Hofmann opened the meeting of GLOBEC Southern Ocean Planning Group by welcoming all attendees and requesting that everyone verify that their correct address was included on the list of participants (Appendix 2).
Hofmann indicated that background material for the meeting was included in the folders given to each participant and that International GLOBEC Report 7A was available for meeting participants. Also in the meeting folder was a draft of minutes from the August 1997 planning group meeting in San Diego, California. Hofmann asked that the meeting participants review these and submit comments or corrections to her. The final version of the meeting minutes will be posted on the Southern Ocean GLOBEC web page. The Southern Ocean GLOBEC science questions, as revised at the San Diego Meeting, were also provided for reference during the meeting.
The agenda (Appendix 1) for the meeting was reviewed and the objective of the meeting was stated to be an assessment of the current state of planning for Southern Ocean GLOBEC field activities. In particular, setting a time line for possible field studies in the Antarctic Peninsula and E region is a priority for the meeting.
Huntley began the discussion of SO GLOBEC field programs by reviewing the recommendations from the meeting in August 1997, which were to hold planning meetings for field programs in the Antarctic Peninsula area and the E region, have six months of continuous coverage, and encompass the summer and winter seasons.
Huntley said that at the end of the meeting in August 1997 there was a possible ship scheduling scenario for the Antarctic Peninsula region that would provide the coverage needed to address the SO GLOBEC science objectives. The ship scheduling involved using the Polarstern, Nathaniel B. Palmer (NBP), or James Clark Ross (JCR) for the winter portion of the study, with other ships filling in in the summer months in the 1999/2000 time frame. Bathmann said that since the August 1997 meeting there had been a bilateral agreement between Germany and The Netherlands to do Antarctic research in 1999 and as a result the Polarstern would not be available for SO GLOBEC studies.
Murphy said that the British Antarctic Survey ship, the JCR, is not available in 1999 because of commitments to the CCAMLR Synoptic Survey. It is possible that the JCR may be available in winter 2000 with outside funding through NERC in association with other programs.
Huntley said that the within the US there are concerns about the SO GLOBEC field program being further delayed. However, it is recognized that having a field program that covers a 6-month time period is critical and actually one year of successive studies is needed. Huntley said that the ship scheduling issues cannot be resolved by the participants at the meeting and that creative approaches were needed to allow SO GLOBEC to go forward. Some possibilities are to work with ships that might be scheduable and have truly international complements onboard these vessels. For example, the US has two Antarctic ships and a larger portion of the time of these vessels could be allocated to SO GLOBEC. The question then arose about if this was a cost effective way to have international collaboration.
Penhale asked about the time frame needed for ship scheduling decisions to be made for the Polarstern. Smetacek said that there was a 2-3 year time frame for Polarstern scheduling. He also said it was difficult to fill this ship with scientists who will all find something useful to do in a program like GLOBEC. He said that because of this it is important to have a detailed plan and a good idea behind the science. An all-around program focusing on krill would allow other disciplines to participate in the field effort because of the need to know things like the hydrography. Smetacek also said that effort needed to go into determining the type of instruments, instrument availability and needed resources.
Penhale asked that if such a focused plan was available today, what would be the time lag before implementing a SO GLOBEC field program with the Polarstern? Smetacek said perhaps between 2 and 3 years. He said that there is competition with Arctic programs at AWI for Polarstern time and as a result it is very difficult to get Polarstern for austral winter cruises. He said that however, krill fishing is increasing which is of interest to the IWC and CCAMLR, and the public interest in the Antarctic is increasing because, according to Greenpeace, the penguins are dying as result of krill fishing. He noted that BIOMASS had plan based on conserving krill and that motivation for SO GLOBEC could come from focusing on the role of krill as natural resource and the effects of krill fishing.
Swanberg said that he thought Smetacek is on the right track and he agreed with a comment by Penhale that a detailed plan won't sell the program, but that a general plan giving arguments as to why GLOBEC must be done was needed. he noted that BIOMASS was most extensive Southern Ocean program to date and that a strong case is needed for SO GLOBEC. Nicol said that BIOMASS is a good case study since it started with a good plan to sell the program. Swanberg said that a good idea and detailed plan need to be simultaneously. He noted that the amount of ship time needed by SO GLOBEC creativity and resources and suggested involving participants from the atmospheric community.
Miller said that he shared Huntley's frustrations (all dressed up and nowhere to go) but that the selling point for SO GLOBEC was determined at the meeting in San Diego and that this is what happens during winter. He noted that the more ships that are involved, the more difficult scheduling becomes (compounding situation). The periods of interest for SO GLOBEC are the end of autumn going into winter and the end of winter going into the spring. Thus, two vessels in the right combination could work, but that the field planning will vary vastly according to the number of ships available.
Murphy noted that more than than one ship will be needed for SO GLOBEC. The program has taken a long time already and will need many people. He suggested considering a realistic time scale for SO GLOBEC because six months or so of ship time is not realistic within the next year. This puts a time constraint on the field program, but the science part is already started and can continue. He indicated that spring/summer 2001/2002 was a more realistic time for SO GLOBEC that would possibility allow BAS participation. Hofmann clarified that this was summer season 2000 and winter season 2001 for BAS. Murphy said yes, but that internal BAS constraints must be checked and that external resources, such as a thematic bid as part of the UK GLOBEC program, could potentially be available.
Bathmann agreed with Miller in that three ships were needed and that a single autumn, winter, and spring period must be covered at a minimum. He said that it is important to follow a patch of krill through each period (ideal situation) and to determine how krill goes in/comes out of winter. The mechanisms by which this happens could be different. He suggested a focus on processes to pull out key mechanisms and to go ahead with a main field effort in different regions.
Huntley protested that that too many years have passed already and we still do not know enough about the process to do this. He noted that many changes changes have occurred in GLOBEC in the interim. GLOBEC is now an IGBP core program which could help sell the program on a national level. He noted that there are different national reasons to sell programs, but that the science should be done right. He suggested a hybrid approach to pull out key processes, He said that the compelling reason for the program is to determine what is happening in winter and said that regional planning is needed to determine what must be done to sell this politically.
Penhale said that there is value in doing the program in in components. She indicated that Arctic competition might be problem for other countries. The US NSF could make a case for participating in two winter programs (within realm of possibility at this time). It would be important to correlate the winter work with the CCAMLR synoptic survey. A critical mass of effort in the winter might persuade other ship schedules. She asked if other transition times can be used, better than nothing?
Bathmann said that earlier studies are preferred over later. However, we should allow SO GLOBEC activities to happen before 2000/2001. He said that AWI is having an autumn cruise in March-May 1999 and that the opportunity exists to have some of the research on this cruise directed at SO GLOBEC activities. Huntley said that perhaps the way forward is with a hybrid program that focuses the major effort in 2001, but has more limited and focused efforts sooner. The focus on the transition in/out of winter can be done in the short term.
Stromberg then requested that the meeting participants provide the plans from their countries/institutions for 1999/2000. In responses, Smetacek said that in March-May 1999 AWI will start a cruise on the Polarstern from Cape Town to study processes at the Polar Front. This cruise will go as far as the sea ice in Weddell Sea. He said that it is not not difficult to include SO GLOBEC objectives as part of the cruise. Bathmann said that there is a krill aspect to the cruise already to look at krill distribution and physiology. Smetacek said that there will be a hydrography team involved. This cruise could provide insights for more detailed cruises later. In summer 2000/2001 AWI will do its routine survey in Antarctic Peninsula region from December to February. In March of that year the Polarstern will do an Arctic cruise.
Nicol agreed with Smetacek in that obtaining results from smaller programs should have a snowball effect and provide ammunition for larger field requests. He said that in the upcoming season Australia will have three Antarctic cruises (July-August, September-October, December) and that these will focus on demographic features of krill population, which is GLOBEC-related science. These will provide a time series of winter to summer changes. The proposal for GLOBEC cruises in February 2000 is pending with the ship time allocation committee at this time and Nicol estimated that it has a 70% chance of being awarded. He said that incremental gains through smaller programs could be the impetus for the larger field efforts. Hofmann encouraged going ahead with GLOBEC-related programs through smaller field programs. Miller said that BIOMASS started with a bang (FIBEX) and that SO GLOBEC is using the same same process but only in reverse. He said that SO GLOBEC should aim at the period 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and use the smaller, individual programs to build momentum. He said that this is a persuasive way to go towards planning the program.
Murphy said that several BAS programs have GLOBEC elements. The 1999/2000 core program at South Georgia is focused on various aspects of krill biology. In 2000 BAS will participate in the CCAMLR Synoptic Survey. This will take place in the Scotia Sea and is being put forward as a krill flux cruise (large-scale ocean transport). This will be a large-scale survey with focused studies embedded. Also in late 1999 and 2000 there is a non-BAS bid for an iron-related program in the Scotia Sea and a bid for an Autosub study in March 2000. The BAS core program is going more towards studies of physical-biological coupling, in a manner similar to GLOBEC. Hofmann asked if the JCR available beyond these programs. Murphy said that the 2000/2001 period may be available and refereed the participants to the BAS statement in the Southern Ocean implementation plan.
Penhale said that the ship schedule for the NBP and the Gould was open for winter 2000 and most of 2001 and that some of this time could be blocked out for SO GLOBEC. She said that this is a short window that can accommodate only a three-year program. Huntley asked if an announcement of opportunity would be needed for the US SO GLOBEC program. Penhale said yes, an announcement of opportunity was needed. She said that this announcement would be drafted by her with input from others. She also said that a meeting was needed soon if the goal is to get a program in the water by 1999/2000 because 12-18 months are needed to complete the announcement, submission and review process.
Miller said that South Africa has a joint operation planned with New Zealand but that the status of this program is unavailable at the present time. Within South Africa the oceanographic fleet is under review, the navy has withdrawn support and new deal negotiations are needed. Miller was unable to say what was planned for 1999/2000. He did say that in April 1999 there would be a new five-year cycle.
Kim said that Korea has no ice-breaker and therefore no winter access to the Antarctic. However, Korea can do summer research in the Antarctic and that he will convey the field research needs of SO GLOBEC to the CCAMLR field coordinating committee that he chairs. There is the possibility of joint cooperation with some countries (China) and there is interest on behalf of Latin American cooperation.
Marin said that Latin America will not likely be able to contribute directly to the winter study portion of SO GLOBEC because of the lack of suitable icebreakers capable of full oceanographic work. However, he did indicate that there would be interest in participating in the summer period activities that are directed at answering some of the GLOBEC science objectives. He said that a clear plan is necessary in order to develop interest in SO GLOBEC. He requested that the SO GLOBEC program request that IOC include GLOBEC in its entirety at the IOC agenda meeting so that awareness of our program will be increased with other governments. This would facilitate convincing governments to allocate funds for SO GLOBEC. Fukuchi said that the Japanese are interested in coordination of SO GLOBEC studies with other programs because they have only one ship and it is limited to one Antarctic cruise per year. A possibility being discussed for the five-year program starting in 2000 is to charter a ship to do SO GLOBEC studies in the Indian Ocean sector. This would be a summer program and would start in mid-November of each year. Fukuchi also mentioned that there are shore-based biological programs and penguin research programs at the Japanese station. The planning group was given brief presentations on these activities by Drs. Odate and Kato. Naganobu mentioned that Japan will participate in the CCAMLR Synoptic Survey in December 1999-February 2000. He said that participation beyond the Synoptic Survey is uncertain.
Hofmann summarized by saying that SO GLOBEC should plan a major field effort in 2000/2001, the regional planning meetings should not be postponed, and the results from the smaller field efforts need to be incorporated into planning for the larger field effort. Stromberg agreed that SO GLOBEC should aim for big program but start with smaller pieces now and build it up to the larger effort. Hofmann suggested ending the discussion and moving on to a regional planning meeting schedule.
Nicol reminded everyone that there is a critical need for standardization of techniques and that these should occur across regions. In particular, there is a need to standardize winter krill measurements. There is a need to have a set of core measurements for the next two-year period prior to the larger field effort. Huntley said that coordination and planning is needed for this to occur and he believed that this could be done via electronic mail within the next four to six weeks.
Huntley said that the group should recognize that there are a number of studies taking place now that have the ability to significantly advance GLOBEC objectives. Krill have several options for overwintering such as using lipid reserves, feeding on under ice algae, and carnivorous behavior. He said that it is important to determine what krill do in winter and doing this requires looking at each option in all of the areas designated for SO GLOBEC field research. He said that much of the experimental design and approaches for doing this could be coordinated via electronic mail. He asked that interested people contribute, in recipe format, suggested measurements and approaches for determining what strategies krill are using to get through winter. He said this could be done within the next 4-6 weeks and that he would collate the input and circulate it to the SO GLOBEC Planning Group. This approach would allow everyone who was interested to be involved. The next issue to be addressed is population dynamics in context of physical forcing. This will be done in another experiment.
Huntley asked for an indication of who is interested in participating in electronic mail discussions to set up a list of core measurements. The interested participants included Smetacek, Stromberg, Nicol, Huntley, Murphy, Bathmann, Naganobu, Kim, Miller, and Fukuchi.
ACTION ITEM: Huntley agreed to take the lead on the electronic mail discussion of core krill measurements.
Smetacek said that AWI will be doing krill-related studies in their upcoming field experiments and that a set of core measurements for 2-year period prior to larger field effort would be useful.
Nicol said that need to provide guidance such as, "please do X during field surveys to record data for GLOBEC". This requires some technique development and standardization of methods so that measurements can be compared. Miller stresses that the type of measurements should contribute to answering questions relative to GLOBEC and ideally these would be phased in so that they were available for the larger field effort.
Penhale said that the krill biology meeting being organized by Mark Mangel for next year could contribute to SO GLOBEC. Nicol said that the themes of this meeting are tightly focused on GLOBEC interests and that it will be a useful forum for krill biology. This might be a place to distribute draft announcement for interest in SO GLOBEC.
Hofmann said that the consensus was that core measurements are needed (short-term issue) and appointed Huntley to coordinate short-term and longer-term issue of a coordinated field program. Ship coordination should begin now as should scheduling for necessary planning.
Hofmann began this discussion by saying that the need for a coordination office is obvious and referred to the 24 November 1997 e-mail which gave the potential input of various countries to such an office. Bathmann said that the input from AWI stated in this message is still accurate. Hofmann noted that there is interest on part of Suam Kim from Korea in undertaking a coordination office. Kim said that some funds are available for this office, but the establishment of an office in Korea would need need support from other members of the SO GLOBEC planning group.
Swanberg asked if this office would this be full-time. Hofmann said that it is something that could not be done part time. Swanberg said that a coordination office needs an individual who is solely dedicated to the effort. Marin mentioned that he remembered that International GLOBEC wanted to host the SO GLOBEC international coordination office. Gross said that having the SO GLOBEC office located with the International GLOBEC office would allow closer coordination with IGBP and other GLOBEC programs and allow SO GLOBEC to take advantage of the data management activities in the International GLOBEC office. Penhale said that there is a great advantage of having someone from within the SO GLOBEC planning group direct the SO GLOBEC office. Swanberg said that centralization may be beneficial. Penhale said that the person and the person's background are the most important issues.
Swanberg asked Kim what was included in his offer to host the office in Korea. Kim said that his institute has agreed to provide space to host the office. Gross said that funds for travel and and office management would be needed. Hofmann said that this is not the appropriate forum for discussing budget issues. Marin wanted to know if support would be on-going or just for the start-up costs. Hofmann said that Korea has demonstrated interest to support effort and Kim has extensive experience in coordinating SO field activities through CCAMLR. Smetacek said that a salary is necessary. Kim noted that he will need to hire and assistant and have funds for travel, maintenance costs, and computers, although Germany has indicated a willingness to assist with computer issues. Penhale suggested that a smaller group be formed to focus on budgetary details. Hofmann noted that the present informal manner of information distribution illustrates the need for a coordination office.
ACTION ITEM: Hofmann, Penhale and Kim will attempt to determine the best course of action for the establishment of a SO GLOBEC Planning Office.
Hofmann explained how the list of potential working group members had been determined. She said that once the membership of the working groups was decided, Roger Harris will send official letters from International GLOBEC inviting membership. Huntley asked if the group should nominate someone for the data management working group who has experience with the US JGOFS or GLOBEC data management system. Swanberg drew attention to the IGBP Data and Information System, a framework activity of the IGBP serving the Core Projects with an office located in Toulouse, France.
Hofmann requested input on the nominations. Miller said that he did not want to be considered for membership in the data management working group because he was not sure that he could contribute the necessary time. Stromberg suggested that someone be added to the data management working group who would provide involvement with International GLOBEC data management.
Hofmann said that will be names added to ensure coordination between international groups. She will check with the nominees nominees to determine their level of interest. If interested, she will ask Roger Harris to send invitations.
ACTION ITEM: Hofmann check with nominees to determine interest in serving on working group.
Huntley asked if it was the responsibility of the SO Planning Group to oversee the activities of the working groups. Hofmann said that once the groups were established they should determine their terms of reference. There are already suggested activities from the JGOFS and International GLOBEC data management working groups that may be relevant for the SO GLOBEC data management working group. Miller noted that Annex 3 of GLOBEC Report 7A gives specifics for the data management working group. He suggested carrying forward with this plan. Bathmann noted that there was no US representative on data management working group nominee list. Gross suggested that this group determine its activity, not International GLOBEC.
Penhale suggested one more round of nominees. Miller suggested circulating the existing names, and ask for additions, keeping in mind size limitations, and asking for chair nominations. The time period for this is within the next six weeks. A possibility is to designate a temporary chair and let the working groups elect a chairperson at their first meeting. Huntley noted that in Report 7A, page 28, four things for working group to do are listed. He suggested that this be the preface for nominations. Hofmann encouraged the planning group members to nominate people and to designate choices for chairperson. Volunteers will be greatly appreciated.
ACTION ITEM: Hofmann will circulate working group membership nominees and ask for additional nominees and nominees for chairperson.
Hofmann noted the announcement for SCAR meeting scheduled for August 1998 in New Zealand. She also mentioned the krill biology meeting that is scheduled for 1999 in the US. The SO GLOBEC program needs to represented at these meeting. The objectives of SO GLOBEC need to presented at meetings in formal forum (posters and talks) in order to alert community to upcoming activities, and to get feedback, ideas, and suggestions on how to improve the program.
Gross and Bathmann asked for details upcoming meetings. Huntley said that this demonstrates the need for a planning office. This is the type of activity that such an office could handle.
Hofmann requested that Victor Marin and Victor Smetacek to provide SO GLOBEC presentation(s) at the SCAR meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand since they will be attending.
Huntley said that the information on CO GLOBEC could be compiled from existing documents and information from Roger Harris. Hofmann offered to compile GLOBEC information for poster/talk. Penhale volunteered to take a SO GLOBEC poster to New Zealand and post it. Marin said that he will include SO GLOBEC as part of his presentation at the SCAR meeting. Smetacek also said that he will mention SO GLOBEC in his talk.
Nicol said that we use the SCAR meeting to encourage participation in SO GLOBEC and to notify the community of the attempt to standardize measurements for krill. A poster may help to foster community involvement in this effort.
Hofmann said that the poster should have SO GLOBEC planning group authorship. Nicol volunteered to do poster with input from other members of the planning group. The poster can be used at other meetings.
ACTION ITEM: Hofmann and Nicol will submit an abstract to the SCAR meeting for SO GLOBEC -- Abstracts due April 1998.
ACTION ITEM: All members of the planning group will submit information to be included on a SO GLOBEC poster.
Hammond began the discussion of IWC collaboration with SO GLOBEC. He noted that the IWC material in the folder lacked Appendix 3. He provided a copy of Appendix 3 which was copied and given to all participants. He reiterated the desire of IWC to be involved in SO GLOBEC. He said that there has been a long-standing interest within some of the IWC community to study the foraging ecology of baleen whales. The current focus of IWC is on climate change and its effect on whale populations. In 1996 IWC sponsored a workshop on climate change and cetaceans. As a result IWC would like to link with other groups, such as CCAMLR and SO GLOBEC to study potential effects of climate change on cetaceans. The proposal now before IWC is to coordinate with CCAMLR and SO GLOBEC to take advantage of work being done by these groups to map the distribution and estimate the abundance of cetaceans in the regions studied by these groups, and to supplement existing studies with other vessels to determine how distribution and abundance will change as a result of how baleen whales forage. He noted that IWC needs the data sets collected by programs like CCAMLR and SO GLOBEC to understand cetacean observations. The CCAMLR Synoptic Survey provides time and space scales that relate to cetacean processes.
Hofmann noted that IWC provides the opportunity for SO GLOBEC to get information on top predators and asked about how to coordinate scheduling of cruises with IWC. Hammond said that Steve Reilly is the coordinator for this and that IWC involvement may help to sell the SO GLOBEC program.
Miller said that from the CCAMLR perspective, the association with IWC has been formalized by the establishment of a coordinating structure. Within this structure the IWC, through Steve Reilly, is involved in planning of the Synoptic Survey. He said that he sees IWC as an equal part of the triangle composed of SO GLOBEC, IWC, and CCAMLR. Hofmann asked if SO GLOBEC should should include IWC similar to what was done by CCAMLR.
Huntley said that IWC inclusion would be good and requested input from IWC for the short-term focus studies (measurements via e-mail).
Hofmann asked what is needed to continue momentum of IWC collaboration? Hammond responded that being involved in planning and coordination such as this is sufficient now.
Nicol noted that the Australian fine scale surveys do include whale sighting programs and that these data have been very useful.
Miller described the CCAMLR Synoptic Survey schedule to take place in Area 48 (Weddell-Scotia arc, subareas 48.1, 48.2, and 48.3) during summer 1999/2000. He said that this will be an acoustic survey which CCAMLR has decided is necessary for determination of krill biomass. He noted that 95% of the krill fishing is undertaken in this area during the austral summer. He said that the plans for the Synoptic Survey are to be reviewed at workshop scheduled for June 1998. He said that the Synoptic Survey provides opportunities for collection of other data and other related studies.
The Area 48 workshop is a precursor to the survey and will construct the sampling plan for the study. At this workshop, information from research in this area will be reviewed and used as a basis for planning the survey. The hypotheses are that the three subareas are discrete ecosystems or that the area as a whole is homogeneous with local variability.
CCAMLR has made a formal request to IWC for the cetacean sighting/catch recordings from Area 48. These data will be part of the Synoptic Survey planning.
Smetacek asked how the results of the acoustic survey will be qualified or constrained. Miller said that a number of conceptual models will be used as background information for designing the survey. He requested input from the planning group participants for the survey design. Smetacek asked how many hydrographers will be involved in the survey. Miller said that Tony Amos (US), Phil Trathan (BAS), and Mikio Naganobu (Japan) will provide hydrographic measurements.
Bathmann said that Huntley will compile list of essential measurements and asked if it is possible to have this this list included in the Synoptic Survey measurements. Miller said that inclusion is possible and that this would be a useful add-on to the Survey. Nicol said that this should be encouraged.
Penhale asked about participation in the Synoptic Survey. Miller said that there will be participation from the United Kingdom, United States, Japanese, and Korea.
Hofmann requested that Miller take final copy of essential krill measurements to the CCAMLR Synoptic Survey meeting. Miller agreed to do this.
Hammond asked if cruise specifics be discussed at this meeting. Miller said that the information will be used at the Area 48 workshop to plan the survey and decide which areas to sample, the amount of ships needed and who will be committed to doing what. He said that there will be another round at the meeting of the CCAMLR WG-EMM in India in August 1998. He said that IWC should put in pitch early for participation in the Survey.
Hofmann began the discussion by saying that Liz Gross had suggested that there might be a SO GLOBEC publication as part of the IGBP book series. Bathmann asked what level of publication this would be. Hofmann said that perhaps a volume like the the planned special issue of Fisheries Oceanography to come from the GLOBEC Open Science Meeting that included the SO papers from the Open Science Meeting.
Bathmann said that SO JGOFS published the results of its 5-year synthesis symposium in a scientific journal and recommended that SO GLOBEC wait for some results and do something similar. He suggested waiting for 2 years to activate field programs and then determine what has been learned. Hofmann asked if this type of publication could be used to provide a context for the larger field program.
Swanberg said that he agreed with Bathmann and did not recommend using the IGBP publication series for a series of papers from the Open Science Meeting. He said that careful planning for a synthesis volume is needed for IGBP to consider publication.
Penhale said that it is better for the papers from the Open Science Meeting to be published as part of the meeting proceedings and not separately. Publication with other GLOBEC papers will give SO GLOBEC more of a global ocean context.
Huntley said that the present meeting provides the most current SO GLOBEC information. Bathmann said that the scheduled SO discussion as part of the Open Science meeting was an ideal opportunity to present the ideas of the program to the general community. He said that the emphasis of SO GLOBEC on winter studies should be stressed. He suggested providing a short summary of today's meeting and introduction of areas of research.
Huntley mentioned that the northeast Pacific GLOBEC program is likely to focus on E. pacifica. It might be useful to use the Open Science meeting as a way to stimulate comparisons with E. superba in the Southern Ocean. Penhale suggested trying to get the two krill groups together.
Smetacek asked who will make the SO GLOBEC presentation. Hofmann noted that Smetacek and Kim were scheduled to lead the discussion. Kim said that someone should introduce the components of the SO GLOBEC program and provide a summary of today's discussions. He said that this should be used to solicit new opinions about SO GLOBEC.
The agreement was that the next meeting of the SO GLOBEC planning group would be on Wednesday, 18 March at 4:45 pm as part of the open discussion of the SO GLOBEC program at the Open Science Meeting.
Ensuring that the Southern Ocean GLOBEC program is a well coordinated and integrated program is the top priority for our meeting. This discussion is to solidify planning for the regional meetings. The needed output from this discussion is a draft schedule for SO GLOBEC field season and the regional planning meetings that are needed to ensure that the field program is well defined.
All participants are requested to bring the necessary information (e.g., ship availability) for this discussion.
Mark Huntley and Steve Nicol are asked to lead this discussion.
This is an issue that was identified as a high priority at the planning group meeting in San Diego, CA. All members should come prepared to discuss this issue and to bring relevant information from their institutions.
Hofmann will lead this discussion.
We need to finalize working groups and membership so that these groups can begin deliberations.
John Croxall is asked to lead this discussion.
It is important that SO GLOBEC receive wide publicity and feedback from the larger community. Therefore, we need to develop a list of meetings where SO GLOBEC should be featured and assign various members of the planning group the responsibility of publicizing the program at these meetings, either through oral or poster presentations. All planning group members are requested to come prepared to discuss this.
Hofmann will lead this discussion.
Phil Hammond is asked to lead this discussion.
Denzil Miller is asked to lead this discussion.
Hofmann will lead this discussion.
Uli Bathmann
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
Columbusstrasse
D-27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
Tel 49 471 4831 275
Fax 49 471 4831 425
email: ubathmann@awi-bremerhaven.de
John Croxall
British Antarctic Survey
High Cross, Madingley Road
Cambridge CB3 OET
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel 44 1223 61188
Fax 44 1223 362616
email: jpcr@pcmail.nerc-bas.ac.uk
Mitsuo Fukuchi
Center for Antarctic Environment Monitoring
National Institute of Polar Research
9-10, Kaga, 1-chome
Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173
JAPAN
Tel 81 3 3962 6031
Fax 81 3 3962 5743
email: fukuchi@nipr.ac.jp
Liz Gross
Office of SCOR
Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
USA
Tel 410 516 4070
Fax 410 516 4019
email: scor@jhu.edu
Philip Hammond
Sea Mammal Research Unit
Gatty Marine Laboratory
School of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology
University of St. Andrews
St. Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel 44 1334 462630 or 463222
Fax 44 1334 462632
email: psh2@st-andrews.ac.uk
Roger Harris
Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Prospect Place, West Hoe
Plymouth, PL1 3DH
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel 44 1752 633 400
Fax 44 1752 633 101
email: r.harris@pml.ac.uk
Eileen Hofmann
Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography
Crittenton Hall
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23529
USA
Tel 757 683 5334
Fax 757 683 5550
email: hofmann@ccpo.odu.edu
Mark Huntley
Marine Biology Research Division 0202
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA 92093
USA
Tel 619 534 3417
Fax 619 534 7313
email: mhuntley@soest.hawaii.edu
Akiko Kato
National Institute of Polar Research
9-10, Kaga, 1-chome
Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173
JAPAN
Tel 81 3 3962 4530
Fax 81 3 3962 5743
email: akato@nipr.ac.jp
Suam Kim
Korea Ocean Research Development Institute
Ansan, P.O. Box 29
Seoul, 425-600
KOREA
Tel 82 345 400 6420
Fax 82 345 408 5825
email: suamkim@sari.kordi.re.kr
Victor Marin
Depto. Ciencias Ecologicas
Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad de Chile
Las Palmeras 3425
Nunoa, Santiago
CHILE
Tel 56 2 2712978
Fax 56 2 2727363
email: vmarin@antar.ciencias.uchile.cl
Denzil Miller
Sea Fisheries Research Institute
Private Bag X2
Rogge Bay 8012
Cape Town
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel 27 21 4023143
Fax 27 21 217406
email: dmiller@sfri.wcape.gov.za
Eugene Murphy
British Antarctic Survey
High Cross, Madingley Road
Cambridge CB3 OET
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel 44 1223 251614
Fax 44 1223 362616
email: ejmu@pcmail.nerc-bas.ac.uk
Mikio Naganobu
National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries
Orido 5-7-1, Shimizu
Shizuoka 424
JAPAN
Fax 81 543 35 9642
email: naganobu@enyo.affrc.go.jp
Steve Nicol
Australian Antarctic Division
Channel Highway
Kingston, Tasmania 7050
AUSTRALIA
Tel 61 02 323 324
Fax 61 02 323 351
email: stephe_nic@antdiv.gov.au
Tsuneo Odate
National Institute of Polar Research
9-10, Kaga, 1-chome
Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173
JAPAN
Tel 81 3 3962 4363
Fax 81 3 3962 5743
email: odate@nipr.ac.jp
Polly Penhale
Office of Polar Programs
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Room 755
Arlington, VA 22230
USA
Tel 703 306 1033
Fax 703 306 0139
email: ppenhale@nsf.gov
Victor Smetacek
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
D-2850 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
Tel 49 471 4831 440
Fax 49 471 4831 425
email: vsmetacek@awi-bremerhaven.de
Jarl Stromberg
Kristineberg Marine Biological Station
S-450 34 Fiskebackskil
SWEDEN
Tel 46 523 18552
Fax 46 523 18503
email: j.stromberg@kmf.gu.se
Neil Swanberg
IGBP Secretariat
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
S-104 05 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Tel 46 8 1664 48
Fax 46 8 1664 05
email: neil@igbp.kva.se