In the ocean, krill live together in swarms, some of them stretching for tens of kilometres. Krill swarms are some of the largest gatherings of life on the planet and this naturally poses some puzzling questions to science: Why are krill living together? How do they find each other? Why are some swarms enormous when others are more moderately sized?

In an effort to shed some light on the mystery, a team of British Antarctic Survey (BAS) researchers headed by Dr Geraint Tarling set out to study the composition and structure of 4525 separate krill swarms in the Scotia Sea. Despite its name, the Scotia Sea is not located close to home for these British scientists – it is a vast expanse of water situated partly in the Southern Ocean and partly in the Atlantic; between Argentina and the Antarctic Peninsula.

Using echo-sounding equipment, the Tarling team tracked down the krill living in this 900,000 km² area and what they found surprised them. According to this new research, krill normally gather into two different types of swarms. The first type is relatively small, typically not exceeding a length of 50 meters and a depth of 4 meters. In this comparatively small type of swarm, the density of krill isn’t very high – you will just find an average of ten krill per cubic meter.

The other type of swarm – dubbed “superswarm” by the researchers – is on the other hand a very densely packed group with up to 100 krill per cubic meter. These dense congregations are the ones that grow really big, often stretching over one kilometre in length and averaging almost 30 meter in depth.

“I was coming at it thinking there might be small swarms tightly packed, and then large swarms that were a bit more diffuse,” says Dr Tarling. “But what we actually found was the opposite. There were small swarms that were quite diffuse and large swarms that were tightly packed.”

This means that a majority of the krill living in the Scotia Sea at any one time will be found within one of just a few enormous superswarms.

“We talking trillions of krill in one aggregation,” explains Dr Tarling. “Ten or 12 swarms could explain 60 or 70% of the biomass in an area the size of the eastern Atlantic. It was astonishing how much biomass could be concentrated into such a small area.”

A fishing flee scooping up a whole swarm of krill may therefore be removing the majority of krill from the Southern Ocean in just one short fishing trip if they happen to target one of the superswarms instead of a small swarm.

How does a superswarm come about?

Although they weren’t able to fully answer this question, Tarling and his colleagues managed to pinpoint certain factors that make superswarms more likely to appear.

“The factors we identified included whether there was more likely to be a lot of food around or not, and when there wasn’t that much food around, they tended to form larger swarms,” says Dr Tarling.

Age is also of importance. The smaller, diffuse swarms typically contained adult krill, while the enormous superswarms consisted of densely packed juvenile individuals.

“Where the animals were less mature, they were more likely to form the larger swarms,” says Dr Tarling, adding that he doesn’t know why.

It might be a question of safety in numbers; it is common among prey animals to live in large groups to reduce the risk of getting eaten, and krill is after all a favoured meal by a long row of sea living creatures.

“All types of swarms are probably to a greater or lesser extent an antipredator response,” Dr Tarling says.

But although living in a swarm reduces the risk of being eaten, it also means having to compete with all the other members of the group for food. Juvenile krill are more buoyant than adults, which mean that they spend less energy swimming. Perhaps this is why adult krill prefers to live in smaller congregations; their negative buoyancy forces them to eat more so they can’t afford living in a huge swarm densely surrounded by competitors.

On the other hand, being in a swarm has been shown to be more energetically efficient than being isolated.

“For a juvenile that wants to grow very quickly, saving energy could be a bonus for them,” says Dr Tarling.

Night-time mystery

As a scientist, you often find yourself in a situation where new findings answer one question but simultaneously create three new ones. One of the new conundrums that Dr Tarling has brought back home from his research trip is the following: Why are superswarms more likely to form at night?

“That is more puzzling for us to explain,” says Dr Tarling. “Up until this point, most polar biologists believed that the swarms dispersed [at night], because that’s the time they feed. When daylight comes they get back into the swarm again for the antipredator benefit. But we found the opposite to that.”

The research has been published in the journal Deep Sea Research I.

According to the simplest version of the so called Iron Hypothesis, plankton blooms move atmospheric carbon down to the deep sea and increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can therefore be counteracted by promoting plankton blooms. The Iron Hypothesis derives its names from the suggestion that global warming can be thwarted by fertilizing plankton with iron in regions that are iron-poor but rich in other nutrients like nitrogen, silicon, and phosphorus, such as the Southern Ocean.

New research from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is now dealing a powerful blow to this hypothesis by showing that most of the carbon used for plankton blooms never reaches to deep sea.

Using data collected around the clock for over a year by deep-diving Carbon Explorer floats, Oceanographers Jim Bishop* and Todd Wood** have revealed that a lot of the carbon tied up by plankton blooms never sink very far.

“Just adding iron to the ocean hasn’t been demonstrated as a good plan for storing atmospheric carbon,” says Bishop. “What counts is the carbon that reaches the deep sea, and a lot of the carbon tied up in plankton blooms appear not to sink very fast or very far.”

The reasons behind this behaviour are complex, but the seasonal feeding behaviour of planktonic animal life is believed to play major part.

Photoplankton

The Carbon Explorer floats used in the study were launched in January 2002, as a part of the Southern Ocean Iron Experiment (SOFeX)***, and experiment meant to test the Iron Hypothesis in the waters between New Zealand and Antarctica during the Antarctic summer.

SOFeX fertilized and measured two regions of ocean, one in an HNLC (high-nutrient, low-chlorophyl) region at latitude 55 degrees south and another at 66 degrees south. Carbon Explorers were launched at both these sites while a third Carbon Explorer was launched well outside the iron-fertilized region at 55 degrees south as a control.

Bishop and Wood were originally assigned to the project to monitor the iron-fertilization experiment for 60 days, but the Carbon Explorers continued to transmit data throughout the Antarctic fall and winter and on into the following spring.

“We would never have made these surprising observations if the autonomous Carbon Explorer floats hadn’t been recording data 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at depths down to 800 meters or more, for over a year after the experiment’s original iron signature had disappeared,” Bishop explains. “Assumptions about the biological pump – the way ocean life circulates carbon – are mostly based on averaging measurements that have been made from ships, at intervals widely separated in time. Cost, not to mention the environment, would have made continuous ship-based observations impossible in this case. Luckily one Carbon Explorer float costs only about as much as a single day of ship time.”

The scientific hypothesis that iron can be used to stimulate phytoplankton growth in regions low in iron but rich in other nutrients is still intact and experiments show that algal blooms do in fact occur if you add iron to such waters. The study by Bishop and Wood only shows that the carbon bound by the plankton do not end up far down in the depths of the sea.

Jim Bishop’s team. (From left) Christopher Guay,
Phoebe Lam, Jim Bishop, Todd Wood, and David Kaszuba.

During the early stages of the South Sea experiment, the Iron Hypothesis seemed to hold up to scrutiny as the Berkeley researchers could detect not only a vigorous plankton bloom in the fertilized region at 55°N, but also how carbon particles sank beneath the bloom carrying 10-20 percent of the fixed carbon away from the surface layer and down to a dept of at least 100 meters. These results were published in the 2004April issue of Science.

But since the Carbon Explorers continued to submit information even when the 3-month study was officially over, Bishop and Wood could continue their monitoring of South Sea carbon levels throughout fall and winter and well into the following spring; a continued monitoring that would prove invaluable.

The two Carbon Explorers released at 55 degrees south continued to report for over 14 months and almost reached South America before they turned silent. After this, the explorer launched at 66 degrees south continued to transmit for another four months, despite having spent much of the Arctic winter recording at a dept of 800 meters where the pressure is immense. This explorer also had several encounters with the underside of chunky sea ice as it tried to surface to report during the Arctic winter.

All this new data surprisingly showed that there seemed to be much less particulate matter reaching the depth where the biomass was highest, i.e. in plankton blooms. Reports from the 66°S explorer showed how particulate carbon levels decreased sharply as the perpetually dark Arctic winter commenced and ice began to cover previously open waters. As the sun returned in spring and melted the ice the levels made a modest increase, but no sinking (sedimentation) of large amounts of carbon to the deep ocean was observed.

Another even more surprising report came from the control float, dubbed 55 C, which reported higher sedimentation of carbon 800 meters under a region with no plankton bloom than what the other 55°S (dubbed 55A) reported from the fertilized, blooming region.

Researchers are currently pondering several ideas as to explain these unforeseen results but have not reached any conclusion. A higher biomass seems to be linked to a lower export of carbon, but one knows why. One of the most promising hypotheses takes into account how phytoplankton needs sufficient amounts of light to survive and grow. Latitude 55°S is located far enough from the Arctic for light to reach the ocean year round, even though the amount is severely reduced during the winter months. But the notorious winter storms occurring in these waters can cause mixing between near-surface water and underlying water layers all the way down to a dept of 400-500 meters. Phytoplankton are dragged down to depths where it is too dark for them to grow and where hungry zooplankton waits for them.

“Mixing is the dumbwaiter that brings food down,” says Bishop. “The question is whether the dumbwaiter is empty or full.”

If mixing is consistently below the critical light level, phytoplankton can not grow, i.e. the dumbwaiter stays empty and the zooplankton gets no food. As the winter storms stop with the advent of spring, the phytoplankton can quickly rebound, aided by increased levels of sunlight. But since a lot of zooplankton starved to death during the winter, the zooplankton population is not large enough to keep steps with the phytoplankton bloom and intercept carbon loaded material as it sinks between 100 and 800 meters.

In the part of the South Sea where Carbon Explorer 55C spent the winter collecting data, storms where not continuous and the mixing was therefore halted now and then. More zooplankton survived, zooplankton which fed on the phytoplankton in spring, keeping their numbers down and increasing carbon sedimentation.

Bishop says these observations point to an important lesson: “Iron is not the only factor that

determines phytoplankton growth in HNLC regions. Light, mixing, and hungry zooplankton are fundamentally as important as iron.”

You can find more information about Bishop and Wood’s study in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles. Preprints of the issue are already available to subscribers at http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/papersinpress.shtml.

* Jim Bishop is a member of Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and a professor of Earth and planetary sciences at the University of California at Berkeley.

** Todd Wood is a staff researcher with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Laurence Berkley National Laboratory.

*** The Southern Ocean Iron Experiment (SOFeX) is a collaboration led by scientists from Moss Landing Marine Laboratory and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.

Tagged Seals are helping Australian scientists learn a great deal more about places, in the deep oceans of Antarctica, where they themselves can not travel. This summer 7 female Weddell Seals were tagged to help researchers gather information on the changes global warming is having on the oceans. The Weddell Seal is a constant inhabitant of the Antarctic, and they are now being used by an international program monitoring deep diving mammals on both the North and South Pole.

The Seals are fitted with a satellite  transmitter that relays data daily back to the researchers.  The data provides depths of the seals dives, the time they spend under water, and where they are going to eat. But, more importantly, the transmitter also relays vital information about the surrounding oceans; such as water temperatures and salinity of the oceans. So far the salinity of the oceans in the arctic have begun to decline, leaving scientists guessing that melting ice due to global warming is to blame.

However, research is done only in winter, and come spring, the seals molt and the tracking devices fall off. Scientist are planning on several more years of this fascinating seal tagging to help better understand the oceans around us.

You can read the entire article on the Weddell Seal Tagging studies here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/29/2229776.htm

picture provided by Creative Commons at:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/

 (disclaimer: Creative Commons has no affiliation to the AC or the views or thoughts published in this article.)