ALBERT

Description: Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2022. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Oxford University Press for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Integrative & Comparative Biology 62(3), (2022): 805-816, https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icac108.

Description: Skates are a diverse group of dorso-ventrally compressed cartilaginous fish found primarily in high-latitude seas. These slow-growing oviparous fish deposit their fertilized eggs into cases, which then rest on the seafloor. Developing skates remain in their cases for 1–4 years after they are deposited, meaning the abiotic characteristics of the deposition sites, such as current and substrate type, must interact with the capsule in a way to promote long residency. Egg cases are morphologically variable and can be identified to species. Both the gross morphology and the microstructures of the egg case interact with substrate to determine how well a case stays in place on a current-swept seafloor. Our study investigated the egg case hydrodynamics of eight North Pacific skate species to understand how their morphology affects their ability to stay in place. We used a flume to measure maximum current velocity, or “break-away velocity,” each egg case could withstand before being swept off the substrate and a tilt table to measure the coefficient of static friction between each case and the substrate. We also used the programing software R to calculate theoretical drag on the egg cases of each species. For all flume trials, we found the morphology of egg cases and their orientation to flow to be significantly correlated with break-away velocity. In certain species, the morphology of the egg case was correlated with flow rate required to dislodge a case from the substrate in addition to the drag experienced in both the theoretical and flume experiments. These results effectively measure how well the egg cases of different species remain stationary in a similar habitat. Parsing out attachment biases and discrepancies in flow regimes of egg cases allows us to identify where we are likely to find other elusive species nursery sites. These results will aid predictive models for locating new nursery habitats and protective policies for avoiding the destruction of these nursery sites.

Description: This work was supported by the NSF-REU and FHL Blinks-Beacon for funding JNE. And the Stephen and Ruth Wainwright Endowed Fellowship, BEACON and Hoag Awards, Robert T. Paine Experimental and Field Ecology Award, FHL Award, FHL Marine Science Fund, FHL Student Fund (Kohn), Patricia L. Dudley Endowment for funding KCH.

Description: 2023-07-04

Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Tyne, R. L., Barry, P. H., Lawson, M., Byrne, D. J., Warr, O., Xie, H., Hillegonds, D. J., Formolo, M., Summers, Z. M., Skinner, B., Eiler, J. M., & Ballentine, C. J. Rapid microbial methanogenesis during CO2 storage in hydrocarbon reservoirs. Nature, 600(7890), (2021): 670-674, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04153-3.

Description: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key technology to mitigate the environmental impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. An understanding of the potential trapping and storage mechanisms is required to provide confidence in safe and secure CO2 geological sequestration1,2. Depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs have substantial CO2 storage potential1,3, and numerous hydrocarbon reservoirs have undergone CO2 injection as a means of enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR), providing an opportunity to evaluate the (bio)geochemical behaviour of injected carbon. Here we present noble gas, stable isotope, clumped isotope and gene-sequencing analyses from a CO2-EOR project in the Olla Field (Louisiana, USA). We show that microbial methanogenesis converted as much as 13–19% of the injected CO2 to methane (CH4) and up to an additional 74% of CO2 was dissolved in the groundwater. We calculate an in situ microbial methanogenesis rate from within a natural system of 73–109 millimoles of CH4 per cubic metre (standard temperature and pressure) per year for the Olla Field. Similar geochemical trends in both injected and natural CO2 fields suggest that microbial methanogenesis may be an important subsurface sink of CO2 globally. For CO2 sequestration sites within the environmental window for microbial methanogenesis, conversion to CH4 should be considered in site selection.

Description: R.L.T. was supported by a Natural Environment Research Council studentship (grant reference NE/L002612/1). C.J.B. and P.H.B. acknowledge A. Regberg and B. Meurer for their support of the project and help with sample collection. C.J.B. was part supported by an Earth4D CIFAR fellowship. P.H.B. was supported by NSF awards 1923915 and 2015789. O.W. was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery and Accelerator grants awarded to the Sherwood Lollar research group and acknowledges B. Sherwood Lollar’s support for the project. Z.M.S. acknowledges J. Biddle and G. Christman for their help in generating the microbial data.

Description: © The Author(s), 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Davis, G. E., Baumgartner, M. F., Corkeron, P. J., Bell, J., Berchok, C., Bonnell, J. M., Thornton, J. B., Brault, S., Buchanan, G. A., Cholewiak, D. M., Clark, C. W., Delarue, J., Hatch, L. T., Klinck, H., Kraus, S. D., Martin, B., Mellinger, D. K., Moors-Murphy, H., Nieukirk, S., Nowacek, D. P., Parks, S. E., Parry, D., Pegg, N., Read, A. J., Rice, A. N., Risch, D., Scott, A., Soldevilla, M. S., Stafford, K. M., Stanistreet, J. E., Summers, E., Todd, S., & Van Parijs, S. M. Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data. Global Change Biology, (2020): 1-30, doi:10.1111/gcb.15191.

Description: Six baleen whale species are found in the temperate western North Atlantic Ocean, with limited information existing on the distribution and movement patterns for most. There is mounting evidence of distributional shifts in many species, including marine mammals, likely because of climate‐driven changes in ocean temperature and circulation. Previous acoustic studies examined the occurrence of minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata ) and North Atlantic right whales (NARW; Eubalaena glacialis ). This study assesses the acoustic presence of humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae ), sei (B. borealis ), fin (B. physalus ), and blue whales (B. musculus ) over a decade, based on daily detections of their vocalizations. Data collected from 2004 to 2014 on 281 bottom‐mounted recorders, totaling 35,033 days, were processed using automated detection software and screened for each species' presence. A published study on NARW acoustics revealed significant changes in occurrence patterns between the periods of 2004–2010 and 2011–2014; therefore, these same time periods were examined here. All four species were present from the Southeast United States to Greenland; humpback whales were also present in the Caribbean. All species occurred throughout all regions in the winter, suggesting that baleen whales are widely distributed during these months. Each of the species showed significant changes in acoustic occurrence after 2010. Similar to NARWs, sei whales had higher acoustic occurrence in mid‐Atlantic regions after 2010. Fin, blue, and sei whales were more frequently detected in the northern latitudes of the study area after 2010. Despite this general northward shift, all four species were detected less on the Scotian Shelf area after 2010, matching documented shifts in prey availability in this region. A decade of acoustic observations have shown important distributional changes over the range of baleen whales, mirroring known climatic shifts and identifying new habitats that will require further protection from anthropogenic threats like fixed fishing gear, shipping, and noise pollution.

Description: We thank Chris Pelkie, David Wiley, Michael Thompson, Chris Tessaglia‐Hymes, Eric Matzen, Chris Tremblay, Lance Garrison, Anurag Kumar, John Hildebrand, Lynne Hodge, Russell Charif, Kathleen Dudzinski, and Ann Warde for help with project planning, field work support, and data management. For all the support and advice, thanks to the NEFSC Protected Species Branch, especially the passive acoustics group, Josh Hatch, and Leah Crowe. We thank the field and crew teams on all the ships that helped in the numerous deployments and recoveries. This research was funded and supported by many organizations, specified by projects as follows: data recordings from region 1 were provided by K. Stafford (funding: National Science Foundation #NSF‐ARC 0532611). Region 2 data: D. K. Mellinger and S. Nieukirk, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) PMEL contribution #5055 (funding: NOAA and the Office of Naval Research #N00014–03–1–0099, NOAA #NA06OAR4600100, US Navy #N00244‐08‐1‐0029, N00244‐09‐1‐0079, and N00244‐10‐1‐0047). Region 3A data: D. Risch (funding: NOAA and Navy N45 programs). Region 3 data: H. Moors‐Murphy and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2005–2014 data), and the Whitehead Lab of Dalhousie University (eastern Scotian Shelf data; logistical support by A. Cogswell, J. Bartholette, A. Hartling, and vessel CCGS Hudson crew). Emerald Basin and Roseway Basin Guardbuoy data, deployment, and funding: Akoostix Inc. Region 3 Emerald Bank and Roseway Basin 2004 data: D. K. Mellinger and S. Nieukirk, NOAA PMEL contribution #5055 (funding: NOAA). Region 4 data: S. Parks (funding: NOAA and Cornell University) and E. Summers, S. Todd, J. Bort Thornton, A. N. Rice, and C. W. Clark (funding: Maine Department of Marine Resources, NOAA #NA09NMF4520418, and #NA10NMF4520291). Region 5 data: S. M. Van Parijs, D. Cholewiak, L. Hatch, C. W. Clark, D. Risch, and D. Wiley (funding: National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP), NOAA, and Navy N45). Region 6 data: S. M. Van Parijs and D. Cholewiak (funding: Navy N45 and Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species [AMAPPS] program). Region 7 data: A. N. Rice, H. Klinck, A. Warde, B. Martin, J. Delarue, and S. Kraus (funding: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, and BOEM). Region 8 data: G. Buchanan, and K. Dudzinski (funding: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Clean Energy Fund) and A. N. Rice, C. W. Clark, and H. Klinck (funding: Center for Conservation Bioacoustics at Cornell University and BOEM). Region 9 data: J. E. Stanistreet, J. Bell, D. P. Nowacek, A. J. Read, and S. M. Van Parijs (funding: NOAA and US Fleet Forces Command). Region 10 data: L. Garrison, M. Soldevilla, C. W. Clark, R. A. Chariff, A. N. Rice, H. Klinck, J. Bell, D. P. Nowacek, A. J. Read, J. Hildebrand, A. Kumar, L. Hodge, and J. E. Stanistreet (funding: US Fleet Forces Command, BOEM, NOAA, and NOPP). Region 11 data: C. Berchok as part of a collaborative project led by the Fundacion Dominicana de Estudios Marinos, Inc. (Dr. Idelisa Bonnelly de Calventi; funding: The Nature Conservancy [Elianny Dominguez]) and D. Risch (funding: World Wildlife Fund, NOAA, and Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs).