Search

Ocean acidification (OA) describes the progressive decrease in the pH of seawater and other cascading chemical changes resulting from oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon. These changes can have important implications for marine ecosystems, creating risk for commercial industries, subsistence communities, cultural practices, and recreation. Characterizing the extent of acidification and predicting the ramifications for marine and freshwater resources and ecosystem services are critical to national and international climate mitigation discussions and to local communities that rely on these resources. Based on critical grassroots connections between scientists, stakeholders and decision makers, “Knowledge-to-Action” networks for ocean acidification issues have formed at local, regional and international scales to take action. Here, we review three examples of North American groups elevating the issue of ocean acidification at these three levels. They each focus on developing practicable, implementable steps to mitigate causes, to adapt to unavoidable change, and to build resilience to changing ocean conditions in the marine environment and coastal communities. While these first steps represent critical efforts in protecting ecosystems and economies from the risks posed by ocean acidification, some challenges remain. Sensitivity and risk to OA varies by region, species and ecosystems; priorities for action can vary between multiple and conflicting partners; evidence-based strategies for OA risk mitigation are still in the early stages; and gaps remain between scientific research and actionable decision-maker support products. However, the scaled networks profiled here have proven to be adept at identifying and addressing these barriers to action. In the future, it will be critical to expand funding for food web impact studies and development of decision support tools, and to maintain the connections between scientists and marine resource users to build resilience to ocean acidification impacts.

Changing climatic, demographic, and land use conditions are projected to alter the provisioning of ecosystem services in estuarine, coastal, and nearshore marine ecosystems, necessitating mitigation and adaptation policies and management. The current paradigm of research efforts occurring in parallel to, rather than in collaboration with, decision makers will be insufficient for the rapid responses required to adapt to and mitigate for projected changing conditions. Here, we suggest a different paradigm: one where research begins by engaging decision makers in the identification of priority data needs (biophysical, economic, and social). This paper uses synthesized interview data to provide insight into the varied demands for scientific research as described by decision makers working on coastal issues in Oregon, USA. The findings highlight the need to recognize (1) the differing framing of ecosystem services by decision makers versus scientists; and (2) the differing data priorities relevant to inland versus coastal decision makers. The findings further serve to highlight the need for decision makers, scientists, and funders to engage in increased communication. This research is an important first step in advancing efforts toward evidence-based decision making in Oregon and provides a template for further research across the US.

The estuaries and continental shelf system of the United States Mid-Atlantic are subject to ocean acidification driven by atmospheric CO2, and coastal acidification caused by nearshore and land-sea interactions that include biological, chemical, and physical processes. These processes include freshwater and nutrient input from rivers and groundwater; tidally-driven outwelling of nutrients, inorganic carbon, alkalinity; high productivity and respiration; and hypoxia. Hence, these complex dynamic systems exhibit substantial daily, seasonal, and interannual variability that is not well captured by current acidification research on Mid-Atlantic organisms and ecosystems. We present recommendations for research priorities that target better understanding of the ecological impacts of acidification in the U. S. Mid-Atlantic region. Suggested priorities are: 1) Determining the impact of multiple stressors on our resource species as well as the magnitude of acidification; 2) Filling information gaps on major taxa and regionally important species in different life stages to improve understanding of their response to variable temporal scales and sources of acidification; 3) Improving experimental approaches to incorporate realistic environmental variability and gradients, include interactions with other environmental stressors, increase transferability to other systems or organisms, and evaluate community and ecosystem response; 4) Determining the capacity of important species to acclimate or adapt to changing ocean conditions; 5) Considering multi-disciplinary, ecosystem-level research that examines acidification impacts on biodiversity and biotic interactions; and 6) Connecting potential acidification-induced ecological impacts to ecosystem services and the economy. These recommendations, while developed for the Mid-Atlantic, can be applicable to other regions will help align research towards knowledge of potential larger-scale ecological and economic impacts.

Coastal and ocean acidification has the potential to cause significant environmental and societal impacts. Monitoring carbonate chemistry parameters over spatial and temporal scales is challenging, especially with limited resources. A lack of monitoring data can lead to a limited understanding of real-world conditions. Without such data, robust experimental and model design is challenging, and the identification and understanding of episodic acidification events is nearly impossible. We present considerations for resource managers, academia, and industry professionals who are currently developing acidification monitoring programs in the Mid-Atlantic region. We highlight the following considerations for deliberation: 1) leverage existing infrastructure to include multiple carbonate chemistry parameters as well as other water quality measurements, 2) direct monitoring efforts in subsurface waters rather than limiting monitoring to surface waters, 3) identify the best available sensor technology for long-term, in-situ monitoring, 4) monitor across a salinity gradient to account for the complexity of estuarine, coastal, and ocean environments, and identify potential areas of enhanced vulnerability, 5) increase sampling frequency to capture variability, 6) consider other drivers (e.g., freshwater discharge, nutrients, physiochemical parameters) that may affect acidification, and 7) conduct or continue monitoring in specific ecological and general regions that may have enhanced vulnerability. Through the incorporation of these considerations, individual monitoring programs can more efficiently and effectively leverage resources and build partnerships for a more comprehensive data collection in the region. While these considerations focus on the Mid-Atlantic region), similar strategies can be used to leverage resources in other locations.

Influenced by natural climatic, geological, and evolutionary changes, landscapes and the ecosystems within are continuously changing. In addition to these natural pressures, anthropogenic drivers have increasingly influenced ecosystems. Whether affected by natural or anthropogenic processes, ecosystems, ecological communities, and ecosystem functioning are dynamic and can lead to "novel" or "emerging" ecosystems. Current literature identifies several definitions of these ecosystems but lacks an unambiguous definition and framework for categorizing what constitutes a novel ecosystem and for informing decisions around best management practices. Here we explore the various definitions used for novel ecosystems, present an unambiguous definition, and propose a framework for identifying the most appropriate management option. We identify and discuss three approaches for managing novel ecosystems: managing against, tolerating, and managing for these systems, and we provide real-world examples of each approach. We suggest that this framework will allow managers to make thoughtful decisions about which strategy is most appropriate for each unique situation, to determine whether the strategy is working, and to facilitate decision-making when it is time to modify the management approach.