U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Minutes

Washington, DC --- 2-3 Jun 93

DAY ONE (2 June 1993)

Tom Powell welcomed the Scientific Steering Committee and recognized the new members of the steering committee. Present from the steering committee were: Powell (Chair), Costa, Dickey, Durbin, Gaines, Hedgecock, Hofmann, Hollowed, Hunter, Huntley, Mountain, Olson, Ortner, Robinson, P. Smith, Steele and Walstad. Steering committee members unable to attend were Briscoe, Eckman and S. Smith. Others present at the SSC meeting were Peterson (NOAA), Taylor (NSF), Swanberg (NSF), Eakin (NOAA), Duguay (NSF), Lambert (NSF), Anderson (NSF), M. Scott (NSF), Penhale (NSF), Dybas (NSF), Itsweire (NSF), Garrison (NSF), E. Gross (SCOR), Rothschild (GLOBEC.INT), Batchelder (U.S. GLOBEC SSC Office) and Lynch (U.S. GLOBEC SSC Office). The agenda was reviewed and modified to permit Brian Rothschild to speak about GLOBEC.INT activities at the end of Day 1. Powell pointed out that the two afternoon science presentations on the agenda were by Briscoe on GOOS and by Art Kendall on FOCI (Pollock recruitment in the Gulf of Alaska). Powell informed the SSC that Briscoe would be unable to speak on Day 1 about GOOS because he had another commitment. Liz Gross agreed to speak briefly on GOOS in Briscoe's absence.


Taylor reported that for FY93, U.S. GLOBEC science support (not including ship money) from NSF was $2.8M, much less than the requested $5.7M. For FY94, NSF had requested $6.0M for U.S. GLOBEC, which included some facilities funds. Overall, the NSF request for FY94 represented an increase of 18% from the request for 1993. Already, the NSF budget request increase for FY94 has been reduced from 18% to 11% by the House. Swanberg commented that Office of Polar Programs had a budget of $6.4M for FY93, none of which came from Global Change funding. The Antarctic program gets no money from the U.S. Global Change program. Swanberg also noted that U.S. GLOBEC is still targeting Southern Ocean studies for the 1996-98 period.

Peterson reported that NOAA contributions to U.S. GLOBEC for FY93 amounted to $2.0M, plus an additional $0.4M dedicated to the Coastal Ocean Program (Grosslein). For FY94, NOAA requested $4.0M for U.S. GLOBEC, but optimistically can expect to be level funded from FY93 levels, i.e., we should expect to receive $2.0M.


Powell spoke briefly about several activities that had occurred since the last meeting of the steering committee. In March, Powell attended a preliminary planning meeting of the JGOFS North Atlantic planning group. JGOFS plans to return to the oceanic Atlantic in 1998 for their final major field program. If so, there may be interest in coordinating the two programs for the North Atlantic field investigations, since NW Atlantic activities will still be in progress in 1998. Second, Powell noted that several U.S. GLOBEC funded modellers presented posters of their results at the April TOS meeting in Seattle. Also, Batchelder displayed a poster summary of the U.S. GLOBEC program. Powell, Rothschild, Taylor, Reeve, Sissenwine, and Peterson met with Bob Corell (NSF) in May to brief him on the goals of U.S. GLOBEC and GLOBEC.INT. Powell and Rothschild both felt that the meeting went well and that Corell was impressed with the progress that the two programs have made. Corell recommended that efforts to get GLOBEC (both U.S. and .INT) into IGBP be intensified and recommended that SCOR take the lead on this as one of the sponsoring agencies of GLOBEC.INT. Rothschild felt that the appropriate time for petitioning to join IGBP would be shortly after GLOBEC.INT has its open meeting and completes its science plan. Powell noted that in the funding hierarchy of Global Change programs there are three categories: (1) highest priority are those that had special programs; (2) those that were sanctioned by WCRP or IGBP have the second highest priority, and (3) others. Today, U.S. GLOBEC and GLOBEC.INT are in the "other" category of lowest priority. Sanctioning by IGBP will provide higher funding priority. Powell summarized the U.S. GLOBEC modelling meeting organized by Eckman and hosted by P. Smith in La Jolla in March. Nine manuscripts from the meeting are currently undergoing review. The papers will be published in Topical Studies in Oceanography is in early 1994.

Peterson and Rothschild spoke about the ICES/GLOBEC Cod and Climate Change meeting that will be held on June 8-11 in Lowestofft. Modelling, retrospective analysis, and some field studies will be components of the program. Huntley summarized the discussions he had with congressmen, congressional staffers, etc., at the Council on Ocean Affairs meeting in March. Particularly, he stressed the need to better publicize U.S. GLOBEC to both the scientific community and the general public. The studies that U.S. GLOBEC is planning are societally relevant and can provide the knowledge needed to make sound policy decisions. We discussed the scheduling of future SSC meetings. The next meeting will be held 7-8 October 1993 in Woods Hole, MA. At least one- half day of the two day session will be devoted to presentations by and discussions with the U.S. GLOBEC funded scientists participating in the NW Atlantic program. Some time will be used to coordinate U.S. west coast studies with CoOP (Coastal Ocean Program) as well. We discussed sites and dates of the winter meeting (usually held in February). Interest was expressed in having another joint meeting of the SSC's of JGOFS and GLOBEC (possibly in February or March 1994 in Miami). Another possibility was to have the SSC meeting in San Diego, immediately preceding or following the AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences meeting in February 94. We resolved to contact the Chair of the JGOFS SSC to determine how much interest there is in having a full joint session of the SSC's versus a U.S. GLOBEC SSC meeting to which several JGOFS SSC members would be invited. One advantage of having the meeting tagged to the Ocean Sciences meeting may be that most of the JGOFS and GLOBEC SSC members would be in San Diego anyway. Another option would be to have the Feb. 94 meeting in Washington, DC. Powell agreed to investigate various options for the Feb. 94 meeting and update the committee by e-mail. The June 1994 meeting will be in Corvallis, OR (Oregon State University), in keeping with our policy to visit most of the major oceanographic institutions. Exact dates for the June 1994 meeting were not specified. National meetings were discussed. Powell suggested that it might be appropriate for U.S. GLOBEC to schedule an informational evening session during the AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences meeting (Feb. 94). Also we discussed whether there should be specific U.S. GLOBEC science sessions on the meeting program. Mountain felt that scientists in the Georges Bank pilot stratification experiment would be ready to present some results at this meeting. Powell and others felt that the funded U.S. GLOBEC modellers would be interested in presenting their results, especially since their presentations at the La Jolla modellers meeting were to a relatively restricted audience. Mountain agreed to poll the stratification group and Batchelder (later done by Eckman) agreed to poll the modellers to determine whether there was sufficient interest for one or more U.S. GLOBEC sessions. Eckman found sufficient interest among the modellers and has agreed to convene a session that will have as its core a group of presentations by the funded U.S. GLOBEC modelling groups, but which will also include non-GLOBEC presentations. Mountain believes that there might be 10-12 presentations by stratification PI's and associates; Mountain and Peter Wiebe will be co-convenors. Peterson thought there might be sufficient interest to have a session on decadal (longer-term) temporal changes in the California Current. Rothschild argued that perhaps there should be a U.S. GLOBEC session that might highlight GLOBEC synthesis issues such as new concepts in modelling biological-physical interactions, or perhaps comparing east vs. west coast biota. Others felt such a session might be premature at this time. We discussed U.S. GLOBEC's participation at the CoOP meeting on 14-16 July 1993 in Portland, OR. The Davis U.S. GLOBEC office will prepare a poster for display at the Portland meeting that summarizes the recommendations of the Jan. 93 California Current planning meeting. Powell will ask Ted Strub to present an oral summary of the plans to the CoOP group. The intent is to downplay U.S. GLOBEC's scientific interest until midway through the meeting in order to facilitate the development of CoOP's plans independently (and unbiased by) U.S. GLOBEC's plans. Other meetings that were mentioned included: an ICES Cod and Climate Change meeting on 16-20 August 1993 in Reykjavik; a Biometrics meeting on spatial structure (mentioned by Anne Hollowed); an ICES workshop on spatial and temporal (June 12-18, Univ. Strathclyde???); the ICES zooplankton Symposium (August 94); the Gordon Conference on Biological Oceanography (16-20 Aug. 93, NH); and the ICES Biological Acoustics meeting (Aberdeen, Scotland, 1995).


Batchelder made a presentation about the goals and directions of U.S. GLOBEC using the outreach materials developed by the Davis office. Several suggestions about specific changes/improvements to the presentation overheads were offered by SSC members. Batchelder agreed to send paper copies of all the overheads to the SSC members following the meeting (this was done). SSC members should write their suggestions on the paper copies and return them to Batchelder.


Walstad summarized the data policy statement included in the blue briefing book. We discussed four major issues: schedule, archive, standards/protocol, and quality. Schedule relates to the time frame by which data collected by U.S. GLOBEC will be made available for use by GLOBEC funded investigators and others. The draft policy document provided a 3 month period for submission of an inventory of observations made, a 6 month period for the submission of electronically recorded data, and a 1 year period for the submission of particularly labor-intensive data (such as some biological observations that require extensive sample processing). All times begin at the end of the cruise on which the data were collected. Many SSC members felt that one year might be too short for some data types and recommended two years as an alternative. In his report to the committee, Walstad recommended adoption of the JGOFS data management system as the official U.S. GLOBEC data management (and archival) system. The system is distributed (i.e., each PI is responsible for maintaining access to the data that he has collected), and the system is flexible, in that it can handle many different types of data and data formats. On the issue of data standards, no specific standards were recommended by the data management policy, except that date, time and position should be recorded accurately for each data item collected in the field programs. No specific data quality recommendations were made, other than that (1) investigators must select methods and equipment suitable to the task, (2) must provide descriptions of the collection strategy to the data management system and (3) must estimate the accuracy and precision of data and submit this to the data management system. During the ensuing discussions, Rothschild suggested that U.S. GLOBEC initiate dialog with GLOBEC.Int about the structure of possible data archives. Mountain commented that data management needs to begin before the cruises and suggested that the funded PI's should play a prominent role in the organization of a data management system. Huntley suggested that the data policy document be completed and circulated to the funded NWATL/GB investigators for comment. All agreed that involvement of the funded investigators in the data management issue at an early stage is crucial to the development of a useful system.


Following lunch, Liz Gross provided an overview of GOOS (Global Ocean Observing System), including some of the history of GOOS and its interrelation to other programs such as GCOS (Global Climate Observing System), and GTOS (Global Terrestrial Observing System). The lead international body for GOOS is IOC of UNESCO. Cosponsors are the WMO (World Meteorological Organization), ICSU (SCOR) (Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research of the International Council of Scientific Unions), and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). There are five modules to GOOS: (1) climate monitoring, assessment and prediction; (2) marine meteorological and oceanographic operational services; (3) assessment and prediction of the health of the ocean; (4) monitoring and assessment of living marine resources, and (5) monitoring of the coastal zone environment and its changes. Of these, the monitoring and assessment of living marine resources is related most closely to U.S. GLOBEC. GOOS is an operational program whose observations must be long-term, systematic, relevant to the global system, cost effective, and measurements should be routine. Monitoring of living marine resources by U.S. GLOBEC field studies is an important step in the progression towards an operational monitoring system like GOOS.


Peterson provided an overview of the Georges Bank/Northwest Atlantic proposals which will be funded and/or are still undergoing final negotiations between the PI and the program manager. It is likely that the first major process study on stratification will be delayed from 1994 to 1995 due to funding problems. Two cruises, one a scaled-down process oriented cruise, and one a trial broad-scale survey, will probably be done in spring of 1994. In 1995, there will probably be three mooring sites equipped with a combination of physical, acoustic, and optical sensors. There will be shipboard studies of grazing and ecodynamics (growth and reproduction) of fish, copepods, and microzooplankton. There will be laboratory investigations of diapause dynamics in Calanus; application of molecular biological methods to estimate growth and feeding rates in both copepods and fish in situ; studies of predation rates by schooling predators and invertebrate predators; several analyses of existing data (retrospective analysis); and other investigations. One perceived problem with the program was that the proposed cruise schedule would not provide samples often enough to permit estimation of the population dynamics of copepods using cohort analysis (or other methods). Peterson wants the proposing PI's to consider a sampling scheme that includes more frequent sampling (order every 5-8 days) at a few selected sites-possibly at the permanent mooring sites. Several suggestions (comments) on the plan were made by SSC members following Peterson's update. They included: a comment that the plan as proposed would encounter severe difficulty in discriminating spatial from temporal variability-the FLEX study in the North Sea was cited as an example where great effort was expended to discriminate spatial from temporal effects with limited results; little effort directed to post larval effects, i.e., the actual recruitment of cod and haddock into adult demersal stages; a question about how potential sampling imprecision and bias would be examined; and concerns about the statistical methodology in the proposed genetic studies. Since the next U.S. GLOBEC SSC meeting will be in October in Woods Hole, it was suggested that the SSC ask several of the principal funded NWATL/GB PI's to present summaries of the overall plan to the SSC. We decided to reserve about one-half day of the October SSC meeting to this activity.


Robinson summarized the draft U.S. GLOBEC Long-Range Planning Document for the group. The report provides a brief introduction about U.S. GLOBEC and lists scientific objectives of the program. Two overall goals are listed: (1) to understand zooplankton dynamical processes in the context of their physical and biotic environment in order to be able to predict the response of the marine ecosystem and food web to climate change, and (2) to understand zooplankton-phytoplankton interactions in order to identify potential feedbacks on climate change. A number of specific scientific objectives were presented. Most of the report described U.S. GLOBEC's plans for research in various ecosystem types (i.e., banks and shallow seas, open ocean, upwelling regions, etc.) and interrelations with other national and international programs. Tables were used to summarize the biological and physical processes, global climate change relevance, and climate sensitivity in the various marine ecosystem types and to provide a tentative timeline of U.S. GLOBEC activities in each of the major elements (field studies, model studies, retrospective analysis, technology development) of the program. Most of the discussion following the presentation centered on two issues. The first was the strong emphasis on zooplankton, and the apparent underemphasis on fish, both larval and adult, in the document. We recommended that fish populations and dynamics be more prominent in the document. The second issue concerned the second goal described above-feedback of zooplankton-phytoplankton interactions on global change itself. Several SSC members felt that evidence for the importance of this feedback was not very convincing and they were uncomfortable with it being listed as 1 of only 2 overall goals of the program. Robinson asked that all comments and revisions on this draft version be returned to him by 15 June. Robinson and the remainder of the LRP committee will meet to address comments (and/or have e-mail discussions) and prepare a revised long-range plan for discussion at the Woods Hole meeting in October.


Rothschild provided a concise summary of mission, strategy and future plans of GLOBEC International. Its overall goal is to understand the effects of physical processes on predator-prey interactions and population dynamics of zooplankton, and their relation to ocean ecosystems in the context of the global climate system and anthropogenic change. Specific applications focused on are fisheries management, global change, and the waste-sink capacity of the oceans. As with U.S. GLOBEC, the general research strategy includes numerical modelling, sampling and observation systems (technology development) and studies of population dynamics/physical processes. A framework for the GLOBEC.INT core program is being developed at a series of small workshops on specific topics, e.g., the Population Dynamics and Physical Variability, Sampling and Observation System, and Numerical Modelling Working Group meetings during February to July of this year, and an as yet unscheduled Retrospective Analysis Working Group meeting. In addition, plans are being formulated for specific regional studies, such as in the Southern Ocean, a study in conjuction with the ICES Cod and Climate Change Program, and potential studies in the subarctic Pacific in conjunction with PICES. Following these framework development meetings there will be a major, open scientific meeting (probably in February 1994) to develop a coherent scientific plan for GLOBEC International. When questioned about future plans for GLOBEC International to become a recognized component of IGBP, Rothschild replied that he felt the scientific plan should be formulated before requesting IGBP involvement. Thus, IGBP will be approached shortly after the community wide meeting next year.

DAY TWO (3 June 1993)

Also attending this day were Clarke (NSF), G. Gross (NSF), Kendall (NOAA) and Lara Lara (IAI).


We spent most of the morning of day two discussing U.S. GLOBEC committees. Since the SSC has added several new NOAA and at-large members during the past year, Powell felt that it was appropriate that the SSC discuss at length the status of the existing standing and ad hoc committees. Currently U.S. GLOBEC has four standing committees (Executive, Modelling, Technology, and GLOBEC.Int Liaison) and seven ad hoc committees (Long range Planning, Pacific (EBC) Planning, Indian Ocean Planning, Southern Ocean Planning, Northwest Atlantic Implementation, Blue Water Working Group, and Data Management). Specifically, what existing committees need to be discontinued or reorganized and revitalized. When had a committee completed its identified tasks? The Northwest Atlantic Implementation and Indian Ocean Planning committees have essentially completed their assigned tasks. Ortner and Mountain were asked to act as liaison between the soon to be established NW Atlantic Advisory Council and the U.S. GLOBEC SSC. We also considered whether there were new committees that should be created, for example, to explore the issue of retrospective analysis, etc. Hunter proposed the establishment of a new committee directed toward Retrospective Analysis. Others felt that retrospective analysis would occur naturally as part of specific regional programs and that a new committee would duplicate efforts already being done in other committees. After much discussion, we decided to ask the Long Range Planning committee to carefully consider the role that retrospective analysis of existing data sets can play in advancing knowledge of biophysical coupling and its relation to climate change. Hunter was added as a new member of the Long Range Planning Committee. Since Data Management issues will arise over and over during the program we decided to upgrade it to a standing committee. We discussed committee tasks and requested that the existing committees provide the SSC with new Terms of Reference (TOR). We discussed the membership of the various committees. A concern, expressed by Powell, was that most of the guiding U.S. GLOBEC activities was being done by only a few SSC members. He wants to involve all the SSC members in actively "steering the U.S. GLOBEC ship", by identifying committees and tasks where each SSC member can contribute significantly.


Dickey reported on the results of the Sampling and Observation System (SOS) meeting held in Paris. SCOR and U.S. GLOBEC were the sponsors of the meeting, which provided a forum for the exchange of ideas in the area of sampling, technologies and their implementation as part of GLOBEC International. Discussions at the SOS meeting focused on the need for techniques to observe behavior, predator-prey interactions, measure production and loss rates, obtain size distribution data, sample at all space and time scales, including traditionally undersampled scales, link observations made from multiple instruments, improve data calibration, interpretation, visualization and utilization, and improve sampling theory to obtain data relevant to global change more cost-effectively. There is a need for a testbed for a GLOBEC Observations and Modelling System which includes nested models coupled with nested arrays of sensors and reliable data assimilation schemes. Finally, there was recognition that many newly developed instruments are one-offs; there needs to be identification and commercialization of the more promising instruments and technologies, so that these advanced technologies are available to a wider community for application to global change problems. We also revisited the issue of potential U.S. GLOBEC support of ICES efforts to intercalibrate both biomass and rate measurement methods. Huntley and Peterson agreed to work with Dickey (Technology Development Committee Chair) to develop a set of recommendations to present to the SSC at the October meeting. Issues that might be included in such recommendations might be: (1) how to foster support in the U.S. to fund intercalibration exercises, which might have as an ultimate goal the specification of standard methods and/or calibration factors that enable comparison of data collected using different methods, and (2) how U.S. GLOBEC should interact with the ICES calibration efforts.


Following lunch, Art Kendall presented a scientific review of the pollock fishery investigations conducted in the Shelikof Straits during the past decade. The pollock fishery in the strait developed in 1981. Pollock aggregate in the strait in March and spawn in a limited area in early April. The eggs hatch in late April and patches of larvae form. Currents transport the larvae to their nursery grounds along the Alaskan peninsula. The basic hypothesis being investigated is that the biological and physical processes operating throughout the early life history stages of pollock determine survival and eventual recruitment. The research strategy employed in the FOCI study involves field observations, laboratory experiments, and modelling. Field observations attempt real-time patch assessment using satellite data, acoustics data, hydrographic data, and net sampling. Predation (by invertebrates, birds, adult fish) is an important source of mortality to larval pollock in this region. Laboratory studies examine the role of the environment in determining vertical distribution and how this might affect transport to the nursery areas. Individual based biological models are used to couple growth dynamics and development with the physical circulation. The FOCI program is a fisheries oceanography program that has faced many of the same problems that U.S. GLOBEC now faces (e.g., decoupling of spatial and temporal variability; frequency of sampling, etc.) in the Northwest Atlantic. Also relevant is how to design an optimum (and cost-effective) sampling program in a hydrodynamically complex environment.


Dr. Ruben Lara Lara, executive scientist of the IAI, provided the SSC with a historical perspective of the origin of the IAI. IAI was first proposed in April 1990. Since then there have been a number of scientific, legal and policy meetings held in the U.S. and other countries. The institute structure will be distributed, with research centers, affiliated entities and an institute directorate. The focus of the institute is on regional global change, but especially to act as an interface in the fields of global climate change research, economic and sociological impacts, and technology development. Principal objectives of the institute are to (1) conduct and support basic research in the Americas; (2) collect and manage data; (3) promote the development of human resources, and (4) contribute to the development of public policy concerns relevant to the study of global change. Seven research foci have been identified: studies of (1) Tropical Ecosystems and Biogeochemical Cycles, (2) Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity, (3) ENSO and Interannual Climate Variability, (4) Ocean/Atmosphere/Land Interactions in the Caribbean Oceanic Region, (5) Comparative Studies of Coastal Processes, (6) Comparative Studies of Large-Scale Terrestrial Ecosystems, and (7) High Latitude Observations. Of these, ENSO studies, Ocean/Atmosphere/Land Observations, and Comparative Studies of Coastal Processes are probably most closely allied with the interests of U.S. GLOBEC. To date, 16 countries, including the U.S. have signed the agreement establishing the IAI. Each signatory country selected one individual to serve on the IAI Implementation Committee (IC). Current chair of the IC is Dr. Robert Corell. The IC established an Office of the Executive Scientist (currently R. Lara Lara) to oversee the development of the IAI science agenda through such activities as coordinating workshops, implementing short- term demonstration projects and participating in related activities sponsored by other institutions. A first activity of this office is the organization of a Communications Workshop (probably in July 1993), which aims to increase regional connectivity of the IAI countries and to ensure that the IAI distributed network is able to communicate information electronically. Education and training programs and activities provide mechanisms by which IAI may augment the regions (esp. Latin America's) scientific capacity and the facilitation of scientific cooperation among IAI nations.


Hofmann reported that GLOBEC.Int's plans for the Southern Ocean workshop to be held in June were complete. This international workshop will be attended by ca. 20 scientists with diverse interests in the Southern Ocean. Chair of the workshop is Jarl Stromberg. Working groups formed at the meeting will discuss specific topics and write sections for a Southern Ocean GLOBEC implementation plan. Hofmann agreed to report back to the SSC on the discussions and anticipated directions of Southern Ocean research at the October SSC meeting. Hedgecock noted that he is the only biotechnologist on the SSC and he will rotate off at the end of 1993. He suggested that we start thinking about possible SSC replacements for next year. We will discuss nominations for SSC membership at the October meeting.

homepage minutes contents previous next