4.7 Article

Near-shore Antarctic pH variability has implications for the design of ocean acidification experiments

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep09638

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) [ANT-0944201, PLR-1246202]
  2. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
  3. NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship in Polar Regions Research [ANT 1204181]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Office of Polar Programs (OPP) [1246202] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Polar Programs
  7. Directorate For Geosciences [1204181] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding how declining seawater pH caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions, or ocean acidification, impacts Southern Ocean biota is limited by a paucity of pH time-series. Here, we present the first high-frequency in-situ pH time-series in near-shore Antarctica from spring to winter under annual sea ice. Observations from autonomous pH sensors revealed a seasonal increase of 0.3 pH units. The summer season was marked by an increase in temporal pH variability relative to spring and early winter, matching coastal pH variability observed at lower latitudes. Using our data, simulations of ocean acidification show a future period of deleterious wintertime pH levels potentially expanding to 7-11 months annually by 2100. Given the presence of (sub) seasonal pH variability, Antarctica marine species have an existing physiological tolerance of temporal pH change that may influence adaptation to future acidification. Yet, pH-induced ecosystem changes remain difficult to characterize in the absence of sufficient physiological data on present-day tolerances. It is therefore essential to incorporate natural and projected temporal pH variability in the design of experiments intended to study ocean acidification biology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available