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

Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ --- October 9-10, 1997

(distributed 18 November 1997)

DAY ONE (Thursday, 9 October 1997)

The meeting began at 0840. Present from the SSC were Beardsley, Botsford, Dagg, Fogarty, Francis, Grant, Haidvogel, Hofmann, Hollowed, Huntley, Loeb, Mountain, Ortner, Pearcy, Powell, Strub, and Torres. Taylor (NSF), Daly (NSF), Gray (NOAA), Johnson (NOAA) and Marinelli (NSF) attended from the agencies. Other attendees were Batchelder (U.S. GLOBEC), Goldberg (U.S. GLOBEC), Brad deYoung (Canada GLOBEC), Roger Harris (GLOBEC International), Stan Senner (EVOS Trustees), John Knauss ("retired"), and Ed Houde (Univ. Maryland). SSC members unable to attend were Reilly and Schumacher.

Powell reviewed the agenda and noted that the major agenda items were a description and discussion of the Northeast Pacific Program (NEP) of U.S. GLOBEC, Harris' presentation on International GLOBEC, and the discussion of committee members and the selection of a new chair. Powell will be stepping down as chair effective 1 January 1998.


Batchelder provided a very brief overview of the NEP program implementation plan and first AO which requested proposals to begin retrospective studies, modeling, and pilot monitoring within the two NEP regions--the coastal Gulf of Alaska (CGOA) and the California Current System (CCS). Gray summarized the projects that were selected to begin those activities in the NEP.

Four modeling projects were funded. Loo Botsford and coinvestigators will be examining physical influences on salmon and crab populations in the CCS using individual based models and population and metapopulation models. IBMs will eventually be linked to realistic high resolution 3D circulation models. Mark Huntley and coworkers will develop a zooplankton population dynamics model using biomass spectrum theory. Dale Haidvogel, Al Hermann and coworkers will develop a coupled NPZ-salmon IBM-3D transport model of the CGOA to examine physical influences on juvenile salmon growth and distribution. Frank Schwing and coinvestigators will develop an ca. one degree resolution diagnostic physical model to examine monthly mean conditions and longer term variability in the physics for the North Pacific basin. Schwing's project also has a retrospective component that will be identifying patterns of decadal change in oceanic fields and processes in the NEP, and processes occurring at other temporal/spatial scales.

There were seven other retrospective projects funded. Steve Berkeley and coinvestigators will conduct an otolith analysis of sablefish, which occur in both the CCS and GOA and which have a juvenile phase (6-9 mos) that overlap spatially and temporally with salmon juveniles. Archived otoliths will be used to develop growth rate patterns extending back ca. 70 years, which will be correlated with patterns in environmental indices. Rick Brodeur and coworkers will examine composition, distribution, and abundance shifts that have occurred in the ichthyoplankton assemblage of the western GOA using data collected by US and USSR vessels between 1981-96. Bruce Finney will reconstruct salmon abundance (returns to freshwater spawning habitat) using stable N isotope data from stratified lake sediments in WA and AK. Richard Merrick and coworkers will evaluate trophic positions, productivity and growth of seabirds and marine mammals (e.g., top predators) in the GOA for 1960-75 and 1975-90, using N isotopes in archived materials (bones, feathers, teeth, otoliths, etc.). Mark Ohman and coinvestigators will examine long-term changes in the zooplankton (species composition; gelatinous forms, etc.) of the CCS using CalCOFI samples for the last ca. 45 years. Trophic analysis using N isotopes will be done for a few species also. Suzanne Strom will examine the microzooplankton link between primary production and higher trophic levels using archived samples collected from Line P in the subarctic Pacific between 1987 and present. Ted Strub and coinvestigators will use satellite remote sensing data (color, altimetry, AVHRR, SAR) to examine variability in the NEP at basin scale and mesoscale. Included in this will be examination of the linkages (covariability) between the CCS and CGOA.

GLOBEC funded two initial pilot monitoring projects. Bob Smith and coinvestigators will sample transects extending offshore from Newport and Coos Bay, OR ca. 5-6 times per year for physics, currents, nutrients, chlorophyll and net zooplankton, with a goal of providing a then (previously sampled in 1961-71) and now (during GLOBEC project) comparison of the forcing and ecosystem response. Tom Weingartner and coinvestigators will sample ca. 6 times per year the Gulf of Alaska (GAK) line extending seaward from Seward, AK. Observations will be obtained on the same parameters as the Oregon line, but in addition there will be acoustic sampling for zooplankton and fish, and in the summer and fall cruises, trawling for fish from a chartered vessel. This line has an extensive 27 year time series (for physics only) with which future data can be compared.

Powell noted that the first NEP coordination meeting was held on 18-19 August in Seattle. At least one funded PI from each of the NEP projects attended the meeting. At that workshop, three breakout groups (modeling, retrospective and monitoring) met individually to discuss and assess the funded projects--i.e., to evaluate the strengths of the NEP program and to identify potential weaknesses, including gaps in the program with respect to the implementation plan.

Botsford summarized the discussions of the modeling group. First, he noted that there were four modeling projects funded specifically by U.S. GLOBEC, but in addition there were a number of other funded model efforts in the NEP. He summarized the efforts with a map showing the locations of the model efforts (both GLOBEC and others). Some of the non-US GLOBEC efforts are 1) Foreman's effort in Canada GLOBEC on the western continental margin of Vancouver Island; 2) John Allen is funded by CoOP to develop a coupled bio-physical model of central and southern Oregon; 3) Powell, Haidvogel and Batchelder are funded by NSF to develop a coupled biophysical model for northern California, with a focus on holozooplankton population dynamics; 4) John Kindle and Paul Bissett (NRL) and McWilliams (EPA) are independently developing coupled models for the domain ranging from Vancouver Island to Baja California. He noted some spatial and/or disciplinary gaps in coverage by the NEP modeling efforts: 1) there is no specific effort to produce a high resolution physical model for the Washington shelf, which because of it potential importance to salmon emigrating from and returning to the Columbia River could be important; 2) there is no population or metapopulation model of salmon in the Gulf of Alaska; and, 3) there is no model of zooplankton size structure in the Gulf of Alaska. An emphasis of the model working group discussion was a strong desire to structure the models so that their results could be compared--i.e., to ensure that any differences that arise from the diverse modeling efforts are true differences, caused perhaps by regional differences in forcing or in biological responses, rather than artifacts created by inherent differences in the formulation of the models. Botsford noted a need for physical models at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, i.e., capable of resolving biologically important circulation features--especially for regions where process-oriented field studies are likely. Finally, there was recognition that there is a need to identify features of importance with regard to salmon productivity--i.e., basic information about the detailed spatial dynamics of the early life stages, what they eat, and which physical features are important in transport and productivity.

The NEP model working group will meet again in early December in Seattle to more fully explore these topics. Botsford suggested that several salmon specialists be invited to the meeting. deYoung noted that it would probably be useful to have one or more of the funded modelers from the Canadian GLOBEC program at the meeting in December. Likewise it was suggested that Kindle and McWilliams be invited. Hollowed wondered how we will ground truth the model results with observations to evaluate model "predictions". Haidvogel noted that it will be difficult to develop "predictively correct", as opposed to "statistically correct", physical models, but it should remain the program's goal. "Statistically" correct models, for example, might have the right number of eddies, but they might not be in the correct place and time to match specific field observations--i.e., the models produce statistically correct dynamics, but not necessarily predictively correct results. deYoung suggested that a "backward facing workshop" to explore large signal events could bring together modelers and observationists. This approach has been used successfully in the ICES program to look at specific strong signal events in the Atlantic. Strub noted that TOPEX/ERS scatterometers might allow visualization of eddies of 100 km size, which could be used to place constraints on eddy locations and statistics.

Strub reported on the discussions that occurred in the retrospective working group. He noted that most of the projects spanned the last 20-50 years, with one paleo study in lakes extending to much earlier periods. There are a number of allied, non-GLOBEC investigations underway that examine datasets retrospectively. Some of these are 1) Bill Peterson's data archeology effort on zooplankton data from the Newport, OR line; 2) Tim Baumgartner's examination of paleosediments in Southern California and off Vancouver Island; 3) CalCOFI projects other than the Ohman and Checkley GLOBEC study; 4) studies being done by PNCERS and FOCI; 5) investigations of PFEL, ORSTOM, IAI in other eastern boundary currents; and, 6) the historical fish habitat mapping that is being conducted by NMFS. The retrospective working group provided several specific recommendations: 1) a need to develop a database soon (the nature of this database is still under discussion, perhaps being a metadatabase, data archive, or a data management office); 2) need to standardize data formats, esp. for biological data, and to make physical forcing data sets more available to the research community; 3) need to establish strong links between researchers doing retrospective analysis and modeling, esp. to stress the need for the structure of the models to be flexible (this linkage may enable modelers to direct what data sets/analyses are needed early from the retrospective researchers); and 4) identified some possible data gaps (Monterey and SE Alaska regionally; zooplankton spatial/temporal coverage besides CalCOFI; fish scale analysis). Francis noted that he is involved in a project that is examining growth and chemical properties of salmon scales from ca. 1910 in Alaska and ca. 1940 in British Columbia. Beardsley wondered if there were long-lived benthic species in the NEP, the shells of which could be used to infer past NEP bottom water temperatures (from isotopic analysis). It was unclear whether there were suitable archival materials available to permit this.

Pearcy emphasized the sparse monitoring of the NEP that has been funded by U.S. GLOBEC. He summarized the observations that will be collected and the methods used by the two funded monitoring projects, which for the most part are identical. The CGOA sampling to be done along the Gulf of Alaska (GAK) line extending offshore from Seward, AK, will sample zooplankton and fish using acoustics and midwater trawl for fish--neither of which is currently funded for the Oregon monitoring program. Pearcy showed a map with allied monitoring efforts in the NEP. Some of these are 1) MacArthur cruises to marine sanctuaries along the west coast; 2) Bill Peterson's fortnightly cruises extending ca. 20 km offshore along the Newport line; 3) PNCERS has deployed a mooring off Willapa Bay, WA; 4) Bonneville Power Authority may develop an ocean sampling/monitoring program for salmon in the plume of the Columbia River; 5) Canadian GLOBEC transect lines along the west coast of Vancouver Island and some additional midwater trawling for salmon; 6) JGOFS sampling of physics and lower trophic levels along Line P; 7) the Ocean Carrying Capacity juvenile salmon sampling being conducted by the Auke Bay lab (May-July in inside waters); 7) the Exxon Valdez Ocean Spill (EVOS) SEA program in Prince William Sound, which is winding down, and the EVOS APIS program on seabirds; 8) the FOCI Shelikof Strait program; 9) a Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) project which will sample the CODE site and off Crescent City in Northern California to document effects of ENSO in 1997-98; and, 10) the CalCOFI program. The monitoring working group identified the following needs: 1) improved coordination among all of the programs involved in NEP research; 2) development of standard procedures for sampling; 3) specification and release of an AO by U.S. GLOBEC to address salmon sampling and acoustic measurements off Oregon; and, 4) more specifically, the RV Wecoma is not available for the spring/summer 1998 cruise scheduled for Oregon (it was suggested that shiptime be requested on the MacArthur, since it will be in the region during that time). Dagg expressed concern that the 70 cm bongos with 0.5mm mesh will not sample euphausiids quantitatively. Torres suggested that a 2 meter Tucker trawl with 1-2 mm mesh would be better for sampling large euphausiids. Huntley commented that the 153 kHz ADCP was a pretty selective sampler for large zooplankton, especially euphausiids, in his studies from Norwegian fjords, and that perhaps ADCP acoustics could be used to map the spatial patchiness of euphausiids in the NEP program. Harris asked whether there would be future Continuous Plankton Recorder surveys from AK to California (Chris Reid did one CPR line earlier as a test). Taylor responded that he thought that line was a one-time effort, and that there were no funds available to support a CPR monitoring effort in the NEP. Fogarty expressed concern that if the monitoring is not designed statistically appropriate "up-front", then it would be difficult to do a comparison between the CCS and CGOA regions--a fundamental goal of the NEP program.

Mountain provided a brief overview of the similarities and differences of the Georges Bank (GB)and Northeast Pacific GLOBEC programs. He found many significant differences, related to 1) the differing geographic scales of the two study regions, 2) two areas being studied in the NEP, causing issues related to the compatibility between the areas in models and monitoring, 3) the distribution of principal investigators (nearby neighbors in GB; widely dispersed in NEP), and 4) that the process work in the NEP program is not yet well defined or funded. Mountain also noted two important similarities between the programs in their need for 1) the early establishment of a data management office and 2) local leadership (a hero) and coordination (an ExCo). Everyone agreed that management and coordination of the NEP would be far more daunting task than it is for the GB program for several reasons. First, many of the investigators involved in the GB program had previously worked together and/or were co-located at the same institution. The funded PIs in the NEP program have, with few exceptions, never previously worked together, and they are located at widely distributed institutions from Alaska to Southern California. Secondly, the scientific problem on Georges Bank was more manageable and well defined than is the problem in the NEP. All agreed that a strong leadership is needed in the NEP program now, and that it was unrealistic to expect that leader to "emerge" from the currently funded groups at this point. It was decided to name an interim (term to be one year) NEP ExCo, mostly consisting of National U.S. GLOBEC SSC members, but including also the team leaders from each of the monitoring projects. At the end of the first year, it is expected that the future NEP ExCo will self-organize and be made up primarily of funded PIs, with some representation by others. Powell, who is stepping down as chair of the national committee agreed to chair the NEP ExCo for the first year. Other members of the interim committee are Strub, Hollowed, Grant, Huntley, Haidvogel, Botsford, Pearcy, Weingartner, and Smith. In addition, this committee will select three additional members from the funded PIs--one each to represent modeling, monitoring and retrospective analysis.

Huntley summarized the charges to this committee for the short term: 1) integrate the recommendations from the retrospective, modeling and monitoring working groups; 2) identify critical complementary interdependent aspects of the funded projects; 3) identify gaps in the funded program with respect to the implementation plan, and organize to meet those gaps as feasible--considering that there are no additional funds available; 4) investigate prospects for meeting needs for long-term monitoring in Northern California, perhaps a site of future CoOP process studies (Note: the ENSO SGER funds in hand only support monitoring of the CODE site for 1997-98--not beyond); 5) define the process studies, and produce for release an AO requesting proposals for process-oriented work to start in FY2000; and, 6) outreach, at both the PI and allied complimentary program and political constituency levels. Ortner emphasized that it is critical to formalize relationships with other potential partners in the NEP (EVOS, PNCERS, CoOP, COP). Following some discussion about the probable loss of NDBC buoys along the west coast, Powell agreed to draft a letter to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) expressing the value of the data derived from the buoys for the U.S. GLOBEC NEP program. Gray and Johnson agreed to assist in drafting the letter.

Francis spoke about a potential opportunity for U.S. GLOBEC to collaborate with the Northwest Power Planning Council (to which Francis has been appointed). In September 1996 an amendment was added to the NW Power Act which provided that the council should consider ocean conditions on salmon in evaluating research projects funded by the council. The council's interest in the ocean stems from understanding how operation of the river (runoff) might affect estuarine related salmon survival, how accurate forecasting of climate change can improve power management, and evaluating how to utilize diverse ocean conditions to enhance diversity of salmonids. Francis opined that he believed that the ocean studies must lead to direct positive management of salmon survival, and that there might be a strong focus of any ocean studies on the Columbia River plume. He thought the council could be convinced to "go out and sample salmon in the ocean". Botsford noted that knowledge of the ocean conditions (information that U.S. GLOBEC will be generating) will aid in interpreting the effects of "dam" and "environment" on salmon population fluctuations.


Hollowed noted that PICES' 6th Annual meeting will be held in Pusan, Korea from October 14-26, 1997, and that there are sessions on "Ecosystem dynamics in the eastern and western gyres of the subarctic Pacific" and "Models for linking climate and fish" which are very GLOBEC relevant. The REX (Regional Experiment) working group of PICES is meeting in Pusan for a two day workshop. Approximately 50 scientists, representing 6 nations are confirmed participants. There will be presentations on specific regional programs (including U.S. GLOBEC's NEP program) by national representatives, and then several sessions with breakout groups. Specific goals of the workshop are to address the difficulty in identifying control ecosystems, and replication difficulties. Hopefully, guidelines for standardized core measurements to be made in each regional experiment will be developed. Hollowed noted that next years PICES meeting will probably be in Anchorage, AK in late October. Since that time frame would be appropriate for summarizing results from the already funded NEP projects, it was decided to ask the PICES organizing committee to develop a session for that meeting specific to the GLOBEC program. deYoung noted that Canada GLOBEC would be interested in such a session, and that the session should be kept general to be of broadest international interest (i.e., not just a report by the U.S. GLOBEC NEP investigators). Hollowed agreed to communicate this session topic to a member of the PICES management for consideration at this years PICES meeting.


Loo Botsford spoke about decadal, interannual and weekly variability in the California Current System. Emphasis was on variation in population abundance of various species (crab, urchin, salmon) and relations between that variability and potential physical forcings responsible for the population fluctuations. Much of the talk was a retrospective of various studies conducted by Botsford and his coworkers off of Northern California. Loo set a new record for most overheads shown in a 50 minute presentation to the SSC. The main conclusions from his presentation are that there are changes in the CCS that have occurred at decadal, annual and sub-annual time scales. Examples are 1) that there has been a long-term (decadal) increase in upwelling and increase in temperature of the CCS; 2) that both upwelling, which varies interannually, and ENSO affect salmon populations and perhaps crabs. Moreover, Dungeness crab populations fluctuate out of phase with salmon, suggesting that in some way they may be linked to each other, or through another common factor. 3) At sub-annual time-scales, perhaps monthly or weekly, the physical-biological mechanisms controlling salmon abundances are not known, but perhaps involve either food resources or transport or both, and 4) several subtidal/intertidal species, which are more amenable to study than salmon, are strongly influenced by weekly changes in winds and upwelling, and high frequency events like upwelling relaxations are important to dispersal and recruitment.


At our previous meeting (April 1997) several meetings/workshops were discussed, but because of lack of time were tabled until this meeting. We discussed three potential future GLOBEC meetings: 1) a cross-regional comparison/synthesis workshop (Fogarty); 2) genetics workshop (Grant); and, 3) a Gulf of Mexico workshop (Dagg). The SSC members who proposed and presented the information about the workshops are enclosed in (). Fogarty's proposed workshop, "Synthesis and Intercomparison in Multiregional GLOBEC Studies", would be charged to develop a framework for synthesis and meta-analysis in GLOBEC and related studies, and would produce a U.S. GLOBEC report. It was proposed to be a three day meeting with ca. 12-15 participants and have a cost of ca. $15-20K, if held in Maryland. It was recognized by the committee that such a workshop would be valuable, especially since US GLOBEC is just beginning studies in the NEP. It was suggested by Powell that the Center for Synthesis and Integration (CSI) at UC Santa Barbara might be an appropriate sole or co-sponsor of such a workshop, and the SSC moved, seconded and passed a motion to have Fogarty explore that option for funding the workshop. Using the CSI might allow a wider participation of scientists, including many interested in meta-analysis, perhaps from fields other than marine science. Grant outlined the genetics workshop that would be for three days, consist of molecular geneticists, oceanographers and modelers, and would focus on systematics of marine organisms, population genetic responses to climate change, and the incorporation of genetic data into models of oceanic and biological processes. It was noted that NSF-OCE would like to pursue this genetics workshop, but perhaps with other funding partners. Powell asked that SSC comments/recommendations on Grant and Bentzen's Genetics workshop proposal be sent to Batchelder by 1 November. Dagg presented the rationale for holding a workshop to explore GLOBEC issues in the Gulf of Mexico (henceforth referred to as GOMEX). The rationale includes 1) interesting problems relating variable physical forcing (weather fronts, buoyancy flows, loop current intrusion) and population dynamics of commercially important species; 2) region with complicated small-scale physical structures that may be biologically very important; and, 3) relevant problems of hypoxia (low oxygen) zone related to shrimp distribution and abundance. Johnson noted that COP has interests in the Gulf of Mexico, independent of U.S. GLOBEC, along with interest expressed by the CoOP program, EPA, USDA and other agencies. Hollowed noted that a GOMEX project on shrimp might complement China GLOBEC's investigations of prawns in the Bohai Sea. Ortner noted that it would be important for GLOBEC to "weigh in with our expertise on physical-biological coupling and higher trophic levels", even if we eventually are not a major funder of a GOMEX project. Powell noted that if GLOBEC moved into GOMEX, we would be a very junior partner, not a major player. Hofmann and Strub noted that it is not a good idea to raise expectations by holding a workshop, when there is no clear indication that there will be a future program in the region. Hofmann reminded the SSC that this had been done once already with the Arabian Sea, and Strub noted the frustrations of the scientists on the west coast following several planning meetings and no clear future program in the Pacific. Dagg believed that GLOBEC co-sponsorship of a GOMEX workshop would set the tone for elevating the importance of basic science in any GOMEX program, and would counterbalance the mission directives (e.g., strict investigation/solution of the hypoxia problem) of some of the other agencies.


John Knauss provided an interim report of the internal review of U.S. GLOBEC that this committee is preparing. He noted that the charge to the committee (Knauss, Houde, Frost, Denman) is to evaluate what has U.S. GLOBEC learned? and, How successful has the program been? In doing the review, the committee is focusing on the work of the SSC and of the Georges Bank program. Being a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional program it must meet higher standards of 1) fairness (it has been fair); 2) agreement on goals (achieved); 3) who was funded and how those decisions were reached (reasonable and fair); 4) synergism (explicit integration of modelers and observationists; physicists and biologists, etc.); and 5) dealing with diverse cultural issues (NOAA vs. NSF; academics vs. federal scientists; field scientists vs. modelers, etc.). Overall, the program is doing well, but there are some areas where improvement is needed, especially, that we have not met our declared goal of demonstrating a connection between climate change and physical forcing, although we are doing well on the linkage between physical forcing and biological or ecosystem responses. Knauss wonders whether it is reasonable to expect to be able to say anything about decadal and interannual climate change/variability and their impacts on marine resources in a program with the limited lifespan that U.S. GLOBEC has. He opined that perhaps the stated goal should be changed from a climate change/variability emphasis to a marine resource emphasis to reflect the change in funding from the original Office of Global Programs (climate emphasis) to the Coastal Ocean Program (resource emphasis) within NOAA. Knauss noted that although there are regular interactions between modelers and observationalists in the Georges Bank program, there is still room for improvement. Finally, he noted that the Georges Bank program had many advantages that poised it for success that will not be present in the upcoming NEP program: 1) previous existing data set in the NW Atlantic was better than that available for the NEP; 2) communication among the NEP investigators (esp. face to face meetings) will be more difficult because of the geographically dispersed PIs than it is for the GB PIs; 3) there is an international dimension (Canada) in the NEP program that will be important for filling the intervening geographical gap, that did not exist in the GB program; 4) the NEP system (program) is a much larger, more open, difficult system to study than was the smaller Georges Bank ecosystem; and, 5) the leadership to date in the SSC (Powell) and GB program (Wiebe) has been outstanding, and such leadership must be identified for the NEP program. Ed Houde commented that the Georges Bank program has demonstrated the importance of leadership and the benefit of partnerships (at the funding and investigator levels).


Roger Harris provided an overview of the International GLOBEC science. First he noted that there is, since acceptance into the IGBP, a new SSC which consists of Harris, Aksnes, Alheit, Dickey, Hofmann, Rothschild, Ikeda, Perry, Shillington, Tang, Stromberg, Piontkovski, and four other members still to be named. The GI science plan will be published in early 1997. An early draft of the GI implementation plan will be available before the Open Science meeting to be held in Paris in March 1998. Major regional component programs of GI will be 1) Southern Ocean, 2) Small Pelagics and Climate Change (SPACC), 3) PICES-CCCC (North Pacific Carrying Capacity and Climate Change, and 4) ICES-CCC (Cod and Climate Change program in the North Atlantic). National and related programs include the existing GLOBEC programs of U.S., Canada, Japan, France, Germany, UK, China, developing programs in New Zealand, Chile, South Africa, and related regional programs like the Benguela Ecology Program (BEP), TransAtlantic Studies of Calanus (TASC), and Mare Cognitum (Norway).

Harris noted several challenges that GI faces, including 1) rebuilding communication with regional/national programs; 2) expanding GLOBEC into nations in the southern hemisphere; 3) building linkages with other IGBP programs like JGOFS and LOICZ; 4) building capacity and improving training; and, 5) establishing a data management structure/policy. For any of these to occur however, will first require the establishment of an International Project Office (IPO) in Plymouth, UK. The Plymouth Marine Lab is providing bridging funding of the IPO at the moment, and it is hoped that NERC will fund the IPO beginning in March 1998.


Hofmann summarized the discussions that occurred at the Southern Ocean meeting held in La Jolla on 1-3 September 1997. The principal purpose of that meeting was to revise the science issues in the existing SO IP to a narrower focus. The focus now is on krill and its habitat, including its prey and predators. There is a demonstrated linkage between atmospheric forcing-->sea ice-->krill variability, and that is the principal focus of the SO program. The study will be a year-round study with emphasis on winter processes. The SO GLOBEC study will occur at two main sites: Antarctic peninsula and the region around 70 East. Logistically, the program will begin (hopefully) in 1999. A SO coordination office will be established, perhaps in Korea. Data management and modeling working groups are being established, and regional planning meetings for the two sites will be held soon. Hofmann noted that NSF-OPP hopes to release an AO for the Southern Ocean GLOBEC field studies in early 1998. The SSC moved, seconded and approved a motion to let the Southern Ocean U.S. GLOBEC committee (consisting of Hofmann, Reilly, Huntley, Loeb, Torres, and Dagg) develop, review and submit the AO for U.S. GLOBEC SO studies to OPP.

DAY TWO (Friday, 10 October 1997)


The appointment terms of Beardsley, Hofmann, Mountain and Ortner expire at the end of 1997. In addition, Jim Schumacher is retiring from science and asked to be excused from serving the final year of his term. Taylor expressed his desire to see the size of the SSC reduced this year and next (when the terms of eight SSC members expire). Taylor and Powell both argued that it was important to bring new blood onto the SSC and to rotate members. The committee thanked Ortner and Mountain for their long-term service to the SSC--both have been members for at least two terms (6 years). Hofmann leads the U.S. effort in developing the SO program, represents U.S. GLOBEC on the International GLOBEC SSC, and was asked to serve as an Ex-Officio member on the U.S. GLOBEC SSC for another three years, which she accepted. Beardsley is concluding his first term on the SSC and was renominated and elected to a second term. We explored disciplinary needs on the committee and identified three: 1) a North Pacific Physical Oceanographer (to replace Schumacher); 2) a scientist with expertise in larval fish; and, 3) a climatologist. The committee developed a list of potential scientists for each category. Powell agreed to contact them to determine their potential interest in serving on the U.S. GLOBEC SSC, and if so, to request the CV and letter of interest required. In addition, it was agreed that the GLOBEC office would post an announcement (on the GLOBEC web site, and on several web bulletin boards) indicating that the committee was seeking nominations for new members with interests in the three disciplines noted above.

During the summer, Powell informed the SSC members that he would be stepping down as chair of the SSC at the end of 1997. Two members of the SSC (Hollowed and Fogarty) expressed interest in succeeding Powell as chair of the committee. Each of them made presentations to the SSC about their vision for GLOBEC, their scientific and management philosophy, and the major tasks they foresee for the program in the next few years. After discussion, the SSC elected Mike Fogarty to be the new chairman of the U.S. GLOBEC SSC. The GLOBEC coordination office will be transferred to the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory of the University of Maryland, Solomons, MD sometime shortly after 1 January 1998. The details and timing of the office transition remain to be worked out between Powell and Fogarty.


Val Loeb spoke on krill populations and climate change in the Antarctic Peninsula region of the Southern Ocean. She emphasized the value of conducting long-term multidisciplinary studies to document ecosystem changes and understand the responsible mechanisms. She illustrated her talk with results from the joint academic/NOAA Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) program focusing on the marine ecosystem and upper-level predators in the vicinity of Elephant Island. Net sampling has been conducted near Elephant Island since ca. 1976 by German research cruises or by the AMLR program. Krill biomass prior to 1984 was high and very variable, but since 1984 has been relatively low and less variable. Krill in recent years have had relatively poor recruitment success. Hypotheses advanced to explain the relatively poor recent recruitment are that it is related to 1) mismatch of spawning time to phytoplankton blooming; 2) salp density (a competition effect); 3) water temperature; and, 4) sea ice conditions. Using 16 years of data, Loeb showed that krill are positively related to heavy sea ice in the preceding winter and that this leads to early spawning. Moreover, there was especially strong krill recruitment when there were two consecutive heavy sea-ice winters, suggesting an effect on both spawning, but also on juvenile and adult krill survival--related to their use of sea-ice as a refuge to avoid predation. Mean salp abundance is negatively correlated with regional indices of sea-ice cover during the preceding winter. The frequency of heavy sea-ice years has decreased from 4 out of five years early in the study period to only 1 or 2 out of five years in the most recent years. If continued krill recruitment success is strongly dependent on consecutive cold (high sea-ice) winter conditions, the trend of decreased frequency of extensive sea ice could be detrimental to both the krill and the numerous higher trophic level predators that rely on them (penguins, etc.).


Mountain briefly summarized activities of the GB program. First, the cruises for Phase II research on GB were concluded successfully this summer. The scientific investigators met in July to discuss results from prior year studies and the Georges Bank Management office will be publishing a report of the meeting shortly. There was a session on GLOBEC North Atlantic (an international session) at the September ICES Annual Science Conference in Baltimore, MD that was well attended and at which many Georges Bank papers were presented. The AO for Phase III Georges Bank research has been released (target date for submissions is 15 December). There will be an open meeting held at the Mass. Maritime Academy in early November for anyone interested in coordinating with others to respond to the Phase III AO. Research foci for Phase III are 1) frontal processes and exchanges, esp. 3D circulation at fronts, effects of fronts on vital rates of the target populations and frontal movements; 2) modeling and 3) synthesis/comparative analysis. Mountain noted that the broad-scale cruises for 1998 are set, but always subject to change. Mountain, Judy Gray and Mike Sissenwine met in July 1997 to discuss the transition of the GLOBEC Georges Bank broad-scale survey/monitoring work to operational monitoring by NMFS. It was noted that there is an effort to begin nationwide NMFS fisheries oceanography work beginning in FY2000. If that occurs that would provide an opportunity for NMFS to conduct follow-on work on Georges Bank.


The spring 1998 SSC meeting will occur 16-17 April 1998 in Washington, DC. The fall 1998 SSC meeting will be 8-9 October 1998 in Seattle, WA.

The meeting adjourned at 1515.

Quote of the Meeting (QOTM):

"Gulf of Mexico participation could be a plus for U.S. GLOBEC--the best way to delay retirement [of the program] is to make yourself indispensable." -- Brad deYoung

homepage minutes contents previous