Aerial extent, composition, bio-optics and biogeochemistry of a massive under-ice algal bloom in the Arctic

AbstractIt has been long thought that coccolithophores are a minor component of the phytoplankton assemblage in Arctic waters, with diatoms typically being more dominant. Little is known about how the phytoplankton communities will change, however, as the Arctic warms. We participated in the 2011 Impacts of Climate on EcoSystems and Chemistry of the Arctic Pacific Environment (ICESCAPE) cruise to the western Arctic, performing a combination of discrete measurements (microscopy, calcification, particulate inorganic carbon (PIC), particulate organic carbon (POC), biogenic silica (BSi)) plus continuous surface bio-optical measurements (absorption, scattering, backscattering and acid-labile backscattering; the latter specific for coccolithophores). Here, we report bio-optical and coccolithophore observations from the massive under-ice algal bloom originally described in Arrigo et al. (2012). The most intense portions of the bloom were centered in cold Winter Water and there was evidence for nitrate drawdown in the top 10–20m with strong penetration of silicate rich water into the surface waters. Surface chlorophyll a and particulate absorption at 440nm approached 30μgL−1 and 1.0m−1, respectively. Particulate absorption of detritus (ap at 412nm) was highly correlated to ap at 440nm associated with chlorophyll a and slopes of the absorption spectrum showed that both dissolved and particulate absorption at 412nm exceeded that at 440nm, with slopes, Sg, of 0.01 nm–1. Colored dissolved organic matter fluorescence (FDOM) was high in the bloom but the relative fluorescence yields were low, characteristic of phytoplankton-produced FDOM (as opposed to terrestrially-produced FDOM). Coccolithophore backscattering was elevated in the under-ice bloom, but it only accounted for 10% of the total particle backscattering, relatively low compared to typical subpolar waters further to the south. Total particle scattering was significantly elevated in the under-ice bloom (values of almost 2m−1), likely due to the high abundance of large diatoms. Backscattering probabilities in the bloom were ~1%, again characteristic of diatom-dominated populations with few calcifiers. PIC standing stock in the under-ice bloom was low but measurable while biogenic silica molar concentrations were 150 times greater. POC:PON molar ratios were 6–10, characteristic of healthy, rapidly growing phytoplankton, observations further buttressed by carbon:chlorophyll mass ratios of 50–100. Coccolithophore calcification was low but measurable, reaching 1.75mgCm−3d−1 in the under-ice bloom, only 0.4% of the photosynthesis. However, the intrinsic carbon-specific growth rate was 0.4 per day for bulk POC and ~1 per day for bulk PIC, close to maximal growth rates expected at these temperatures. SEM and light microscopy results showed mostly diatoms in the bloom. The coccolithophore, Emiliania huxleyi, was observed, providing unequivocal evidence of the presence of coccolithophores in the under-ice algal bloom