Quick Look Report

LIFE ON THE EDGE 2005 (16 Oct -- 3 Nov 2005)

Steve W. Ross, Chief Scientist (2 Nov 2005)

# Overview

Overall, the science crew considers this to be a very successful cruise.
No objective was completely missed, even though some were addressed
better than others. Every study area (except those around Cape
Canaveral) was sampled. The biggest hindrance to this mission was the
weather. After late September submersible operations in this part of the
Atlantic are difficult. Frequent northerly winds against the Gulf Stream
cause seas that are difficult to impossible for submersible operations.
Future missions should consider this more carefully. Hurricanes can not
be considered, as they are not predictable as to where or when they will
occur during the hurricane season. Nevertheless, valuable data were
collected, even though it took 18 days for 9 days worth of diving. In
total we occupied 80 stations (see Table), including 19 (one
abbreviated) submersible dives using multiple methods, 42 neuston
stations, 16 night lighting stations, one CTD station, two
miscellaneous, and many (not yet tallied) kilometers of sonar transects.
We submitted numerous daily logs to the NOAA and NC Museum web sites,
answered many questions submitted by the public (from several states and
other countries). We collected around 135 samples for the *Lophelia*
genetics studies, triple the number of last year, and numerous genetics
samples for other species. We obtained enough soft corals to continue
and expand the work on paleoclimate, although more samples are needed
for that project. Video transects were better than average quality.
Science crew moral and performance were excellent, making this one of
the more enjoyable cruises of recent years. The NOAA team on board was
professional and contributed wherever possible. The NOAA-OE data report
forms filled out for each dive need significant revision and
clarification.

In general the HBOI ship, submersible crew, and RSMAS technicians were
cooperative and helpful. Ship and submersible equipment for the most
part performed well. As observed in the past, however, this ship is not
very well integrated, and this issue probably rests more with higher
management. The RSMAS crew, ship operations, and sub operations appear
to be much too independent of each other. The feeling often is that they
may as well be on three different ships. For example, the ship is
collecting ADCP data on water column currents all the time, but the sub
crew do not use these data or ask the RSMAS tech to help use the data,
for plotting how to get the sub to a bottom target location. The
disparaging comment is made that those data are no good. Then, as chief
scientist, should I be worried about that? I saw little evidence that
this has been tested. Also, the HBOI front office seems to disconnect
with ship/sub operations, an issue also noted in the past. In the
pre-cruise meeting at HBOI, we clearly requested a metered trawl block
for this cruise, and did not learn it was not aboard until well into the
cruise. Another example involved our sonar operations. Details of our
location were on our navigation software computer in the dry lab but the
bathymetry plots were in the sonar (RSMAS) room, and the bridge had
different views from both. We constantly ran from room to room to
determine where we were which was inefficient and interfered with
communications. In the days of networks and sophisticated computers it
would seem that all areas of the ship should have access to the same
computer views. Our inability to use our bottom trawl was partly our
fault as we had bridles that were too long, but the ship did not have
NICO press tools to properly shorten the cable. And despite the ship's
willingness to try (as ordered by management), they were clearly unhappy
about this gear. I am not sure how to address this ongoing issue that
this ship has severe limits with some gear. Another communication issue
was that I learned only at the end of the cruise that the MOCNESS
sampler was on board and was available to me at no extra charge. In the
past using this gear costs substantial extra money. I was not told what
gear was available in our "package" and assumed nothing had changed.
Perhaps I could have asked but where do you draw the line on how many
questions are reasonable when cruise planning is already complicated. In
the future scientists using this vessel and RSMAS (and even the sub)
should receive a more clear document stating what they get for the funds
paid. The configuration form (handled by HBOI and not RSMAS) does not do
this. I would have used this net heavily if I had known of its
availability and miss this lost opportunity.

There were again issues with the submersible's SEABIRD data. Because of
previous cruise problems we received data from the sub after every day's
dives and examined them for quality. We soon noticed that dissolved
oxygen and pH values were off. The problem was that voltage channels
were switched. We were able to then retrieve and correct the DO data,
but pH still seems incorrect. We took water samples to analyze back at
our lab (no pH meters aboard even on the RSMAS SEABIRD). I will not
belabor the large effort we took in resolving these problems, and we
interacted with sub and RSMAS personnel over several days. The real
point, however, is that this should not have to be our job. If we had
not looked into this, we would have left the ship with bad data that
probably could not have been corrected. We should be assured that high
quality data are delivered to us along with all necessary metadata.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Bathymetric mapping: Locating & mapping deep coral habitat was a major
objective of this cruise. While multibeam maps are desired, we have made
the best use possible of the ship's single beam sonar combined with data
from submersible dives to gain structural details for our study areas.
For all ongoing study areas and several new sites we added considerable
data facilitating the construction of fairly detailed maps. We used
these maps at sea to help plan dives. We brought all past data collected
with us, and we used the new data to construct maps in near real time as
we occupied sites. Until multibeam data are available, these maps are a
useful and reliable source of information about topography of parts of
the SEUS slope. This part of the mission was very successful, adding
data that were previously lacking.

New Species Discovered: At present, this topic can only be addressed
approximately. Particularly for invertebrates we collected several
animals that were problematic and that seem likely to be undescribed.
One of our PIs will be working on these animals and others will be sent
to various experts. It may take some time before the final determination
is made about how many new species were collected. We have some
certainty though that we have added some substantial new material.

Habitat Range Extended: Not sure what this means -- very ambiguous. Both
for coral habitat and some associated species we have documented new
ranges. Documentation of an extensive coral habitat just north of
Stetson Banks was of particular interest. The Cape Fear site off NC was
found to be much larger than previously thought. Further processing of
data on shore should reveal additional expansions to fauna and habitat.

Chemical, Geological, Physical Process: We are addressing some aspects
of all three of these topics largely through our analyses of annual
bands in black coral, bamboo coral, and gorgonians. Although we needed
to collect additional specimens from a wider geographic range, we did
add valuable material to our data base. These corals will be analyzed on
shore over the next 6-8 moths. These corals have been shown to live at
least 200 to 500 years in this area, and we will analyze each annual
band for a number of constituents. This will yield a long term record of
ocean conditions (temperature), productivity, and pollution. Together
these data will reveal a variety of aspects about the chemistry of the
corals and the surrounding ocean, physics (in terms of circulation to
deliver elements to the corals) and geology in terms of the corals
stability over several centuries.

Sub Dives: Because of the mid fall time of year, we were beset by bad
weather (Hurricane Wilma & fronts bringing northerly winds) that halted
dive operations for several days in the middle of the cruise and several
days at the end of the cruise. Thus, over the 18 day cruise (36
potential dives) we completed 18 successful dives (+ 1 abbreviated).
Although we did not spend as much time as needed in our southern study
sites, we did make dives at all areas except the two Cape Canaveral
sites. Every dive was quite successful yielding important collections
and video transects.

Outreach: Throughout the cruise we had two educators affiliated with the
NC Museum of Natural Sciences on the ship. They made daily reports to
shore on our activities, answered questions (with help from the
scientists), coordinated media and public relations, participated in
dives and joined the scientists in processing samples and data. We also
had a successful media day during a forced port call in Charleston. The
ship was visited by two local television stations, an international
radio station, and local reporters. Telephone interviews were also
conducted.

Students Involved: As part of the scientific crew we involved two
students from UNCW. One was a veteran of these cruises and is using the
data as part of her Master's degree project. The other is an
undergraduate student who wishes to pursue deep sea science and has
worked in Dr. Ross' lab.

Multidisciplinary: Our overall objectives involved several disciplines:
zoology, marine ecology, geography (geospatial habitat documentation),
genetics, biogeochemistry (via coral internal chemistry), videography,
and education. All disciplines were addressed during the cruise.

Exploration of new Regions: In addition to sites visited in previous
cruises, we added several new study sites that expanded our data base on
deep coral habitat. We took preliminary data (sonar sounding) on several
promising areas for future explorations. It is increasingly clear that
the southeastern US region includes a vast amount of deep coral habitat,
most of it unexplored.