BOOTHBAY, Maine — Phytoplankton. If the mention of the tiny plant organisms that permeate the world’s oceans isn’t enough to pique your interest, consider this: They produce the oxygen in every other breath you take.
Still not interested? This is where it’s hard not to take notice. In 2007, the reproduction rate of phytoplankton in the Gulf of Maine decreased suddenly by a factor of five — what used to take a day now takes five — and according to a recently released study by the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay, it hasn’t bounced back.
So what does it mean? According to Barney Balch, the lab’s senior research scientist and lead author of the study, such a change in organisms at the bottom of the planetary food chain and at the top of planetary oxygen production could have disastrous consequences for virtually every species on Earth, from lobsters and fish that fuel Maine’s marine industries to your grandchildren. But the 12-year Bigelow study focused only on the Gulf of Maine, which leads to the question, will it spread?
“I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to know that if you shut down the base of the marine food web, the results won’t be positive,” said Balch.
Balch said the study, which was published recently in the Marine Ecology Progress Series, provides one of the strongest links to date between increases in rainfall and temperature over the years and the Gulf of Maine’s ecosystem. Key factors in the study’s conclusions were driven by 100 years of records on rainfall and river discharge, both of which have increased by between 13 and 20 percent over the past century.
In fact, of the eight heaviest rainfall years in the past century, four of them fell between 2005 and 2010. Balch said that increased precipitation, along with water melting from the polar ice caps, could be the reason for the problems discovered in the phytoplankton regeneration rate. The fact that Gulf of Maine’s water temperature has risen about 1.1 degrees celsius — which is on par with what is being seen around the world — could also be a factor.
“The major change that we’re seeing is that we are now able to put [precipitation and temperature data] into better context,” said Balch. “It’s so striking that the increase is so statistically significant.”
Though heavier water flows into the Gulf of Maine might be a major factor, Balch said it may actually be side-effects of that phenomenon — such as decreased salinity and increasing amounts of materials like rotting plant matter being swept up in the stronger currents — that are actually causing the problem. In other words, when the water is brown it’s bad for phytoplankton because the added material in the water starves the single-celled plants of sunlight.
During the 12-year study, which focused on the area of sea between Portland and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, researchers noticed that plumes of material coming from Maine rivers were reaching 70-100 kilometers into the ocean — farther than had ever been seen before. The outflows also prevent nutrient-rich deep-ocean water from circulating into the Gulf of Maine.
“When you collect the amount of data that we’ve collected, it’s hard to discount the significance,” said Balch. “I know there are skeptics out there who still discount the issue of climate change, but the evidence now is just striking. We need to be thinking very carefully about trying to slow this down. It didn’t happen overnight and it’s not going to go away overnight.”
Balch said that the Gulf of Maine is small compared to the world’s oceans, but not without the capacity to have a marked effect on the overall ecosystem of the Atlantic Ocean. If the problem with the phytoplankton persists, fishermen will notice its effects long before the world’s oxygen supply suffers. Phytoplankton is a key food source for several species of larval fish and lobster populations.
“People shouldn’t freak out about this but they should think very carefully about the long-term changes that we humans are making,” he said. “This study shows the incredibly tight connection that there is between land and the ocean, especially in the coastal ocean.”
In this article you write…the reproduction rate increased by 5 fold… should’nt that have said “decreased” ??? ……………………I see you changed it .
During the 12-year study, which focused on the area of sea between Portland and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, researchers noticed that plumes of material coming from Maine rivers were reaching 70-100 kilometers into the ocean — farther than had ever been seen before.
Probably caused by removal of the dams….
Well that is only a short term effect, once the water has been drawn down and the dam removed the level of flow will taper off. If that was the sole reason, than what happened before the dams were built? Logically I would suspect that a build up of contaminants in the river system coupled with the dam removal would provide an initial flushing of the system, but once it’s gone it should stop unless more contaminants are constantly being introduced. One other thing to think about is that in some of these sites without the dam the flow is actually less than what you would have seen with a dam concentrating the flow into narrow areas, not the case with every site. But with the removal the river is allowed to change it’s width so the sediment build up may be flushing out now.
The removal of dams is evidently significant. The sediment buildup is exploded upon the ocean, like a bomb, like an attack, an act of environmental war. I don’t think it is intentional but the outcome is extremely significant in that the phytoplankton are considerably reduced because the water becomes brown and is smothering to the organism. The sidiment behind the dam may have been built up for a hundred years, and is so thick that it continues to flush out organic material and sediment, probably contaminated with mercury or other heavy metals used during the century.
If a dam is to be removed, as is evidently occuring now on the Penobscot, than consideration must be made for the possible destruction of phytoplankton and possible act of unintentional environmental terrorism to reduce oxygen production to the inhabitants of this land and water through the destruction of the oxygen producers in the ocean. Consider the total ramification of action, it is prudent. This evidence is remarkable and should be viewed with wisdom.
Wondering how many lobsters all this bullS#@! buys..
Did George Soros fund this?
It sure won’t be a conservative.they are trying to kill us all
I’ve heard higher numbers for the amount of oxygen they provide, a little known fact that most of our oxygen comes from the ocean. These little guys sequester carbon.. big time. Without them.. we’re f’d. I hope this study is flawed, somehow. Deeply troubling.
I would expect that like almost every study it is flawed in some way. They can be flawed because the information is incomplete; such as not enough factors examined, poor data collection …
These errors can be accidental, or intentional.
Yes, but one needs to work with the best available data. Ignoring the likelihood of climate change just because it cannot be quantified perfectly is what got us here to begin with.
Yes, deeply troubling. I was flying north along the coast of Maine last fall, and even from that height, I could tell there had been a big rain. It was amazing how muddy-brown the ocean along the coast was – and how far out into the ocean the sediment was carried.
Very troubling indeed- what with the destruction of many of the worlds rain forest ,which is a large factor in the global oxygen supply–acid rain-monumental forest fires etc etc…Now this on top of it all. It would seem mankind is to play a small role in the scheme of all things-nothing more than a blink of the eye in time and space–the Earth is the garden of Eden which supplies life to us all–a delicate garden it is.
Gee, I wonder what the cause of this increased rainfall and warm temperatures is. Possibly our use of fossil fuels which has caused global warming?
We can either resign ourselves that this is God’s will, that man is going to lead to the extinction of its own species, or we can start to take actions to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Hopefully we will choose the latter.
Temperature changes resulting from atmospheric discharges have affected the salinity cycle in the oceans of the world. This affects how storms are created and it affects those species that live in the seas. The salinity changes we are seeing over the last decade are enough to significantly increase the number and severity of storms. With such extreme changes in the composition of ocean water, it is logical that there would be impacts to the ecosystems of sea species.
Because nature is complex and one change brings about many responsive changes, many of which are as yet unpredictable, we will likely see unexpected consequences of our ignorance of how we are altering our planet. AS these impacts become clearer and more undeniable, expect more money to rush in to misinform the people about what is happening, what is actually being observed.
Opinions may vary but science has centuries old ways of validating theories. When a theory is not born out in observation, it is altered to account for the new data. What is happening today is that the new data bares out the old hypothesis but the resistence is coming from non-scientific sources that have short-term interests in the status quo. Since research itself was politicized during the Bush presidency, the entire process is suffering from the consequences of those actions.
The world, through relying on the scientific method, has transformed into a place that can sustain now 7 Billion people and where one can communicate across the globe with a device that costs a few hours of pay. All of this progress could not have happened if science were a political endeavor, manipulated by the powerful. Our world is changing in ways that will threaten stability. Listen to our learned scientists and let them study and invent without politicizing them. The tough problems we face can only be solved if we return to the academic freedoms that once characterized science and discovery and gave birth to the university research system that has been the envy of the world and the incubator of economic progress.
Is temperature the only factor investigated? What about factors like O2 and CO2 levels, PH, salinity, turbidity … I would think all of these factors would be important.
Was temperature the only thing mentioned for some other reason than an explanation?
Pollution is rapidly increasing our planets dead zones. In the link below there is a map of the dead zones. You will also notice, the Great Lakes are also suffering a massive die-off and last I knew, one of the Great Lakes was dead and another was soon to follow. This is scary stuff and appears to be entirely man-made.
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/7780
between nukes,corexit,and gulf oil,we may be seeing the begining of the end!!! god help us!! looking4che
dude, che is dead.
To what degree is Weather Modification through the global aerosol operation (aka Chemtrails) in conjunction with HAARP ionospheric heater manipulation affecting these dire changes? We better start demanding answers to these questions because experts and aerospce engineers willing to speak out have conclusive evidence for this aerosol operation (in plain sight). Start asking your government “what is the difference between global warming and global Climate change through manipulation with chemtrail aerosols? We know that Chemtrails are warming the atmosphere.
Don’t be fooled by the numerous disinformation agents and their new wave of desperate propaganda. The existance of Chemtrails has been confirmed beyond any doubt. In a 2010 international Chemtrail Syposium sponsored by the Belfort Group, Aerospace engineers use science and public domain documents in a 336 page report (CASE ORANGE) as conclusive evidence for an ongoing covert geoengineering operation known to millions of civilian observers around the world as “chemtrails”. This is not a “conspiracy theory”. Congressional legislation sponsored by Dennis Kucinich in 2001 (HR-2977) used the word “Chemtrails” to describe a type of “exotic weapon”. I earned my pilot license in 1977 and have researched this topic for 8 years and I know the difference between contrails of water vapor and dry powdered aluminum sprayed from jet aircraft.
http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/949/419/Whistleblowers_Talk_at_Chemtrails_Symposium_-_THE_BELFORT_GROUP,_EU.html
A recent extreme weather event in the Florida Panhandle and Alabama is linked to weather manipulation with epoch amounts of rainfall in Pensacola — Evidence of Chemtrails and HAARP in Torrential Pensacola Flood and Alabama Tornado
http://private.beforeitsnews.com/story/2247/823/Evidence_of_Chemtrails_and_HAARP_in_Torrential_Pensacola_Flood_and_Alabama_Tornado.html