Arctic spring awakening – Steering principles behind the phenology of vernal ice algal blooms

Leu, Eva; Mundy, C. J.; Assmy, Philipp; Campbell, Karley; Gabrielsen, Tove M.; Gosselin, Michel; Juul-Pedersen, Thomas; Gradinger, Rolf

doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.07.012

Cited by 301 publications

(381 citation statements)

References 149 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

349

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The bulk of the total annual primary production of the northern and NE Barents Sea takes place in the MIZ (Denisenko 2002, Wassmann et al 2006a, Sakshaug et al 2009). Spring ice melt gives rise to a nutrient-rich euphotic zone that supports a distinct phytoplankton bloom in the MIZ which moves constantly poleward while receding from its winter position at the Polar Front (Piepenburg et al 1995, Wassmann et al 2006a, Leu et al 2015. This ice-edge bloom induces vertical carbon flux, which might be especially high in spring, before pelagic production and consumption are balanced, or in years where a mismatch between primary and secondary producers occurs (Tamelander et al 2006, Eiane & Tande 2009, Leu et al 2015.…”

Section: Drivers Of Megabenthic Secondary Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spring ice melt gives rise to a nutrient-rich euphotic zone that supports a distinct phytoplankton bloom in the MIZ which moves constantly poleward while receding from its winter position at the Polar Front (Piepenburg et al 1995, Wassmann et al 2006a, Leu et al 2015. This ice-edge bloom induces vertical carbon flux, which might be especially high in spring, before pelagic production and consumption are balanced, or in years where a mismatch between primary and secondary producers occurs (Tamelander et al 2006, Eiane & Tande 2009, Leu et al 2015. The recent study by Leu et al (2015) suggested highest fluxes of ice-related POM and thus strongest sympagic−pelagic−benthic coupling in the post-bloom phase in late spring, when large aggregates of ice algae are released from the ice.…”

Section: Drivers Of Megabenthic Secondary Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patterns and drivers of megabenthic secondary production on the Barents Sea shelf

Degen¹,

Jørgensen²,

Ljubin³

et al. 2016

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Drivers Of Megabenthic Secondary Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Drivers Of Megabenthic Secondary Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns and drivers of megabenthic secondary production on the Barents Sea shelf

Degen¹,

Jørgensen²,

Ljubin³

et al. 2016

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…At these high latitudes, temperature does not appear to play a physiological role but could well play an ecological role of controlling phytoplankton bloom composition and phenology . Thus, ecosystem processes and algal physiology in models need to be carefully parameterized for the Arctic Ocean in order to better quantify uncertainties in estimating primary production, including under-ice primary production and ice algae production [Leu et al, 2015;Jin et al, 2016]; enhanced functional types for all levels of the marine food web ; and, the role of horizontal advection of planktonic organisms versus their vertical export . Furthermore, it is necessary to resolve submesoscale physical processes to decide the apparently contradictory bottom-up controls of NPP and the resulting biogeochemical cycles in the various subregions of the Arctic Ocean, with the hope that BOGCMs and ESMs perform within the uncertainty due to natural variability.…”

Section: /2016jc011993mentioning

confidence: 99%

Net primary productivity estimates and environmental variables in the Arctic Ocean: An assessment of coupled physical-biogeochemical models

Lee

Matrai

Friedrichs

et al. 2016

J. Geophys. Res. Oceans

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relative skill of 21 regional and global biogeochemical models was assessed in terms of how well the models reproduced observed net primary productivity (NPP) and environmental variables such as nitrate concentration (NO3), mixed layer depth (MLD), euphotic layer depth (Zeu), and sea ice concentration, by comparing results against a newly updated, quality‐controlled in situ NPP database for the Arctic Ocean (1959–2011). The models broadly captured the spatial features of integrated NPP (iNPP) on a pan‐Arctic scale. Most models underestimated iNPP by varying degrees in spite of overestimating surface NO3, MLD, and Zeu throughout the regions. Among the models, iNPP exhibited little difference over sea ice condition (ice‐free versus ice‐influenced) and bottom depth (shelf versus deep ocean). The models performed relatively well for the most recent decade and toward the end of Arctic summer. In the Barents and Greenland Seas, regional model skill of surface NO3 was best associated with how well MLD was reproduced. Regionally, iNPP was relatively well simulated in the Beaufort Sea and the central Arctic Basin, where in situ NPP is low and nutrients are mostly depleted. Models performed less well at simulating iNPP in the Greenland and Chukchi Seas, despite the higher model skill in MLD and sea ice concentration, respectively. iNPP model skill was constrained by different factors in different Arctic Ocean regions. Our study suggests that better parameterization of biological and ecological microbial rates (phytoplankton growth and zooplankton grazing) are needed for improved Arctic Ocean biogeochemical modeling.

show abstract

“…This upwelling is projected to increase primary production on the shelves (Carmack and Chapman, 2003;Dmitrenko et al, 2006;Shulze and Pickart, 2012;Pickart et al, 2013;Tremblay et al, 2015). However, there is still no consensus as to whether the declining ice cover and thickness in the Arctic Basin will reduce or promote increased primary production, or whether ice algal primary production will remain a minor fraction (<20%) of surface primary production in early spring on a pan-Arctic basis (Barber et al, 2015;Leu et al, 2015).…”

Section: Effects Of Advective Changes On Primary Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advection in polar and sub-polar environments: Impacts on high latitude marine ecosystems

Hunt

Drinkwater

Arrigo

et al. 2016

Progress in Oceanography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWe compare and contrast the ecological impacts of atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns on polar and sub-polar marine ecosystems. Circulation patterns differ strikingly between the north and south. Meridional circulation in the north provides connections between the sub-Arctic and Arctic despite the presence of encircling continental landmasses, whereas annular circulation patterns in the south tend to isolate Antarctic surface waters from those in the north. These differences influence fundamental aspects of the polar ecosystems from the amount, thickness and duration of sea ice, to the types of organisms, and the ecology of zooplankton, fish, seabirds and marine mammals. Meridional flows in both the North Pacific and the North Atlantic oceans transport heat, nutrients, and plankton northward into the Chukchi Sea, the Barents Sea, and the seas off the west coast of Greenland. In the North Atlantic, the advected heat warms the waters of the southern Barents Sea and, with advected nutrients and plankton, supports immense biomasses of fish, seabirds and marine mammals. On the Pacific side of the Arctic, cold waters flowing northward across the northern Bering and Chukchi seas during winter and spring limit the ability of boreal fish species to take advantage of high seasonal production there. Southward flow of cold Arctic waters into sub-Arctic regions of the North Atlantic occurs mainly through Fram Strait with less through the Barents Sea and the Canadian Archipelago. In the Pacific, the transport of Arctic waters and plankton southward through Bering Strait is minimal.In the Southern Ocean, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and its associated fronts are barriers to the southward dispersal of plankton and pelagic fishes from sub-Antarctic waters, with the consequent evolution of Antarctic zooplankton and fish species largely occurring in isolation from those to the north. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current also disperses biota throughout the Southern Ocean, and as a result, the biota tends to be similar within a given broad latitudinal band. South of the Southern Boundary of the ACC, there is a large-scale divergence that brings nutrient-rich water to the surface. This divergence, along with more localized upwelling regions and deep vertical convection in winter, generates elevated nutrient levels throughout the Antarctic at the end of austral winter. However, such elevated nutrient levels do not support elevated phytoplankton productivity through the entire Southern Ocean, as iron concentrations are rapidly removed to limiting levels by spring blooms in deep waters. However, coastal http://dx

show abstract

Arctic spring awakening – Steering principles behind the phenology of vernal ice algal blooms

Cited by 301 publications

References 149 publications

Patterns and drivers of megabenthic secondary production on the Barents Sea shelf

Patterns and drivers of megabenthic secondary production on the Barents Sea shelf

Net primary productivity estimates and environmental variables in the Arctic Ocean: An assessment of coupled physical-biogeochemical models

Advection in polar and sub-polar environments: Impacts on high latitude marine ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About