSF received a call from the U. S. GLOBEC office for augmentation to the Northeast Pacific Program. Phil suggested sending NEP proposals to the Biological Ocean Sciences Program. The deadline for proposals is July 1, 2006.
NOAA
Beth Turner stated there have been drastic budget cuts within NOAA. She is presently in negotiations with NSF and her superiors to justify the importance of continued U. S. GLOBEC spending. A commitment for continued funding of the U. S. GLOBEC program up to 2008 will be put into the NOAA spending plan. Funding notices will go out this week. Several projects were transferred to NSF for funding. The people from the California Current should be able to start their work soon.
Beth showed two PowerPoint slides outlining a summary of the proposals received for the Northwest Atlantic Program and the Gulf of Alaska. Detailed were summaries of the proposals and how they feed into one another. Also highlighted were the outcomes of each project and how they can transfer into deliverables for management use. The information presented came directly from the proposals. Proposal summaries were not done for the California Current system because these proposals do not have to be re-justified.
Beth said it is becoming harder and harder to continue support for U. S. GLOBEC from her office. Justifications for continued spending are linked to product outcomes that can be used by management. The pan regional phase will be hard to justify without strong outcomes. In order to maintain this funding, pan regional needs to develop a really good product that will help to move NOAA into the future.
The discussion then addressed the issue of where funding could come from within NOAA, if not from Beth’s office. Possibilities include the Climate Goal Team, the Ecosystem Goal Team, or the Fisheries Goal Team.
Beth suggested that U. S. GLOBEC present a mini symposium to the Ecosystem Goal Team on the regional programs within U. S. GLOBEC in terms of what has been provided to the community thus far and what they would like to accomplish. The goal team is the level of people within NOAA that U. S. GLOBEC should target. This can be done at anytime and warrants a trip to NOAA. This issue of addressing NOAA with a mini symposium will be revisited tomorrow morning.
As a side bar, Phil Taylor noted that ORION is moving forward and U. S. GLOBEC should keep an eye on what is going on within that program.
Regional Programs
Northwest Atlantic/Georges Bank
Cabell Davis, Chairperson of the Northwest Atlantic/Georges Bank program reviewed the rationale behind the Georges Bank program which includes understanding that complex marine ecosystems require simplification. Historically, this was done by trophodynamic and biogeochemical analysis. In the past, this was the only feasible approach in high diversity regions and the oligotrophic ocean. Alternatively, in low diversity regions, the species population approach can be used. The trophodynamic approach was used to relate primary production to fish production on Georges Bank, but is of limited utility for predicting fish species abundances. It is also known that fish populations are dominated by a few strong year classes that are set by recruitment from early life stages. A diagram was shown depicting the strong year classes.
U. S. GLOBEC is not just about fish. The program recognizes recruitment as a critical process controlling population abundance in marine animal species. U. S. GLOBEC focuses on target species and their dominant prey with emphasis on individual organisms, population dynamics, and interactions with the physical environment, especially as it relates to global climate change. Georges Bank was chosen due to its sensitivity to climate change, definable populations, importance as a fishing ground, and a significant historical data base.
Specific program goals are to understand the biological and physical processes controlling abundance of cod and haddock larvae and their dominant prey species, Calanus, Pseudocalanus, and other species. In the larger context the goals are to understand the fundamental mechanisms controlling abundance of key marine animal populations by studying organism and population level dynamics and their interactions with the physical environment across multiple scales. The reward from taking this approach will be a more accurate understanding of how key species and ecosystem components are controlled by natural and human perturbations such as climate change, pollution, and over-exploitation.
Cabell reviewed each of the Georges Bank U. S. GLOBEC 4A Synthesis Projects including objectives, examples of work preformed, models used, food webs, and charts depicting the collected data. The five projects are:
Objectives:
• To understand the physical processes critical to zooplankton and fish recruitment.
• To use the observations in modeling (FVCOM) the physical environment and variability from minutes to seasons for the U. S. GLOBEC field years.
• To provide other Phase IV investigators a description and understanding of the basic physical processes.
2. Zooplankton Population Dynamics on Georges Bank: Model and Data Synthesis
Goal:
• To gain insights into the effects of advection, temperature, food, and predation on population dynamics of target zooplankton species as it relates to climate change.
Objectives:
I. The role of advection
• Advective supply of Calanus finmarchicus and Pseudocalanus spp. copepodites to GB during January-April and the role of winds
• Advective supply and loss of Calanus finmarchicus to GOM basin diapausing populations during June-January
• Role of advection for copepod populations on GB
II. Population dynamics of zooplankton on GB and the GOM Stratification and
variability in food supply: the role of food limitation.
• Mortality and invertebrate predation.
Summary:
• Food-web model: timing, spatial extent, and duration of the spring bloom on GB are highly dependent on stratification, circulation patterns, and location of source nutrients.
• Particle tracking model: diapausing Calanus are retained in GOM basins over 6 month period.
• Calanus more abundant during U. S. GLOBEC than MARMAP.
• Is production on Georges Bank controlled by bottom-up or top-down processes?
Summary:
• For the last three stanzas, fish food requirements balanced inputs from the lower web based on the U. S. GLOBEC years 1995-1999.
• However, for the first stanza (1964-1972), fish requirements were significantly less than the inputs based on the U. S. GLOBEC years.
• The first stanza had cold Labrador Current with lower NO3 levels at the shelf edge, suggesting bottom-up physical forcing may determine overall fish yields.
• Detailed quantitative knowledge of the lower food web is essential, since variations in nutrient supply affects productivity at all levels, i.e., bottom-up control.
Goal:
• To understand the processes within the tidal mixing front that sustain the biological productivity of Georges Bank and the success of the target species, cod and haddock.
Objectives:
• To use FVCOM to measure the temporal and spatial structure of nutrient flux into the TMF, contrasting northern and southern flank inputs.
• To develop food-web and larval fish models to assess impacts on biology.
Assumptions:
• Nutrient source is from across the northern flank: climate influence.
• Most is taken up by phytoplankton in the front and around the periphery.
• Primary production patterns are thus distinct and predictable.
• What controls inter-annual variability in the abundance of the target species on Georges Bank, and how are these processes likely to be influenced by climate variability?
Cabell went on to discuss the Georges Bank U. S. GLOBEC 4B Synthesis Projects which are:
• To understand the underlying biological-physical mechanisms controlling the development of spatial patterns of dominant copepod species in the GB/GOM (days to years).
• To examine how local-dynamics and external forcing control the abundance of these species in the GB/GOM.
• To determine the relative importance of food, predation, and advection in controlling abundance of each species.
• To use FVCOM together with U. S. GLOBEC and other data sets, to conduct targeted numerical experiments.
Hypotheses:
• Strong and early influx of low salinity Scotian Shelf water to GOM leads to an early phytoplankton boom with increased zooplankton abundance downstream to Georges Bank resulting in increased larval cod/haddock growth.
• Advection of warm, zooplankton-rich Atlantic water from the Norwegian Sea onto the shelves (Barents Sea) results in increased larval cod growth and survival.
Methods:
• Model basin-scale circulation fields with increased resolution within the regional domains of the two ecosystems.
• Individual-based models of larval and early juvenile fish to be embedded in the regional circulation models.
• Prey fields from Davis et al. concentration-based model for the GB/GOM.
• Hybrid (full life-cycle) recruitment models that build on results and understanding gained from the detailed process studies and biophysical models.
Effects of climate variability on Calanus dormancy patterns and population
dynamics in the Northwest Atlantic
Objectives:
• To identify environmental conditions that control onset and duration of dormancy.
• To evaluate how year-to-year and longer term variability in environmental conditions interact with dormancy-control mechanisms to control the life cycle and subsequent population dynamics of Calanus.
Methods:
• Compare existing data from different regions (GB/GOM, SS, GSL) on dormancy response and associated environmental conditions.
• Develop and use individual-based model (IBM) simulations of Calanus dormancy as a function of environmental conditions.
• Remote forcing of ecosystem processes in the SS/GOM/GB region is mediated not only by the Coupled Slope Water System but also through the enhanced transport of lower salinity shelf waters derived from upstream sources, including the Labrador Sea.
• Remote forcing from the Labrador Sea impacts ecosystem processes not only in the SS/GOM/GB region, but also in the Middle Atlantic Bight.
Approach:
• A working group composed of climate scientists, oceanographers, and fisheries scientists from the region will address these hypotheses by conducting retrospective analyses of climate, remote-sensing, physical oceanographic, biological oceanographic, and fisheries time-series data.
Goal:
• To develop a predictive understanding of climate impacts on marine ecosystems in the NW Atlantic that will enable us to provide operational input to regional resource managers. By focusing on physical and biological processes with strong links to climate and significant time lags, we anticipate being able to construct models that can forecast such changes with lead times ranging from a few months to as long as two years.
• To probe the connections between Calanus finmarchicus distributions and physical oceanographic properties, climate variability, and basin-scale circulation changes that are likely to affect the copepod’s transport onto Georges Bank.
Approach:
• Set up and run an individual based model (IBM) for the Northwest Atlantic, using the high-NAO and low-NAO forced physical fields.
• Perform basin-scale simulations during 1988-1999 with the IBM to study interannual variability of C. finmarchicus seeding and production.
• Analyze long-term in-situ physical and biological datasets and SST to validate the model fields.
Tasks:
• Basin-scale physical modeling.
• Satellite SST field, hydrographic analysis.
• Calanus data analysis.
• Calanus IBM modeling.
It was noted that there are commonalities in hypotheses throughout the 4B Projects which have a start date of June 1, 2006. It was also mentioned that integration does not have to be integration of the projects themselves, but of what is learned collectively.
Cabell also noted that the NWA/GB executive committee holds monthly meetings and is comprised of two people from each funded project. Serving on the present executive committee are Davis, Beardsley, Bisagni, Buckley, Gangopadhyay, Mountain, Lough, Runge, Leising, and Pershing. There is a DSR volume due out this year containing 20 high quality papers. There will be a Phase 4B PI meeting on October 2-3, 2006 at Woods Hole.
The legacy the NWA/GB Program wants to leave is the U. S. GLOBEC approach of studying species, their environment and what controls this environment. This will be done through the U. S. GLOBEC data sets, models and model data, and publications such as papers, and a synthesis book. Students and postdoc could learn from U. S. GLOBEC. Applications of U. S. GLOBEC NWA/GB results could be applied to problems. The U. S. GLOBEC program could also transition to new programs such as BASIN, IMBER, ORION, ECOFORE, and PanGLOBEC.
Northeast Pacific Program (NEP)
Nick Bond, the chairperson of the NEP presented the program report for NEP. An NEP Scientific Investigator Meeting was held January 10 -12, 2006 in Seattle, WA. The three objectives of this meeting were to: 1) provide progress reports on existing synthesis projects, including information on online availability of data; 2) discuss future synthesis steps; and 3) provide guidance on future CGOA gap-filling RFP.
He also reviewed the core hypotheses which are: 1) that production regimes in the coastal Gulf of Alaska and California Current Systems co-vary, and are coupled through atmospheric and ocean forcing; 2) that spatial and temporal variability in mesoscale circulation constitutes the dominant physical forcing on zooplankton biomass, production, distribution, species interactions and retention and loss in coastal regions;
and 3) that ocean survival of salmon is primarily determined by survival of the juveniles in coastal regions, and is affected by interannual and interdecadal changes in physical forcing and by changes in ecosystem food web dynamics.
The California Current System Synthesis Projects outlined in Nick’s presentation include:
CGOA Synthesis Projects include:
Nick showed two slides outlining NEP Synthesis. These were comprehensive schematics showing how physics and biology relates to the modeling using large-scale forcing, core modeling, mesoscale, ecosystem indicators, time series methods, top predators, salmon, and euphausiids/copepods.
Nick highlighted various aspects of the projects noted above. These projects were grouped together for both CCS and CGOA by themes for explanation purposes. The first two projects discussed were Large-scale Influences on Mesoscale Structure in the CCS, A Synthesis of Climate-forced Variability in Coastal Ecosystems and A synthesis of climate-forced variability on mesoscale structure in the CGOA with direct comparisons to the CCS. Similar projects goals for these include the ability to characterize and compare the relationship between basin-scale climate processes and mesoscale physical-ecosystem processes in CCS and CGOA. Another goal is to identify mechanisms by which basin-scale climate variability cascades down to local ecosystem scales. Differing CGOA & CCS ecosystem responses to similar climate signals will be contrasted. Indicators representing ecological influences of climate forcing will be developed. Also data bases and servers will be developed and operated.
The next project mentioned was Changing Ocean Conditions in the Northern California Current. The project objectives are 1) to relate changing in situ physical and chemical ocean conditions during 1997 to 2003 to primary production; 2) to investigate whether interannual variability of physical and chemical ocean conditions and primary production is similar north and south of Cape Blanco; 3) to determine whether 97-03 seasonal averages and interannual variability of ocean conditions differ from 61-71; and 4) to relate present indices of ocean conditions to local in situ measures of the currents, water masses, nutrients, etc., and search for improved indices and measures.
The Bottom-up Control of Lower-trophic Variability: A Synthesis of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Ecosystem Observations project will address atmospheric forcing, local properties versus climate indices, along-shore transport, cross-shelf exchange and mixing, nutrient budgets and new production. Also addressed will be mechanisms controlling zooplankton. Several slides containing charts and anomalies highlighted this effort.
Nick then spoke about the Modeling the effects of spatial-temporal environmental variability on stage-specific growth and survival of pink salmon in the coastal Gulf of Alaska project. A slide explaining ocean growth and size-selective mortality noted that the fish scales can be used to estimate growth history. In Prince William Sound pink salmon survivors grow faster than the “average” juveniles during first summer ocean growth. The timing and magnitude of divergent growth between average and surviving
juveniles vary among years and the size-at-age was higher for higher survival years.
The next project discussed was Synthesis of Euphausiid Population Dynamics, Production, Retention and Loss under Variable Climatic Conditions. Euphausiids are studied because they are consumable and their numbers and rates are highly variable in time and space. Therefore, variations in euphausiid abundance may explain variations in species dependent upon them (e.g., salmon, hake, herring, and marine birds.) Euphausiids are now incorporated into the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan. There is a need to collect data on an on-going basis on rates and biomass to properly manage them. Indices will be developed that will track interannual variations in euphausiid biomass and productivity. Management deliverables from this project will include continued long-term time series. Indices based on biological variables, measured on cruises, at the same times-places as the stocks being managed is another outcome as is indices that predict returns of coho salmon one year in advance. They work because survival is set during the first summer at sea. This is supported chiefly by the FATE program (Fisheries and the Environment). Indices based on euphausiids, probably using easily measured variables will also be a management deliverable.
Nick then spoke about the goals of the Effects of climate variability on Calanus dormancy patterns and population dynamics within the California Current project which are to determine the most likely factors (biological and physical) that control the dormancy response of Calanus pacificus and Calanus marshalla. These two copepod species often dominate the biomass of macrozooplankton, and are warm/cold indicators. Surprisingly, dormancy triggers remain unknown. The second goal is to use this information to more accurately model the population response and sensitivity of these species to climate change. An additional goal is to produce a coast-wide index of relative population abundance and production of these two species.
Another salmon project Habitat effects on feeding, condition, growth and survival of juvenile pink salmon in the northern Gulf of Alaska directly addresses NE Pacifica GLOBEC– Core Hypotheses III. The ocean survival of salmon is primarily determined by survival of the juveniles in coastal regions, and is affected by interannual and interdecadal changes in physical forcing and by changes in ecosystem food web dynamics. This project not only looks at the work that was sponsored by U. S. GLOBEC, but also the on-going monitoring that was done by other organizations.
The Juvenile Salmon Habitat Utilization in the Northern California Current – Synthesis and Prediction project’s principle hypotheses and objectives states that the habitat for juvenile salmon can be characterized by a suite of physical and biological variables including temperature, salinity, stratification, prey and predator distribution and abundance. Fine-scale habitat characteristics can be related to meso- and regional-scale ocean features that can be used to construct a ‘salmon ocean habitat index’ to provide near-term prediction of salmon success.
Environmental influences on growth and survival of Southeast Alaska coho salmon in contrast with other Northeast Pacific Regions project focuses on coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, which does covary in the CGOA and CCS. This is compared on regional (100s of km) to basin scales. The three hypotheses are: 1) Alaska coho salmon survival depends positively on conditions favoring biological productivity; 2) Alaska coho salmon survival depends on variability in mortality rate due to varying predator buffering by other salmon species; 3) Survival of coho salmon is determined by availability and spatial arrangement of high quality habitat during early ocean life.
Coupled Physical-Biological Dynamics in the Northern CCS: A Mesoscale Synthesis of Seasonal and Interannual Mesoscale Variability was the last project Nick spoke about. The two primary objectives of this project are to determine the contribution of variability in mesoscale physical forcing and ocean dynamics to the variability in ecosystem dynamics, as expressed by phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance, spatial pattern, size distribution and indices of production. Also, to extend this mesoscale understanding across a larger spatial domain and across longer time scales through the use of coupled models, satellite remote sensing observations, and collaboration with other U. S. GLOBEC synthesis teams. These overall objectives will be addressed through a set of linked, interdisciplinary analyses of spatial pattern, ecosystem function, and mesoscale-to-regional linkages.
Nick went on to speak about the two U. S. GLOBEC NEP Core Modeling Projects. The first is the Effects of Meso- and Basin-Scale Variability on Zooplankton Populations in the CCS using Data-Assimilative, Physical-Ecosystem Models. The hypothesis of this project is to determine how the gyres covary, and if this affects biology. The following selected research components were highlighted:
• Physical modeling and Dual Approach (HF radar) for the coastal CCS (focus on 2000 and 2002).
• Comparison of NCOM model to U. S. GLOBEC CCS data (nesting evaluation).
• 4DVAR Dual Approach using IROMS.
• 40+ year runs of NPac and NEP domains; shorter runs of CGOA and CCS grids.
• Use CCSM (Community Climate System Model) forcing to downscale climate projections to regional domains.
• NEP-wide ecosystem model (needed by many other projects).
• Model/Data comparisons.
• Sensitivity Studies.
The other modeling project is Synthesis of biophysical observations at multiple trophic levels using spatially nested, data-assimilating models of the coastal Gulf of Alaska.
The next topic addressed concerned the CGOA gap-filling opportunity. A call for additional proposals for U. S. GLOBEC Synthesis from the U. S. GLOBEC Science Steering Committee has a target date of July 1, 2006. The scope of these proposals is to integrate estimates of in situ zooplankton abundances, their condition, and reproductive rates in the CGOA. They must be integrated with models and make connections to juvenile salmon and focus on the zooplankton community structure and composition.
There was then some discussion as to the timing of the next NEP SI meeting. Should it be rolled into the Pan-regional Meeting or be a stand alone meeting in Seattle in January.
The pros and cons of each option were discussed. A final decision was not made.
Nick note the symposium on Climate variability and ecosystem impacts on the North Pacific: A basin-scale synthesis was held from April 19-21, 2006 in Honolulu. It was well attended by PICES, GLOBEC International, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center-NOAA, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, North Pacific Research Board, Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council, Pelagic Fisheries Research Program, Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, U.S. GLOBEC, and the Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute Communities.
Southern Ocean
Eileen Hoffman, Chairperson of the U. S. Southern Ocean Program, gave an update on the program’s developments and activities. A conceptual diagram developed by the Southern Ocean Program was reviewed. The diagram lists top predators including microbes, whales, plankton, seals, krill, fish, penguins, and seabirds. These top predators are very important to the program and are a well-developed part of the Southern Ocean program. The primary target organism is Antarctic krill which provides food for most of these top predators. There are a large number of food web interactions that are viewed as being important. There is also a large sea ice circulation / physical oceanography component. Studies were done on nutrients and food availability, behavior and aggregation and population characteristics of the target species of krill and also penguins, seabird and whales.
Synthesis and modeling integration proposals were due in February 2005 and the decision regarding funding recommendations was made in fall 2005. Recommendations included projects focusing on hydrography and circulation, Antarctic top predator studies, Adelie penguin data analyses/modeling, and predator data analyses/modeling. Continued funded is available for the Planning Office, and sea ice and sea ice algae studies. Overlaying the funded projects onto the conceptual diagram shows that physical oceanography, sea ice work, top predator studies with whales, seals, penguins and seabirds, and some work on behavior and aggregation have been funded. No Antarctic krill projects were funded as of fall 2005. OPP has since come forward with additional funds to get the samples analyzed that will allow for the calibration of the acoustic data from the biomapper. This will provide distributional information on where krill and other organisms are distributed. This does not allow for krill energetics which will make it difficult to do the food interactions. Additional proposals will have to be written and submitted to the Polar Program’s annual call to obtain funding to fill in the Antarctic krill gaps.
Eileen expressed concern that although Antarctic krill is the target organism for SO GLOBEC no studies that focus explicitly on analyses, synthesis or integration of the many krill data sets collected during the SO GLOBEC program were funded. This compromises synthesis efforts and limits the ability of the U.S. program to participate in synthesis activities at the international level.
Eileen noted that the German Southern Ocean Program has a field program in the Lazarev Sea which will provide year round coverage. An Austral summer cruise took place during December 2005 and into January 2006. There was also an Austral winter cruise from June 2006 to August 2006. There will be an Austral spring cruise as well. These cruises focus on krill distribution, physiology, population dynamics, and overwintering strategies. The German program has participants from eleven countries making it a very international program. There will be an additional cruise in December 2007 through January 2008 along the Greenwich Meridian from South Africa to Antarctica. This is part of German IPY activities. Krill life cycles and the deep-sea benthos will be studied. It will have a strong physical oceanography component. A web site is under development.
A second Southern Ocean U. S. GLOBEC DSR II Volume will be published. Recent funding decisions have resulted in changes in manuscript submissions. Therefore, due dates for manuscripts will now be in the August to September timeframe. Twelve manuscripts have been received thus far with at least ten to twelve more expected.
Eileen then reviewed the meetings that were held since the last SSC Meeting as well as upcoming meetings. There was an Ocean Sciences Meeting in February 2006 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Three oral and one poster sessions were devoted to U. S. GLOBEC science. The SCAR Open Science Meeting will be held in July 2006 in Hobart, Tasmania. This meeting will have a German Southern Ocean GLOBEC program focus. There will be a special session on Circum-Antarctic studies convened by Murphy & Hofmann.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) Southern Ocean GLOBEC Workshop was held at the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography (CCPO), Norfolk, VA, in November 2005. There were about 15 participants from U.S., Brazil, and Australia. About half of the participants were students and postdocs. The workshop focused on cetacean biology, physical oceanography, sea ice processes, prey field distribution and abundance, and acoustic sampling of cetaceans. The objective of this workshop was to identify needs for the next generation of surveys and field work in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters. Sampling plans and strategies for cetacean research that can be incorporated into the next generation of Southern Ocean surveys and field work will be developed. Products coming out of the workshop are a concept paper on the future of cetacean-ecosystem studies in the Southern Ocean. This paper has been outlined and is being developed for MEPS. There was also the development of a time table for modeling efforts and needed data analyses. Some of the modeling and data analyses have started. An article describing the workshop was prepared for the International U. S. GLOBEC newsletter and a shorter article about the workshop was published in the winter 2006 issue of the CCPO newsletter.
Eileen then spoke about the Integrated Analysis of Circumpolar Climate Interactions and Ecosystem Dynamics in the Southern Ocean (ICED). This program is a joint initiative between SCOR, IMBER and International GLOBEC. There was a workshop held from May 24 - 26, 2006 at the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England. There were about 30 meeting participants which was international in scope. It was funded by SCOR, SCAR, and EUR-OCEANS. The main objective was to put together a science plan for ICED and to coordinate upcoming SO programs.
ICED Objectives are: 1) to implement a circumpolar, interdisciplinary approach to understand climate interactions in the SO and implications for ecosystem function and feedbacks to biogeochemical cycles; 2) to implement circumpolar instrumentation and field studies; 3) to extend and further develop circulation, ecosystem, and biogeochemical models; and 4) to stimulate capacity building. The challenge is to combine the ecosystem and biogeochemical communities.
ICED is being put forth through International GLOBEC and IMBER. It will be a follow-on from SO GLOBEC through International GLOBEC and as International GLOBEC comes to an end in 2009 the program will transition one hundred percent into IMBER under the IGP umbrella.
Eileen then showed several slides which look at the circumpolar distributions. The change in the winter sea ice distribution was noted. Winter sea ice is being reduced and is modifying the ecosystem in the Antarctic Peninsula area. This is important because the krill biomass is decreasing in this area especially along the western Antarctic Peninsula. Changes can be seen in top predicator populations. Adelie penguin colonies are starting to become extinct because they are not able to get their food resources.
Also shown was a circumpolar distribution of catch locations constructed from IWC data.
There has been a noticeable difference in the catch data for blue whales and humpback whales. Another slide showed the Circumpolar Modeling of the Lagrangian transport over three transport years. This slide shows krill are found and reproduce in every part of the Antarctic. Satellite-derived chlorophyll distributions show the distribution of phytoplankton. A modeled circumpolar distribution of semi-labile DOC slide was also shown. Eileen noted that it is often hard to explain the patterns. That is why the biogeochemistry community is now looking to the ecosystems community to put some causal mechanisms behind these patterns that are being generated with models.
ICED was proposed as part of the IPY program. It was accepted as lead project. It will coordinate nine projects with ecosystem and biogeochemical science objectives and will attempt to focus the science in these programs on large-scale circumpolar questions.
Eileen spoke briefly about what took place at the workshop, including the science themes, data synthesis and availability, and modeling. In the short term, ICED would like to coordinate existing field activities to have a focus on ICED science themes. IPY provides input to the Census of Marine Life and CASO transects that will include biological and physical measurements. There will also be an upgrading of existing monitoring sites (CEMP sites.) In the long term, there will be a look at comparative studies between regions of the Southern Ocean including the Ross Sea, East Antarctica, and West Antarctic Peninsula. The focus will be on the WAP that extends east and west, strongest climate change signal, west upstream effects and east downstream results. A targeted program for the Amundsen-Bellingshausen Seas region may be looked into since this area is essentially unstudied. Circumpolar monitoring arrays, passive acoustics array for cetaceans, and cabled observatories will be developed, and drifter programs with inclusion of biological sensors will be enhanced.
A workshop report is now being finalized. This report will be developed into a science plan that was discussed with International U. S. GLOBEC and IMBER Executive Committees in late October 2005. A formal request to be a program of International GLOBEC and IMBER was made. A steering group will be appointed. A program web site is hosted at BAS. The development of key review papers on conceptual food webs/cetacean distributions will be ongoing. There will be an ICED session at the SCAR Open Science Meeting in 2006. There will also be an ICED presentation at the IMBER SSC meeting in May of 2006. There will be an additional meeting of the Ad Hoc steering group in Hobart during the SCAR, OSM. A modeling workshop to be held in late 2007 is now in the development stages. The funding sources for this workshop still need to be identified.
Science Talk
John Quinlan, Rutgers University gave a Science Talk entitled Circulation Model-Derived Connectivity Matrices Analyzing the Dynamics of Spatially-Structured Marine Populations. Dale noted that John’s work is bridging the gap between numerical modeling and interpretations which help management. John’s background is in circulation modeling and has been building in biological models as well. The idea is that the spatial structure of populations can be addressed with circulation models. The space part of the equation is there and can be used by people with a biological background.
The development of connectivity matrices are the result of a connectivity and marine populations workshop that was held by NSF. There has been a whole series of papers that have come from this workshop. This workshop helped to crystallize people’s ideas of how systems might work. John then posed that the SSC think of their favorite animals in these systems and how they relate to the following questions. For example cod and scallops. How is the life history structured and how is this life history interactive with the physics in the system?
• How are living marine resources currently managed?
• Is spatial structure a factor in population dynamics?
• How is spatial structure maintained in the population?
• What is the degree of linkage from one subpopulation to another? (think networks)
• Does the management/harvest of the organism alter its spatial structure or
the ‘communication patterns’ in the network?
• Can intra- and interannual variability modulate connections in the network?
• Does it work differently for organisms with life histories as varied as those of shellfish and cod?
• Does spatial structure have implications for population resilience?
Key to all the above is dispersal. John showed several slides of recruitment in estuaries in the South Atlantic Bight. In this system there are circulations patterns that interact with life history. There is then spawning areas that change as you go through a season. John then asked if “connectance” matrices are an answer. Tools exist for analysis of transition matrices. Rumor and disease transmission, air pollution, ecosystems, and even communications networks have all been modeled using these techniques. The NSA domestic spying program is probably using these techniques to identify groups of connected people.
The analysis of the matrix is informative and approachable for even the slightly quantitative biologist. A complex circulation modeling effort can be reduced to yield good general information that one could easily use during a stock assessment review. It’s flexible and people generally understand it.
John then focused his talk on scallops along the Atlantic coast. A slide was shown highlighting a giant scallop that developed over time in a closed area versus a much smaller scallop that developed in an open area. Larger animals and better reproduction are the results of a closed area. Closing areas can be used as a management tool specifically for rotational harvesting strategies. An area can be closed down to let the animals grow up to a certain size. Then you could look for recruit sources, spawning patterns then fish it and close it down again. A whole network of these areas can be set up. One question that arises is what about the circulation patterns of the system. If you have animals that are not swimming there is an upstream problem. Where are the recruits going to come from, how is that system going to work, and are there areas in the system that are good source locations for others areas? These are just some of the questions asked when you are managing an area.
John is working on building a coupled behavior circulation model using Quoddy (a finite element model). This model includes NCEP reanalysis winds, M2 tides, inflow, radiation, bimonthly hydrography, two week ‘spawning’ period across a rectilinear grid, larval behavioral model (diel migrations), and dispersal and site settlement algorithms. He then showed a dispersal kernel generation slide and gave the following explanation. In a big domain there are scallops living in one area in a ban. The spawning changes and growth rates in the area is a biological mess. They are trying to develop way to look at this. It is known that if you have an animal in this location that is spawning over a two week period of time it will put particles up in the water column that are going to be experiencing different trajectories. This information will help to build robust transition matrices that can be used. At each of the stations a drogue tracking scheme is being released over a two week period. They will be picking up a tally of how many particles they will see.
John then went on to speak about building a transition matrix. One slide showed how to build from a location map. Transition matrix can be used as a time series or as an average. Each entry represents the proportion of larva exchanged from one site to another during one spawning season. It can be used as a basis for a population dynamics model and it can be analyzed to examine time length scales. John spoke about mapping back into geographic space. On the diagonal it is self seeding. Off diagonals are source-sink combinations. Everything can be mapped back to the spatial coordinates after the analyses. How long can we expect a big year class to influence the population?
A big recruitment event can be viewed as a baby-boom. When that group is reproductive, you get a boom-let. Protecting large year classes is a common management strategy. So, how long can we depend on ‘boomlets’ for management purposes?
John then noted that some areas are better connected than others. There are different pathways that the animals can move through the system. Strong components are those regions where it is possible to get from one node to any other node. A simple analysis involving powers of the matrix helps you identify which nodes belong to which groups.
There is a nagging upstream problem in organisms that never learned to swim very well and hence do not have the ability to return home. In this case how do range expansions occur and how do populations persist? What does this mean for gene flow in the system?
He then showed persistence and dispersal in releasing two pulses and examining the dynamics for generations 1 through 10.
John concluded that the continental shelf can be divided up into regions wherein population dynamics might be determined somewhat locally. Persistent regions may be key to system stability. Analyses of paths and path lengths may allow predictive management. The discrete math techniques are well worked out and in development making this a viable tool for rapidly bringing modeling insights into stock assessments and planning for reserves, protected areas, rotational closures.
Finalization of the Synthesis Plan
Mike Fogarty addressed the finalization of the synthesis plan in his talk entitled Strategies for Pan-Regional Synthesis in U.S. GLOBEC. Mike stated that comments received after the last SSC meeting regarding the synthesis plan have been incorporated into this new version. There has also been some restructuring and changes in emphasis, streamlining in parts and augmentation in other parts. All members of the SSC have been given a copy of the updated document.
The goals for U. S. GLOBEC Synthesis listed below were restated:
• Undertake regional and pan-regional synthesis and comparisons among U. S. GLOBEC study locations and international programs to extract the broader lessons of impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems.
• Integrate process-oriented, observational, and retrospective studies through conceptual and mathematical models.
• Bridge the nested spatial temporal scales of these U. S. GLOBEC program elements through modeling to understand climates-scale impacts.
• Develop tools needed to predict the responses of populations and ecosystems to climate change and climate variability.
• Contribute to management of living marine resources in an ecosystem context.
Mike questioned how U. S. GLOBEC should sell pan-regional activity in terms of its importance for the development of products for management purposes and for regional programs and activities which map closely to the needs for regional management. The importance of pan regional synthesis cannot be stressed enough. In each of the sample study areas we essentially have a sample size of one. Furthermore, these are very dynamic systems and only certain elements of the systems have been studied. Therefore, it is important to see if U. S. GLOBEC has the story right. We can construct from any of the regional studies explanations for the patterns that are seen. Modeling is being used as the principle synthetic tool. There are some important parts of the story that were not studied and it is possible to come to the wrong conclusions. Synthesis should show what is common in the areas studied.
A separate document will address ecosystem-based approaches to management. Steve Murawski is developing a white paper regarding this issue. There are important issues that were raised relative to the emphasis placed on ecosystem-based management and the need to establish pathways through the synthetic activities.
Mike reviewed the current structure of the document and pointed out the changes that were made. The introduction has been streamlined. It lays out the rational of how we approach each of the regional studies. The major part of the document describes where U. S. GLOBEC is in terms of the models as synthetic tools. U. S. GLOBEC is in the process of expanding to basin scale consideration in the modeling and convergence in terms of the applications of hydrodynamic models like ROMS in each of the areas. There are applications in all of the areas with physical, coupled and biological. The current draft addresses the issue of where U. S. GLOBEC is headed. A reader can pick up this document and know what U. S. GLOBEC accomplished in terms of modeling activities in the past and where we need to go from a more regional orientation to the broader spectrum. Anytime U. S. GLOBEC talks about modeling they are really talking about pan-regional synthesis which is a conceptual part of the program since its inception. Also included are sections on data assimilation and model skill evaluation. There will be workshops dealing with some of these issues.
Pan-regional synthesis deals with variables for comparison. It talks about the physical variables such as population dynamics characteristics, abundance and biomass measures and integrative measures (rate processes.) There is also an emphasis on the mean fields and their variability.
There is a set of tools described for analytical methods for comparative analysis including conceptual models, correlation and paired comparisons, time series analysis, multivariate pattern analysis and meta-analysis. There is a new section that compares model outputs in relationship to commonalities in the different areas. There are also comparisons with other national and international programs.
The order in the final section of the document has changed. Contributions to ecosystem-based management have moved forward in the document in order to bring to the attention of the reader how critical this is. Facilitating synthesis and schedule for workshops and symposia are included. Data Access and Management is critical in letting the user know how they can actually access the information and understand its basic structure. Much effort was devoted to standardizing the data structure. There is also a series of appendices including U. S. GLOBEC instrumentation, direct measurements, derived measurement, and summaries of U. S. GLOBEC funded projects.
Each of the regional programs has aspects of broad-scale, meso-scale observations, retrospective analysis, and process studies. Where applicable the meso-scale observations and the process studies have facilitated technological innovations.
Modeling is the principle tool used in pulling all the pieces together to use for synthesis and prediction.
Mike then reviewed a list of models that was compiled by using a very broad definition of models in U. S. GLOBEC synthesis. These include conceptual, mathematical, numerical, statistical, qualitative comparisons, and verified data products.
In order to move towards the pan-regional synthesis the regional program activities must be solidified. Steps in regional U. S. GLOBEC synthesis include mapping regional U. S. GLOBEC projects onto modeling needs for data assimilation, parameter estimation and model validation. There has been the development of intermediate-level synthesis of data products. There is concern regarding gaps in the program and the steps that need to be taken to fill these gaps. There can be additional calls for proposals, or the information can be gathered from other programs. There has also been the development of models for the effects of climate forcing on the dynamics of target species and ecosystem characteristics within each region.
The biological models used focused upon studies in certain parts of the system. A diagram was shown that captured this. There is a higher level of modeling resolution for certain fish species and zooplankton. Population dynamics is the focus of the U. S. GLOBEC work. A slide showing the representation of pulling all the pieces together from data products and how they feed into and aid in the development of different models was highlighted. It’s important to note the need to integrate the physical models with climate forcing.
Building blocks for pan-regional synthesis will use the regional U. S. GLOBEC Program synthesis. Contrasts by taxa and physical processes or structure among U. S. GLOBEC Regional Programs will be done and comparisons with other national and international programs will be made.
He then showed a list of models that are presently being used in each region. Physical models include Quoddy, FVCOM and ROMS. Biological models include NPZ, IBM 1, 2, 3, and 4, Network Model, Multispecies, Metapop, Size Spectrum and Bioenergetic. There are commonalities among the regions with the models that they are using. In terms of the comparisons that will be made there are also commonalities with the taxa and physical process for each region.
Mike stated that in order to facilitate synthesis there should be an adoption of annual calls for synthesis proposals, and annual data synthesis and model workshops. During these workshops, data collections will be mapped into modeling needs and teams of modelers and field researchers will be assembled. There will also be Special Sessions at National and International Meetings and a U. S. GLOBEC Symposia. There will also be U. S. GLOBEC synthesis projects including special journal issues devoted to U. S. GLOBEC books devoted to U. S. GLOBEC synthesis by region and the program as a whole and management advice for ecosystem approaches to management.
Mike then briefly reviewed the revised timeline that was given to the SSC.
The last issue addressed was the importance of the White Paper on Ecosystem-Based Management in translating what was learned into advice for Fishery Management Councils and advice to Ecosystem Management Councils.
As a sidebar to this discussion a copy of a general metrics for strategic thinking was handed out to the SSC by Eileen Hoffman. Eileen then led a discussion on the importance of using a metric to see if the program has met its goals. Metrics are used to see if goals were met, what the goals are and how these goals can be applied.
The five metrics reviewed were: 1) Process metrics - measure a course of action taken to achieve a goal. 2) Input metrics – measure tangible quantities put into a process to achieve a goal. 3) Output metrics – measure the products and services delivered. 4) Outcome metrics – measure results that stem from use of the outputs and influence stakeholders outside the program. 5) Impact metrics – measure the long-term societal, economic, or environmental consequences of an outcome.
The U. S. GLOBEC program is well into the process and input metrics. The outcome and impact metrics will be how the program will be measured. The impact metrics could be part of the U. S. GLOBEC legacy. In the future this metrics may be applied to all funded programs.
The suggestion was made that perhaps the impact metrics be added to the synthesis plan. It was also suggested that the “U. S. GLOBEC Method” be used as a guide for future PI’s to see what U. S. GLOBEC learned so they can do it even better. U. S. GLOBEC may already be an example of how to do an ecosystem-based program.
Dale questioned if the need for pan-regional synthesis has been sufficiently articulated in the current draft of the report. It was noted that collating of information is different then synthesis. The research committee needs to give an end product to management.
Additional topics to be added to the synthesis plan should be submitted to Mike within the next two weeks. The report should be finalized as soon as possible so it can be viewed as a living document. It should be in its final form before the synthesis workshop. Therefore, Dale stressed a June 7th due date for submission of additional comments. A pan-regional synthesis tab will be added to the website. The synthesis plan will be displayed here as well as information for the pan-regional meeting.
U. S. GLOBEC Synthesis Projects/Meetings
The NCAR Connection
Enrique Curchitser gave a brief update of the progress that has been made thus far with NCAR since the last SSC Meeting. Regional physical and ecosystem dynamics have been correlated with large-scale phenomena such as ENSO, PDO, and regime shifts. There needs to be a global context in order to explore this. The climate people are wondering if mesoscale, shelf and boundary (sub-grid for climate models) dynamics may play significant roles in the global climate system models. Now is the time for the ocean modeling community and the climate community to start collaborating.
Enrique showed climate models biases and NEP set-up slides. He showed results of a ten kilometer run using boundary conditions for a global one degree model. He noted that it gets very expensive to run models from the smallest to largest domains. He reviewed a plan to come up with a set of simulations that can start this collaboration. This ambitious plan includes a set of simulations of both hindcasts and climate scenarios.
Slides using forty years of simulations were shown. These simulations showed how to nest domains within each other. He then showed a 5-day comparison of sea surface temperatures run in the ROMS versus POP. The ROMS models were able to convince the climate community that the models they are using are not accurate enough. ROMS is able to produce locally improved oceanic responses.
During this summer work will continue with the current set of simulations driven by CCSM. These include the Northeast Pacific from 1958 to the present, NEP test with NPac boundary condition and CCS for the target years of 2000-2004. ROMS is going to become the regional ocean model in CCSM. Incorporating ROMS into the CCSM framework will begin this summer. The plan is to start by reproducing one of the existing simulations which is not easy because of boundary conditions. The next step is to attempt at a two-way coupled simulation.
Skill Assessment Workshop
Enrique Curchitser then spoke on behalf of Dennis McGillicuddy regarding the upcoming Skill Assessment for Coupled Biological/Physical Models of Marine Systems Workshop that will be held in July 2006 at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The goal of this workshop is to assess a state-of-the-art quantitative evaluation of a coupled bio-physical model with the goal of supporting ecosystem-based management. This workshop will produce a special volume in a refereed journal, a report to NOAA management, and the development of an implementation plan for model inter-comparison and evaluation.
Invitations were sent out in February to about forty scientists. A list of scientists that will attend was shown. A series of working groups including carbon cycling, harmful algal blooms and ecosystem dynamics, and fisheries and estuarine/coastal water quality were decided upon. These will also be further expertise in data assimilation and operational modeling.
The timeline includes an Authors Workshop in July of 2006 at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Manuscript submissions will be due in December 2006. The reviews will be completed in March 2007. An additional Authors Workshop will be held in the Spring of 2007. A final volume from this workshop should be in print by December 2007.
Beth Turner noted that one of the reasons that her office at NOAA is funding this workshop is to get a handle on the coupled model and the advice that can be given to management based on these models. NOAA is looking for more than just a special volume from this exercise. The resulting report should have a synthesis flavor. More of a modeling comparison project should be attempted.
Dale commented that he and Enrique are charged with designing a model comparison for this project. Beth stated that it is important to identify the issue for which the model is being run.
Books
Jon Hare lead the discussion on U. S. GLOBEC books. He called upon the Regional Chairs, Cabell Davis, Nick Bond, and Eileen Hofmann to pull together their thoughts for regional books. Funding for books is a major concern.
Nick Bond mentioned that the NEP is in the beginning stages of addressing books. The NEP’s initial discussion regarding books was not extensive and will be readdressed with the PI’s. Eileen Hoffman noted that the Southern Ocean has not met yet and the publishing of any book is several years away. It was felt by SSC members that the book cannot be written without funding. Any book/books covering pan-regional synthesis will mostly likely be written after 2010.
Zack Powell has spoken to two private foundations who expressed interest in funding the publication of pan-regional books. The SSC has to decide not only on a way to get people to write these books, but also what types of books should be written and published. Regarding regional books, Jon Hare noted that it must be decided if it is better to have fewer authors from each region that are more connected or many authors that are less connected. It must also be made clear that the funding for the production of books will not be coming from the synthesis phase funding. Other funding must be obtained.
Some SSC members felt that the regional programs need to decide if the publication of a regional book is something they want to pursue. Once this commitment is made they should approach the agencies and private foundations for funding. A suggestion was made for the regional programs to submit a prospectus. The pan-regional meeting this fall is not too early to start thinking about books. It must be decided who the target audience will be. This will help to narrow the expected costs. Who should decide the target audience, the authors, SSC or regional chairs? Some SSC members thought all three should decide with the authors taking the lead. Other members thought the SSC should provide some guidance to the regional programs as to what types of books should be written. These books should be the primary legacy of U. S. GLOBEC.
Jon Hare will poll all SSC members to get their individual input. He will then draft a statement for the next SSC meeting categorizing the possibilities for regional books. His draft statement will include two different categories of books, one for the regional books and one for the pan-regional books since the pan-regional books are further away.
The SSC meeting adjourned at 5:15pm.
U. S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Meeting
Hotel Adagio
San Francisco, CA
24-25 May 2006
Thursday, 25 May 2006
Members in attendance were Dale Haidvogel, Chairperson (Rutgers), Nick Bond (NOAA), Jennifer Burns (UA Anchorage), Kendra Daly (USF), Cabell Davis (WHOI), Michael Fogarty (NOAA/NMFS), Jonathan Hare (NOAA), Eileen Hofmann (ODU), Pat Livingston (NMFS/NOAA), Arthur Miller (Scripps), David Mountain (NOAA/NMSF), Jeff Polovina (NOAA/NMFS), Thomas (Zack) Powell (UC Berkeley), Kenneth Rose (LSU), Suzanne Strom (WWU) ,
Guests in attendance included Enrique Curchitser (LDEO), Madeline Gazzale (Rutgers), Linda Lagle (Rutgers), Phil Taylor (NSF), Beth Turner (NOAA). Mary-Elena Carr (NSF), Roberta Marinelli (NSF).
Members not in attendance were Michael Alexander (NOAA-CIRES), Hal Batchelder (OSU), Dennis McGillicuddy (WHOI), Steven Murawski (NOAA/ NMSF), and Francisco Werner (UNC).
Dale Haidvogel, Chairperson of the SSC, called the meeting to order at 0900 hours. He reviewed the agenda and made several brief announcements. The Fall SSC Meeting will be held in Chicago during the week of October 23, 2006. The Executive Committee will meet on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 and the full SSC will meet October 25 and 26, 2006.
Strategies for Pan-Regional Synthesis
Ecosystem Management White Paper
Steve Murawski discussed the ecosystem management white paper in relationship to the draft implementation plan. There are several white papers in progress at this point. There is enough information to outline a number of important issues and specific projects not only in agencies like NOAA, but also other government agencies. There was an Ocean Research Priorities Plan that is being pushed by the joint subcommittee on ocean sciences. The feedback indicated the importance of ecosystem approaches. This needs to be pushed as part of the Ocean Priorities Plan. Steve will pull together some material to circulate through U. S. GLOBEC. This material should have specific examples of how U. S. GLOBEC can feed into areas of ecosystem management.
The geographical pushes to management line up well with U. S. GLOBEC regional programs. The monitoring and observing components also link well as does the physical oceanography with productivity. There is a great emphasis on climate and ecosystem impacts. There is a need for the next set of projects to emphasize the linkage between climate and outcome. This has always been a strong point in U. S. GLOBEC because of its focus of linking physical and environmental factors with productivities issues.
There needs to be a U. S. GLOBEC view of ecosystem approaches with a strong emphasis on regional systems, linking climate change and ecosystem outcomes. It is also important to incorporate physical hydrodynamic models that develop operational tools. There is a need to understand living marine resource management issues that stem from these tools. U. S. GLOBEC has been working on the understanding supporting all of this.
The SSC then asked Steve if there is any benefit in meeting with the leadership of the goal teams in particular the ecosystem and the climate teams. NOAA has settled on a larger global umbrella theme for the ecosystem goal for 2009 to 2013. This is the largest goal that NOAA has. The goal is to improve the resilience of the coastal ecosystems and communities. Within this there are three pieces. There is a big push on climate and ecosystems interaction. This would include issues such as coral bleaching and sea ice and the broader issue of oscillatory climate systems in the Pacific and the Atlantic which influence productivity. U. S. GLOBEC will be more successful in NOAA for funding for these projects if it can show interactions with the academic community and other agencies.
The second piece of the larger umbrella theme is regional approaches to science and management. NOAA is looking for integrated ecosystem assessments. This is different than just combining the data. U. S. GLOBEC is leading the way on this in looking at how time series are related and how one factor drives another. Ecosystem modeling is an extremely important aspect of this. How are the correlations used to drive a more fundamental understanding of how the interactions take place? It is known that in large ecosystems correlations break down quickly because the basic understanding of the underline basis of the interactions is not present.
The third piece is national security, economic security, ecosystem integrity, and food security. A call will be sent out for ideas to bring forth to NOAA management. Steve mentioned the NOAA ongoing lunchtime seminar series and offered to arrange a time for U. S. GLOBEC to speak to the NOAA ecosystem goal team.
The issue of where does the U. S. GLOBEC research actually fit in the larger NOAA context of things was addressed. NOAA will be looking at support for regional-based management approaches and interactions with other agencies. Management agencies will be looking at the science support of programs like U. S. GLOBEC’s regional based modeling and observing systems will serve these regional needs and will tie in with development of integrated ocean observing systems.
Dale then asked Steve to put together a draft white paper to which U. S. GLOBEC materials are added to get a complete draft of ecosystem management. Beth will work with Steve to develop a high profile lunch symposia focusing on the programmatic structure of the U. S. GLOBEC regional programs. It was then noted that there is an NSF initiative within ocean sciences of stepping up to a higher level of activities for fundamental sciences that is needed for the underpinning of management.
The SSC will send a reminder to Steve regarding his action items. The SSC then moved on to a discussion of the Lunchtime Seminar and the message that U. S. GLOBEC wants to emphasize. After much discussion of the target audience, timing, subject content, global or regional emphasis, and presenter for this seminar it was decided that it should be held this summer and should emphasis specific examples of the U. S. GLOBEC science that maps on to NOAA’s future interest.
First Pan-Regional Synthesis Workshop
Dale Haidvogel, Chair of the SSC, led the brainstorming session regarding the first pan-regional workshop. The workshop will take place at NCAR Center Green Facility from November 27, 2006 to December 1, 2006. There will be some travel funds available through the U. S. GLOBEC Office and possibly the regional offices for people to attend who would otherwise not be funded. The projected attendance at this workshop is approximately 100 national and international scientists. The workshop will last about 4.5 days starting on Monday afternoon and ending on Friday at noon. Time will be allotted at the beginning of the workshop for the regional programs to meet. The regional chairs would organize their sessions focusing on regional synthesis efforts and how they are going to feed into pan-regional efforts. While the regions should start thinking about books, it may be a little premature at this workshop.
A list of invitees including representatives of the NCAR and GFDL climate groups was compiled by the SSC. A list of speakers that would be invited to give plenary talks was formulated. There will be representation from the teleconnections, management, forecasting, zooplankton, and observing systems. Four to six ideas for these talks were agreed upon. Care will be taken in balancing the topics of the speakers. Dale will take this information and review it with the regional chairs to determine who will speak at these plenary sessions. Dale will present the reasons behind the workshop and its goals to all attendees. The attendees will be familiarized with the three regional programs.
The SSC then moved on to a discussion of how to organize the latter part of the workshop. There should be cross cutting themes. The goal of this workshop is to define pan-regional synthesis in the U. S. GLOBEC context. The workshop report should be the basis of the next AO. This draft AO should be formulated before the spring 2007 SSC meeting at which time the AO will be finalized. The announcement will be posted in the fall or early winter of 2007. Collaborations for proposals being submitted in early 2008 will be encouraged.
The SSC has to determine what groupings might be formed towards the latter part of the meeting. These affinity groups should be organized in such away that they can naturally respond to the AO when it comes out. The SSC has to address the issue of how to get the best proposals to get the best work for a good final end product. A U. S. GLOBEC program overview should be given for individuals new to the program.
Based on today’s SSC discussion and in the best interest of the outcome of the workshop, Dale raised the question of whether or not the affinity groups should be defined ahead of time. Or should there be plenary talks in each of the two pan-regional mornings where someone gives their thoughts on what pan-regional synthesis is or could be. The self regulation of groups in the afternoon could allow for the groups’ own definition of pan-regional synthesis based on the plenary discussion.
The SSC must anticipate important ways to energize pan-regional synthesis. There will probably be more than one synthesis product that will come out of this first pan-regional synthesis workshop.
The discussion ensued regarding the vision and format of the meeting. Dale will put together a 3 to 3-1/2 day schedule/agenda and will send it to the SSC for approval. This will indicate the revised vision of how the regional programs should be organized to fit into this workshop.
U.S. Office Activities
The Spring 2007 SSC Meeting will be held in Anchorage, Alaska tentatively during the week of May 21, 2007.
The SSC needs to talk up the first pan-regional workshop to gain outside interest. In addition to the draft agenda Dale will give thought to the title and additional ways to build workshop attendance. An ad will be placed in EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union, The Newspaper of the Earth and Space Sciences.
Action Items
• CGOA gap AO → JGOFS Dale Haidvogel
• Contact SSC members Dale Haidvogel
• GB ExCo: linking FVCOM → basin-scale Dale Haidvogel
• NEP ExCo: mesoscale analysis Zack Powell and Nick Bond
• PR tab on US U. S. GLOBEC website Dale Haidvogel
• Seminar @ NOAA Beth Turner, Steve Murawski,
Mike Fogarty and Dale Haidvogel
• Ecosystems management white paper Steve Murawski and SSC
• Implementation plan comments by June 7, 2006 SSC
• Style of books Jon Hare and Zack Powell
The SSC meeting adjourned at 1:15pm.