ALBERT

Description: Macrozooplankton are an important link between higher and lower trophic levels in the oceans. They serve as the primary food for fish, reptiles, birds and mammals in some regions, and play a role in the export of carbon from the surface to the intermediate and deep ocean. Little, however, is known of their global distribution and biomass. Here we compiled a dataset of macrozooplankton abundance and biomass observations for the global ocean from a collection of four datasets. We harmonise the data to common units, calculate additional carbon biomass where possible, and bin the dataset in a global 1 x 1 degree grid. This dataset is part of a wider effort to provide a global picture of carbon biomass data for key plankton functional types, in particular to support the development of marine ecosystem models. Over 387 700 abundance data and 1330 carbon biomass data have been collected from pre-existing datasets. A further 34 938 abundance data were converted to carbon biomass data using species-specific length frequencies or using species-specific abundance to carbon biomass data. Depth-integrated values are used to calculate known epipelagic macrozooplankton biomass concentrations and global biomass. Global macrozooplankton biomass has a mean of 8.4 µg C l-1, median of 0.15 µg C l-1 and a standard deviation of 63.46 µg C l-1. The global annual average estimate of epipelagic macrozooplankton, based on the median value, is 0.02 Pg C. Biomass is highest in the tropics, decreasing in the sub-tropics and increasing slightly towards the poles. There are, however, limitations on the dataset; abundance observations have good coverage except in the South Pacific mid latitudes, but biomass observation coverage is only good at high latitudes. Biomass is restricted to data that is originally given in carbon or to data that can be converted from abundance to carbon. Carbon conversions from abundance are restricted in the most part by the lack of information on the size of the organism and/or the absence of taxonomic information. Distribution patterns of global macrozooplankton biomass and statistical information about biomass concentrations may be used to validate biogeochemical models and Plankton Functional Type models.

Description: C-reactive protein (CRP) is a well established marker for inflammation, and a good predictor of coronary heart disease. It is also known to interact with the platelet FcγRIIa and to enhance the inhibition of platelet aggregation by aspirin by an unknown mechanism. CRP has also recently been demonstrated to compete for PAC-1 binding in collagen stimulated platelets, suggesting that CRP interacts with GPIIb/IIIa. In order to study the mechanism of interaction with platelets directly, we carried out platelet adhesion assays. We coated plates with recombinant CRP which was in the native pentameric form as confirmed by size exclusion chromatography. Platelets adhered to immobilized CRP and to immobilized fibrinogen to a similar extent. Adhesion to CRP and fibrinogen was inhibited by GPIIb/IIIa antagonists but not by antibody to the FcγRIIa (IV.3). Platelet adhesion to CRP was increased 5-fold when platelets were treated with 1 mM MnCl2. Adhesion of MnCl2 treated platelets was also inhibited by GPIIb/IIIa antagonists. When viewed by confocal microscopy, the adherent platelets displayed pseudopodia, but did not spread fully. Treatment of platelets with MnCl2 stimulated lamellipodia formation and full platelet spreading on CRP. Analysis of the exposed residues on the surface of the CRP crystal structure identified two RGD-like sequences, RQD and DGK. The peptides KRQDN and VDGKP derived from CRP inhibited platelet adhesion to fibrinogen suggesting that these sequences could be responsible for the interaction with GPIIb/IIIa. Our data demonstrates that CRP in the native pentameric form interacts with GPIIb/IIIa and that it has an increased affinity for the activated conformation of GPIIb/IIIa. This interaction is likely to be due to an interaction with the surface exposed KRQDN and VDGKP CRP sequences. We have previously demonstrated that CRP acts as a GPIIb/IIIa antagonist when in solution. Furthermore, pentameric CRP cannot support platelet adhesion under shear conditions. Thus it is likely that elevated circulating levels of soluble CRP reduces the overall thrombotic potential.

Description: Global ocean biogeochemistry models currently employed in climate change projections use highly simplified representations of pelagic food webs. These food webs do not necessarily include critical pathways by which ecosystems interact with ocean biogeochemistry and climate. Here we present a global biogeochemical model which incorporates ecosystem dynamics based on the representation of ten plankton functional types (PFTs): six types of phytoplankton, three types of zooplankton, and heterotrophic procaryotes. We improved the representation of zooplankton dynamics in our model through (a) the explicit inclusion of large, slow-growing macrozooplankton (e.g. krill), and (b) the introduction of trophic cascades among the three zooplankton types. We use the model to quantitatively assess the relative roles of iron vs. grazing in determining phytoplankton biomass in the Southern Ocean high-nutrient low-chlorophyll (HNLC) region during summer. When model simulations do not include macrozooplankton grazing explicitly, they systematically overestimate Southern Ocean chlorophyll biomass during the summer, even when there is no iron deposition from dust. When model simulations include a slow-growing macrozooplankton and trophic cascades among three zooplankton types, the high-chlorophyll summer bias in the Southern Ocean HNLC region largely disappears. Our model results suggest that the observed low phytoplankton biomass in the Southern Ocean during summer is primarily explained by the dynamics of the Southern Ocean zooplankton community, despite iron limitation of phytoplankton community growth rates. This result has implications for the representation of global biogeochemical cycles in models as zooplankton faecal pellets sink rapidly and partly control the carbon export to the intermediate and deep ocean.

Description: © The Author(s), 2015. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Earth System Science Data 7 (2015): 349–396, doi:10.5194/essd-7-349-2015.

Description: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates as well as consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover-change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models forced by observed climate, CO2, and land-cover change (some including nitrogen–carbon interactions). We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2005–2014), EFF was 9.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.4 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1. For the year 2014 alone, EFF grew to 9.8 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, 0.6 % above 2013, continuing the growth trend in these emissions, albeit at a slower rate compared to the average growth of 2.2 % yr−1 that took place during 2005–2014. Also, for 2014, ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 3.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 4.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was lower in 2014 compared to the past decade (2005–2014), reflecting a larger SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 397.15 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2014. For 2015, preliminary data indicate that the growth in EFF will be near or slightly below zero, with a projection of −0.6 [range of −1.6 to +0.5] %, based on national emissions projections for China and the USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the global economy for the rest of the world. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2015, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 555 ± 55 GtC (2035 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2015, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2015).

Description: NERC provided funding to C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty, and the GCP through their International Opportunities Fund specifically to support this publication (NE/103002X/1). G. P. Peters and R. M. Andrew were supported by the Norwegian Research Council (236296). J. G. Canadell was supported by the Australian Climate Change Science Programme. S. Sitch was supported by EU FP7 for funding through projects LUC4C (GA603542). R. J. Andres was supported by US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programmes under US Department of Energy contract DE-AC05- 00OR22725. T. A. Boden was supported by US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programmes under US Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. J. I. House was supported by the Leverhulme foundation and the EU FP7 through project LUC4C (GA603542). P. Friedlingstein was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through projects LUC4C (GA603542) and EMBRACE (GA282672). A. Arneth was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through LUC4C (603542), and the Helmholtz foundation and its ATMO programme. D. C. E. Bakker was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (284879), the UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme (NE/H017046/1; funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). L. Barbero was supported by NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program and acknowledges support for this work from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ROSES Carbon Cycle Science under NASA grant 13-CARBON13_2-0080. P. Ciais acknowledges support from the European Research Council through Synergy grant ERC-2013-SyG-610028 “IMBALANCE-P”. M. Fader was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project LUC4C (GA603542). J. Hauck was supported by the Helmholtz Postdoc Programme (Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association). R. A. Feely and A. J. Sutton were supported by the Climate Observation Division, Climate Program Office, NOAA, US Department of Commerce. A. K. Jain was supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS 12-43071) the US Department of Energy, Office of Science and BER programmes (DOE DE-SC0006706) and NASA LCLUC programme (NASA NNX14AD94G). E. Kato was supported by the ERTDF (S-10) from the Ministry of Environment, Japan. K. Klein Goldewijk was supported by the Dutch NWO VENI grant no. 863.14.022. S. K. Lauvset was supported by the project “Monitoring ocean acidification in Norwegian waters” from the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. V. Kitidis was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). C. Koven was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the US Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231 as part of their Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program. P. Landschützer was supported by GEOCarbon. I. T. van der Lann-Luijkx received financial support from OCW/NWO for ICOS-NL and computing time from NWO (SH-060-13). I. D. Lima was supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS-1048827). N. Metzl was supported by Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers (INSU) and Institut Paul Emile Victor (IPEV) for OISO cruises. D. R. Munro was supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF PLR-1341647 and NSF AOAS-0944761). J. E. M. S. Nabel was supported by the German Research Foundation’s Emmy Noether Programme (PO1751/1-1) and acknowledges Julia Pongratz and Kim Naudts for their contributions. Y. Nojiri and S. Nakaoka were supported by the Global Environment Research Account for National Institutes (1432) by the Ministry of Environment of Japan. A. Olsen appreciates support from the Norwegian Research Council (SNACS, 229752). F. F. Pérez were supported by BOCATS (CTM2013-41048-P) project co-founded by the Spanish government and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER). B. Pfeil was supported through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme AtlantOS under grant agreement no. 633211. D. Pierrot was supported by NOAA through the Climate Observation Division of the Climate Program Office. B. Poulter was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through GEOCarbon. G. Rehder was supported by BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) through project ICOS, grant no. 01LK1224D. U. Schuster was supported by NERC UKOARP (NE/H017046/1), NERC RAGANRoCC (NE/K002473/1), the European Space Agency (ESA) OceanFlux Evolution project, and EU FP7 CARBOCHANGE (264879). T. Steinhoff was supported by ICOS-D (BMBF FK 01LK1101C) and EU FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). J. Schwinger was supported by the Research Council of Norway through project EVA (229771), and acknowledges the Norwegian Metacenter for Computational Science (NOTUR, project nn2980k), and the Norwegian Storage Infrastructure (NorStore, project ns2980k) for supercomputer time and storage resources. T. Takahashi was supported by grants from NOAA and the Comer Education and Science Foundation. B. Tilbrook was supported by the Australian Department of Environment and the Integrated Marine Observing System. B. D. Stocker was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and FP7 funding through project EMBRACE (282672). S. van Heuven was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). G. R. van der Werf was supported by the European Research Council (280061). A. Wiltshire was supported by the Joint UK DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101) and EU FP7 Funding through project LUC4C (603542). S. Zaehle was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (QUINCY; grant agreement no. 647204). ISAM (PI: Atul K. Jain) simulations were carried out at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), which is supported by the US DOE under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231.