Minutes of the U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Meeting

Washington, DC --- October 6-7, 1994

The meeting began at 0830. Paul Bentzen and Ted Strub were welcomed as new SSC members. Powell also introduced Kay Goldberg, our new Office Manager in the U.S. GLOBEC office in Berkeley. Present from the SSC were Bentzen, Costa, Gaines, Hofmann, Hollowed, Huntley, Mountain, Olson, Ortner, Powell, Smith and Strub. Taylor (NSF), Itsweire (NSF), Penhale (NSF, Day 2 only), Duguay (NSF, Day 2 only), Peacock (NSF, Day 2 only), Peterson (NOAA) and Eakin (NOAA) attended from the agencies. Other attendees were Batchelder (U.S. GLOBEC), Goldberg (U.S. GLOBEC), Eric Lindstrom (WOCE), Amy Freise (GLOBEC International), Brad de Young (Canada GLOBEC), Ray Arnaudo (State Dept., Day 2 only), Peter Wiebe (WHOI, Day 1 only), Hein-Rune Skjoldal (Mare Cognitum-Norway GLOBEC), Linda Stathoplos (NOAA, Day 1 only), Guillieta Fargio (TAMU, Day 1 only), Cindy Jones (ODU, Day 2 only), and Chris Miller (NOAA, Day 1 only). SSC members unable to attend were Briscoe, Dickey and Robinson. Several changes to the agenda were made: 1) some discussion of the California Current was moved from Thursday afternoon to Friday morning; 2) a presentation on Canada GLOBEC was added to Thursday afternoon; and 3) Dale Haidvogel's presentation on scenarios for modelling in the California Current was deleted, since he could not attend.


Zack Powell reported on three major activities he has pursued since the March 1994 meeting. The three major activities were 1) a meeting of Powell, Bob Gagosian (WHOI Director), and Margaret Leinen (URI Dean) with Cathy Sullivan (Chief Scientist of NOAA) to discuss U.S. GLOBEC difficulties in obtaining funding from NOAA, esp. in light of the substantial funding cut (ca. $900K) NOAA imposed early this year. Sullivan acknowledged that U.S. GLOBEC had fallen between the cracks at NOAA. She agreed to get the relevant personnel (Mike Hall at OGP; Mike Sissenwine at NMFS; Don Scavia at COP) together to discuss alternative organizational arrangements, including the development of a new internal memorandum of understanding among the different offices to clearly specify where responsibility for U.S. GLOBEC lies within NOAA. Powell came away from the meeting with Sullivan generally optimistic that she had heard his concerns and would attempt to remedy the situation. Peterson reported later during the meeting about progress on this front (see below).

Second, subsets of the U.S. GLOBEC and CoOP (Coastal Ocean Processes) leaderships met for two days in San Francisco to develop a Memorandum of Understanding which describes the mutual and complementary interests of the two programs in their respective planned studies off the west coast of the U.S. A draft of the GLOBEC-CoOP MOU was available in the briefing book for the meeting and would be discussed later (see below).

Powell also reported on his work with the GLOBEC Organizing Committee to develop a GLOBEC International Science Plan. A draft of this plan has been submitted to the officers of the IGBP, in preparation for formal application by GLOBEC International to become a core program of IGBP later this year.

Finally, Powell proposed that the committee reduce the number of steering committee meetings to two per year. He argued that the U.S. GLOBEC program is beginning to mature; the Georges Bank Study is well underway, planning for the California Current study and Southern Ocean study are progressing well, and two meetings per year should be sufficient.


Peterson reported for NOAA. Funds available for U.S. GLOBEC for 1995 are presently unknown. The budget requested was for $2.4M for Georges Bank, $750K for the California Current, and $250K for the Arabian Sea. Some of the latter is requested to support translations to make FSU data more available to non-FSU scientists. Mike Hall (OGP) has indicated that U.S. GLOBEC will receive something between $2-3M for FY95. Peterson also noted that there is some money in the fisheries budget, but that some of that money may be spent on 31 days of (currently unfunded, but necessary) shiptime for the Georges Bank program in 1995. Peterson will make a final pitch for NOAA funds on 27 October, and the final NOAA budget will be decided shortly thereafter. It is critical that GLOBEC receive $2.4M just to maintain the Georges Bank program. Funds in excess of that level will be devoted to support of initial California Current activities. Peterson has developed a draft of an Announcement of Opportunity for the initial California Current research activities, but they (Peterson and Taylor) decided to hold off on releasing it until it became clear how much funds would be available to begin those activities.

Peterson also updated the committee on the status of the internal NOAA MOU that was requested following Powell's meeting with Cathy Sullivan (see above). Peterson and Sissenwine were tasked with developing the MOU. They have discussed the document, and will meet within the next two weeks to complete the MOU. It will then be distributed to Sullivan and other appropriate NOAA personnel. Peterson reiterated Powell's statement that the intent of the new MOU was to enhance U.S. GLOBEC's status within NOAA. Several alternatives were presented by Peterson. The committee felt that it was important that the MOU stress that U.S. GLOBEC has a "Climate Change and Ecosystems Dynamics" focus--not just a fisheries or environment focus. Hollowed noted that moving from a "Global Change" program to an "Environment" program might cause loss of the programs identity. Powell argued that we cannot afford to lose our climate change focus, but that, in fact, climate change is the "environment", but acting over a long time scale. One possibility mentioned by Peterson was to combine all "environmental" programs (e.g., U.S. GLOBEC, CCAMLR, NURP, others) into a separate budget item within the NOAA budget. Arguments for and against this proposal were made, but no consensus was developed. Peterson noted that the new NSF-NOAA MOU will contain details of the collaboration between the two agencies, and also specify where responsibility for U.S. GLOBEC lies within NOAA. It is hoped that the MOU will be signed at high levels, i.e., by Corell (NSF) and Baker (NOAA).

It was mentioned that U.S. GLOBEC needs to develop stronger ties/interactions with the GOOS program. Both Peterson and Eakin noted that NOAA is strongly committed to supporting GOOS, with a single ocean observing system centered in the National Ocean Service (NOS). Itsweire commented that the Living Marine Resource (LMR) module of GOOS was developing more slowly than some of the other modules. This is a concern because it is the module most closely allied to U.S. GLOBEC. Peterson agreed to look into getting the LMR module moving forward within NOAA. Peterson also agreed to contact Mel Briscoe to explore developing better liaison between GOOS and U.S. GLOBEC. Powell will contact someone from the NRC committee on GOOS (perhaps Bob Knox or Bill Merrill) to ask for a presentation on GOOS at our next meeting.

Taylor discussed U.S. GLOBEC's budget from NSF for FY95. A request has been made for $7M. Although the final numbers are not available, it is likely that U.S. GLOBEC will receive a $1M increase from NSF for science in FY95. That $1M increase will be used to fund initial California Current activities. Taylor noted that all of the NSF money being spent in the Arabian Sea is JGOFS--none is GLOBEC. Strub asked whether a proposal being viewed as "GLOBEC related research" could be submitted and funded by core NSF funds, if U.S. GLOBEC does not receive funds this year to support an AO for GLOBEC work in the California Current. Taylor did acknowledge that such proposals to NSF in the past have received poor mail reviews because reviewers felt that the funding should not come from core funds. Conversely, Taylor also said that the best science would be funded. Taylor also cautioned that the recent funding difficulties at ONR will likely increase the total number of proposals to physical and biological core programs at NSF, causing more competition for scarce funding dollars.


Powell reported that the executive committee asked to review the U.S. GLOBEC Long Range Science Plan. If substantive comments arise from that review, it will be returned to Allan Robinson's committee for evaluation, otherwise the final comments will be addressed and the report will be published. Ortner has agreed to prepare an executive summary of the plan following its final revisions.

Batchelder reported that a draft version of the Open Ocean Report had been received from Larry Madin and Mike Landry (co-chairs of the workshop). It was noted that the report was still incomplete, lacking references and other supporting materials, but that it would be made available to those present who wished to look at it. Lindstrom asked to be sent a copy.

We also discussed a white paper on Retrospective Data Analysis produced by John Hunter and co-authors. The document proposes a U.S. GLOBEC initiative directed toward retrospective data analysis separate from site-specific field studies. Some committee members felt that the document had served its intended function--to highlight retrospective analysis in both U.S. GLOBEC and GLOBEC International planning activities. Ideas from the document are discussed extensively in the California Current Science Plan and somewhat in the Long Range Plan. The ideas will also undoubtedly be prevalent in the GLOBEC International report of the SPACC (Small Pelagics and Climate Change) meeting. It was suggested that perhaps the white paper should be revised and expanded (esp. to regions beyond the U.S. West coast) and published as the first of a U.S. GLOBEC Special Contribution Series. After discussing this, we decided to ask John Hunter if this (revision and expansion) was an activity that he wanted to undertake. deYoung noted that the ICES Cod and Climate Change working group has planned a "Backward Facing Workshop" in March 1995 in Halifax, NS to attempt to reconstruct specific oceanographic/fisheries events using retrospective data analysis. Strub mentioned two other meetings that discussed retrospective data issues: 1) a workshop chaired by Tim Baumgartner on paleoceanographic data along the west coast of the Americas, which will produce a workshop report, and 2) a recent CEOS workshop in Monterey directed towards retrospective analysis in eastern boundary currents, which should result in a series of papers.


Ortner reported the preliminary results of the Technology Committees reviews/critiques of the various technology documents produced by U.S. GLOBEC (Molecular, Acoustic, Optic) and GLOBEC International (Sampling and Observation Systems--SOS). This review was undertaken because 1) there have been no RFP's by U.S. GLOBEC to support technology development, except for one on molecular methods; 2) a number of the U.S. representatives to the SOS meeting were not comfortable with the "testbed" concept; and 3) to ask the technology committee to provide guidance for future directions and to review the TOR of this committee. Only two members of the technology committee had responded: Dickey and Hedgecock. Dickey felt that the GLOBEC International document and the U.S. GLOBEC technology documents were overall very similar (except for the testbed concept). Ortner's personal perspective is that the lack of a technology RFP has not hampered U.S. GLOBEC's field activities. Partly this is fortuitous due to the fact that the ONR and/or Larry Clark's program at NSF were supporting much of the early development of some of the instruments (e.g., moored acoustic sensors, video plankton recorder) now in use by GLOBEC. Alluding to the cutbacks in funding at ONR, Ortner cautioned that the future development of technology may be more dependent on U.S. GLOBEC funding. The second major point that Ortner brought up (from Hedgecock's comments) was that a molecular technology RFP is needed before the field programs get going. This means that we cannot expect to name target species at the last second (prior to field studies) and have genetic tags and molecular markers ready for use during the field program--genetics studies are often species specific and have long lead times. Finally, Ortner stressed that training workshops and technology transfer are important and should include both conceptual and hands on training. In short, what do the instruments and molecular techniques measure, and why use them? Given the limited feedback received to date, Ortner agreed to prepare a strawman response to the documents (that reflects the comments received) which will be sent to his committee for final comments (to be accomplished within 1 month).

Hofmann discussed a proposal under development (to be submitted to ONR) to support a biological model repository. The approach for accessing models is through a world wide web server and perhaps via CD ROM (in the future). The primary objectives of the first several years will be to obtain the models, validate them using several standard tests and data sets, and to get the repository operational using MOSAIC software access. Community outreach and education will be an important part of the effort. We discussed whether the repository should support third party software (e.g., MATLAB, etc.) specific models or should support only fairly generic (least-common denominator) models (e.g., FORTRAN, C, etc.). It was voiced strongly by several present that to support specific third party models would be a mistake. de Young suggested that perhaps there should be two types of models available in the repository: 1) supported (fully tested) models with training and user assistance, and 2) unsupported (untested), but perhaps cutting edge models with a lower level of support. It was also suggested that the repository should maintain a database of other (unsupported, perhaps software specific) models so that potential modelers could contact the investigators directly for assistance and to learn of potential pitfalls.


Hein-Rune Skjoldal provided a scientific overview of the Nordic Seas Mare Cognitum program, which is principally funded by Norway. The program is proposed to become one of the components of the ICES-GLOBEC International Cod and Climate Change Program, much as U.S. GLOBEC's Georges Bank program is. A science plan is available for the Mare Cognitum program from Skjoldal. The focus of the program is ecosystem dynamics in Nordic Seas, with an emphasis on climate, zooplankton production and fish stocks, carbon budgets, and temporal cycles (from seasonal to annual to centennial). It has been observed that variability in ocean climate over the Nordic Seas is related to variability in inflow of Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift water to the Nordic Seas from the south. Moreover, this variability in climate is related to variation in fish recruitment. In the Barents Sea there is large interannual variability in the extent of sea ice cover and this is thought to have an impact on the ocean productivity. The interaction of zooplankton vertical migration and horizontal transport is important in controlling interannual variation in zooplankton (esp. Calanus) biomass in the Barents Sea. Mare Cognitum has as its goal to elucidate the basic mechanisms which govern the variability of the large marine ecosystems of the Nordic Seas in order to predict ocean climate, production and fish recruitment. Herring are a target species for Mare Cognitum: their feeding, growth, maturation, and migrations; and their relation to the strong seasonal cycles in plankton production and vertical distribution of prey. The approach is to conduct large scale surveys over much of the Nordic Seas coupled with more process oriented studies of plankton and herring. Mare Cognitum began as an Institute of Marine Research (Bergen, NO) program, but it is intended in the future to involve more academic scientists. Presently it has a budget of ca. $4M (U.S.), but it hopes eventually to expand to a $12M program. Future plans call for 1) coordinated studies of plankton development along standard sections by the Faroes, Iceland and Norway and 2) moored current meter measurements to record the magnitude and variability in the Atlantic inflow to the Norwegian Sea.

Discussion after the presentation centered on the issue of large- scale modeling and the coupling of large-scale (ocean basin) models to regional models. It was noted that several community large-scale modeling efforts of the North Atlantic have not yet been successful. Moreover, some of those large scale models don't include the Nordic Seas. Skjoldal commented that two types of models were being explored within the Mare Cognitum program. It was noted that programs like Mare Cognitum or U.S. GLOBEC's Georges Bank program, which focus on shelf ecosystems, require nesting of higher resolution regional models within coarser resolution basin models.


Wiebe provided the SSC with a progress report of the science that was done this past spring on Georges Bank. After reviewing the objectives and major components of the Georges Bank program (not repeated here), he showed the times, durations and objectives of the 1994 cruises. There were 6 cruises: 3 for process studies (early May-mid June) , 2 for deploying and retrieving a mooring placed at the WHOI "buoy farm", and 1 broad-scale cruise (late May-June). About 50 stations were occupied during the ca. 13 day broad scale cruise, with all but about 5 of them located on the bank. Some stations were done in offshore slope water and Wilkinson Basin in the Gulf of Maine to provide boundary conditions. The Scientific investigators had met for their first data exchange only earlier this week (3-5 October), and Wiebe had not had time to fully assimilate all of the results. His summary highlighted the following: 1) large numbers of hydroids (up to 25000/m3), were found on the bank, and they were significant consumers of copepod eggs and nauplii; 2) a patch of larval cod and haddock was found during preliminary mapping on one of the process cruises--however, a later cruise found only haddock within what may have been the same patch--the fate of the cod larvae is unknown. A storm event between the two cruises disrupted the "well stratified" region. This storm event may also be responsible for the disappearance of the cod larvae, but this is unclear. The ship altered its station plans to sample a more typically stratified region on one cruise because of the influence of several nearby Gulf Stream Rings, one of which pulled a deployed drifter off the bank. There was much small-scale spatial variability in the acoustics records obtained between MOCNESS stations on the broad-scale cruise, but it is unclear (yet) what the organisms responsible for the scattering were.

Wiebe also reported on progress in implementing a data management system for the Georges Bank program. Bob Groman has been hired as a data manager for the program. His background is in computer science and data management. The JGOFS database will be used, with access provided by the WWW-Mosaic client. A preliminary system is operational at MIT, and a system should shortly go on line at WHOI.

Wiebe also provided a cruise schedule plan that has been developed for the 1995 cruises. All except for 31 days have a ship and have been funded. Negotiations/discussions about research vessel and funding for the remaining 31 days are ongoing. Preference of the principal investigators is for the R/V Seward Johnson.

Mountain led a discussion of future NW Atlantic Research Directions (1996 and beyond). Already funded for 1996 and beyond are the broad-scale surveys, moorings, and analysis of 1995 data. In 1997 the focus of the Georges Bank program is the source, retention, and loss of organisms and water. Input from the modeling, retrospective and completed field studies of 1992-95 will be important in providing direction for the 1997 studies. Mountain noted that in some ways the 1-year delay (from 1994 to 1995) in the first field studies was fortuitous--it provided the time needed to prepare a complete, coordinated field effort for 1995. Planning for a coordinated field effort in 1997 will require similar forethought--he suggested that U.S. GLOBEC release by late spring 1995 an AO for the 1997 studies. Following such an announcement there could be an open meeting (similar to the one held in Woods Hole in 1992) to discuss putting together a coordinated program for submission in September 1995, so that funds would be available ca. 1 Jan 1996. Mountain stated that the science team needs to be chosen by early 1996 to be effective in the field in 1997.


Brad de Young (co-chair of GLOBEC Canada) summarized the Science plan developed by GLOBEC Canada. The plan identifies the primary scientific questions and research activities for a Canadian GLOBEC effort. It emphasizes 1) the coupling between physical and biological processes and their resulting spatial and temporal patterns; 2) continued development of interdisciplinary measurement and modelling; 3) interactions among zooplankton and their predators; 4) process and mechanism over purely correlative studies; and, 5) the wide range of spatial scales. Three regions have been selected for potential field and modeling studies: the Newfoundland- Labrador continental shelf; the Gulf of St. Lawrence-Scotian Shelf-Georges Bank system; and, the British Columbia outer coast and its coupling to the open North Pacific. Recurrent themes within the program for all contemplated regions are the importance of seasonality and the timing match of critical physical and biological events, the magnitude and seasonality of freshwater inputs and their effects on current patterns, and the importance of advective coupling among mesoscale sub-regions and between the open ocean and the continental margins. The CANADA-GLOBEC Science Plan can be requested from Brad deYoung (bdeyoung@crosby.physics.mun.ca).


Strub began by reviewing briefly the history of the California Current Science program. Strub reviewed the comments received on the California Current Science plan at the March meeting in Boulder, from external reviewers, and at subsequent meetings. He summarized the way in which those comments were addressed in the recently published California Current Science Plan. The primary criticism of the plan was that it didn't clearly state what the U.S. GLOBEC program would produce if it were to undertake a study of the west coast of the U.S. The writing team (esp. Strub) took those comments seriously and did a major reorganization of the document, and also largely rewrote the Executive Summary. The major products of the program are four-fold: 1) advancing the development of coupled physical-biological models, which eventually will become predictive tools; 2) the data sets developed during the monitoring, survey and process-oriented field studies; 3) the augmented monitoring system developed to monitor spatial-temporal changes in the ecosystem of the California Current; and 4) training and education of scientists in coupled physical-biological modeling.

Gaines provided an example, using benthic invertebrates, of the kind of studies that might be appropriate for process-oriented and/or broad scale monitoring within the context of the California Current ecosystem. Benthic invertebrates have small larvae, often with a well-defined planktonic period varying from a few minutes to several months, and with fairly well- defined spawning periods, depending on species. Also, many exist as adult populations only along the coast, providing a clearly defined line source of the larvae, and providing a requirement (for successful recruitment) that the competent larvae return (or remain near) to the coast. Previous findings in benthic invertebrates show substantial interannual and intra- annual variability in recruitment, sometimes correlated to upwelling. It is also known that there are clear latitudinal gradients in the mean level and variability of recruitment. In the Pacific Northwest (Region I of the Science Plan) there is high mean recruitment and low interannual variability. Conversely, in Region II (Central and Northern California), mean recruitment is low, but interannual variability is very large. An important issue is to discriminate differences in recruitment caused by differences in transport effects vs. differences in mortality effects operating through production and starvation and/or predation. A careful monitoring program, including intensive, high-frequency shore-based sampling of recruitment, lower frequency offshore sampling of recruitment from moorings, and infrequent ship-board plankton surveys should be the first step in eliminating some of the many hypotheses that have been advanced for the patterns, magnitudes, and variabilities in recruitment that have been observed. Gaines argued that benthic invertebrates provide several advantages as a selected group for monitoring: 1) you can simultaneously sample settlement of multiple species; 2) settlement monitoring is relatively inexpensive since much of it can be done from shore or in very shallow water; and 3) the extensive variation in life history characteristics (e.g., planktotrophic vs. lecithotrophic development, varying larval duration, varying seasonality of adult spawning in different species, and existence of pulsed vs. continuous breeders) will provide a range of potential responses to existing variation in ocean and climatic conditions.

Peterson summarized the discussions that took place at the Small Pelagics and Climate Change (SPACC) meeting held in La Paz, MX in June 1994. Many different countries were represented. A principal goal of the SPACC program is to understand the sardine-anchovy interactions in upwelling systems from around the world. Another key interest is to understand the very different total fish production (per unit area) that occurs in different regions. The approach that SPACC will follow involves retrospective studies and process studies. Key elements of the process studies will be measuring the somatic growth of fish, measuring zooplankton production and dynamics, and measuring ocean circulation. Modeling studies will be an important component of SPACC also.

We discussed extensively the draft version of the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. GLOBEC and CoOP programs that was in the meeting briefing book. The principal topic of discussion was how extensively U.S. GLOBEC's interests in the CCS should be presented in the MOU. The joint work that will be done with CoOP will focus primarily on Regions I and II. Some within the SSC felt that if the upcoming AO for modeling, retrospective and monitoring work in the California Current were to direct the reader to the MOU (as well as the science plan), then it would be advisable to indicate within the MOU that the joint work with CoOP will not be the only work that U.S. GLOBEC will do in the California Current (and moreover provide an indication of possible other work). Others on the steering committee felt that the MOU should discuss only U.S. GLOBEC's shared interests with CoOP which will eventually be done collaboratively. One option we discussed was to have the first AO for California Current research direct the reader first and foremost to the U.S. GLOBEC Science Plan, and secondarily to the GLOBEC/CoOP MOU. The former for the broad scale of U.S. GLOBEC's interests, the latter for an indication of ONE (but not the only) possible future field direction. Taylor suggested that perhaps a way to deal with this issue is to use a letter of intent submission to pre-screen potential proposals. Pre-screening would provide a mechanism for evaluating programmatic themes and developing integration without a lot of wasted effort on the part of unsuccessful proposers. Finally, it was moved, seconded and passed that the final part of the MOU-the part dealing with specific future field activities--be deleted from the document. October 21 was set as the deadline for getting comments on the GLOBEC/CoOP MOU to Batchelder. After that, the comments will be addressed by Batchelder, and the document forwarded to Mike Roman (CoOP Chair).


Hollowed provided an overview of PICES-GLOBEC International Climate Change and Carrying Capacity (CCCC) science program. The program is currently under development and will be more complete following the October 1994 PICES meeting in Nemuro, Japan. Activities in CCCC are being planned for two spatial scales: 1) basin scale studies to examine the carrying capacity of the North Pacific for high trophic level, pelagic carnivores (salmon may be a target species), and 2) regional-scale, ecosystem studies of how variations in ocean climate affect productivity of plankton and fish populations (pollock, hake, anchovy and sardine may be target species) in the coastal margins of the North Pacific. A draft of the CCCC science plan was handed out and briefly discussed. Hollowed asked the SSC to support a large community meeting to discuss climate, productivity and population dynamics issues of the North Pacific. After some discussion, a motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to support such a meeting. Hollowed was requested to provide to the U.S. GLOBEC office a short proposal for the meeting detailing an agenda, expected participants, workshop discussion leaders, requested budget and anticipated products of the meeting.


Huntley provided a summary of the progress of the international GLOBEC community on developing a Southern Ocean GLOBEC program (mostly at a meeting in Bremerhaven, Germany this summer). Key zooplankton questions for the southern ocean study involve overwintering strategies, seasonal and geographical distributions forced by physics, factors affecting reproduction, physical influences on larval survival and the distribution of zooplankton in relation to food resources. Key higher trophic level questions were the effect of physical and biological variability on population dynamics, effects of sea ice on foraging, reproduction and survival, allocation of krill among predators, and performance and survival of predators in relation to prey availability. The approach used will involve time-series surveys and process studies. Details of process studies were not discussed. A scenario for time-series surveys which encompass a 6 month period (perhaps using ships from 3 countries) was presented. Types of measurements and appropriate technologies for making the measurements were presented. Finally, potential international partners for studies in different regions of the Southern Ocean were discussed. In the Atlantic Sector (near the Bellingshausen Sea), where U.S. GLOBEC is most interested, potential partner countries are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Spain and the United Kingdom. There was also discussion about potential collaboration with NOAA-CCAMLR studies. Huntley pointed out that in most GLOBEC studies the eventual aim is to lead into longer-term environmental monitoring. Southern Ocean GLOBEC he said is unique in that some longer-term monitoring has been ongoing for the past decade or so--CCAMLR.

Hofmann distributed a draft of an AO that is being developed requesting proposals to advance modeling of the Southern Ocean. The AO is joint between U.S. GLOBEC and U.S. JGOFS, so deals with more than just climate change and population processes, but also includes biogeochemical processes. Hofmann expressed her hope that the AO would be released shortly and would have a proposal deadline in the first half of 1995.

Dennis Peacock and Polly Penhale (both of Office of Polar Programs) both commented that they were pleased to see GLOBEC's southern ocean planning progressing. Peacock noted that funds were available to support the modeling AO that was discussed. He was less optimistic about there being sufficient funds available to carry out a large scale survey and process program as developed in Bremerhaven and described earlier by Huntley.


Cindy Jones (Old Dominion University) provided a science talk on retrospective determination of fish migration using elemental composition of otoliths. Population dynamics in most fish populations needs to consider immigration and emigration in addition to growth, recruitment, and natural and fishing mortality. Individuals need to be assigned to their proper stocks. Mitochondrial DNA methods for identifying stocks have not worked particularly well in marine fish because a 5% mixing exchange between stocks (a common occurrence) is sufficient to eliminate m-DNA differences between stocks. Her studies have focused on seeking a biological tag which permits tracking of true stocks. Otoliths are acellular and physiologically static (e.g., isolated) after deposition and therefore act as a chronometer which might be exploitable to determine stock identity. Otoliths have classically been used to provide age, growth, migration, an indication of age at sexual maturity, and using shape, to identify stock. Larval and juvenile fish produce daily bands in the otolith, probably related to diel feeding cycles. Otoliths also maintain a record of trace element contaminants--either from the surrounding water or their individuals food. Studies indicate that 80% of the trace elements are derived from the water. Using Atlantic croaker as an experimental animal and solution based and laser ablated inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy assays of otoliths, Jones and her colleagues were able to demonstrate that different combinations of temperature and salinity during growth lead to different absolute concentrations and ratios of trace element contaminants in the otoliths. Solution based ICPMS is more sensitive than the laser ablation method. The advantage of laser ablation methods is that it is capable of measuring the trace element composition of any portion (e.g., any period of growth) of the otolith of the fish, whereas, the solution based method measures the integrated accumulation of trace elements of an entire otolith. Therefore, laser ablation methods used in the center of the otolith may provide a record of the conditions at the spawning site (e.g., identification of specific spawning stock). The laser method also allows examination of ontogenetic changes. The strength of the ICPMS (either solution based or laser) is that it is able to measure multiple isotopes and or elements simultaneously to provide a signature, which may prove useful in identifying spawning stock site and/or subsequent migration paths. Future directions in this work will be to improve the technology by laser and/or isotope dilution enhancement and further examination of physiological effects upon the trace element signature. This latter is important because the effects of different growth rates on the trace element signatures needs to be examined. In the experiments done to date, different temperatures resulted in different size fish in the experiments. To date however, the procedure appears promising.


We discussed the membership and tasks of the subcommittees of U.S. GLOBEC: 1) standing committees—executive, modeling, technology, data management, and outreach; 2) liaison committees—GLOBEC-International and NW Atlantic; and, 3) ad hoc working groups— long range planning, eastern boundary current, southern ocean and open ocean. The latter working groups were formed to accomplish specific tasks. We resolved to dissolve the long range planning committee as soon as the Long Range Science Plan is finalized (within the next month). When the open ocean working group delivers an acceptable report of the workshop held in 1993, that working group will be dissolved. One to two additional members may be added to the Southern Ocean working group to broaden disciplines represented on the group. We reconstituted somewhat the eastern boundary current working group with Strub remaining as chairperson. Ortner was added to the executive committee, which also includes Powell, Olson, Huntley and Hofmann. Olson was added to the outreach committee. Bentzen was added to the technology committee. No changes in membership were made for the modeling, GLOBEC-International and NW Atlantic committees. We deferred discussion on the data management committee until our next meeting.

Hollowed asked that a new ad hoc working group, called the North Pacific Committee, be formed. A motion was made, seconded and passed to approve the formation of such committee. Hollowed will chair the committee. Other members of the SSC selected for that committee include Strub and Costa. Other scientists were nominated and will be contacted by Hollowed to determine their interest in participating. A first duty of this committee will be to act as, or select, a small group to organize a large community meeting to discuss the science issues that U.S. scientists might pursue under an international project, jointly sponsored by PICES and GLOBEC-International, to investigate the carrying capacity of the North Pacific and its potential relation to climate. Complete terms-of-reference will be drawn up by Hollowed, in consultation with the other committee members.


The terms of four steering committee members (Dickey, Hofmann, Mountain, Ortner) expire in December 1994. In addition, Mel Briscoe, who has been unable to attend any SSC meetings, and whose term expires in December 1995, is resigning from the committee. Finally, Ann Durbin resigned from the committee in May 1994 for health reasons. Hofmann, Mountain and Ortner were asked and agreed to serve another 3- year term on the SSC. With the departure of Dickey, Briscoe and Durbin, three slots are available for replacement this year. Twelve scientists were nominated by those present. The list was ranked taking into consideration discipline and geography. Powell agreed to contact the three top rated people to determine their willingness to serve on the SSC. If they are willing, they will become new SSC members effective 1 Jan 1995 and will attend the April 1995 meeting.


Huntley reported that the ICES study group on zooplankton production is producing a book on methods, which will have 13 chapters. Skjoldal will be the editor, and publication is expected to be sometime in 1996.


Quote of the Meeting:

referring to criticism of the CCS plan, "I didn't take those criticisms personally, but my mother did..." -Strub

homepage minutes contents previous next