did the northeastern gulf of mexico become greener after...

5
Did the northeastern Gulf of Mexico become greener after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Chuanmin Hu, 1 Robert H. Weisberg, 1 Yonggang Liu, 1 Lianyuan Zheng, 1 Kendra L. Daly, 1 David C. English, 1 Jun Zhao, 1 and Gabriel A. Vargo 1 Received 17 February 2011; revised 28 March 2011; accepted 30 March 2011; published 3 May 2011. [1] Assessment of direct and indirect impacts of oil and dispersants on the marine ecosystem in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (NEGOM) from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (April July 2010) requires sustained observations over multiple years. Here, using satellite measurements, numerical circulation models, and other environmental data, we present some initial results on observed biological changes at the base of the food web. MODIS fluorescence line height (FLH, a proxy for phytoplankton biomass) shows two interesting anomalies. The first is statistically significant (>1 mg m 3 of chlorophylla anomaly), in an area exceeding 11,000 km 2 in the NEGOM during August 2010, about 3 weeks after the oil well was capped. FLH values in this area are higher (i.e., water is greener) than in any August since 2002, and higher than ever since 2002 in an area of 3,000 km 2 . Analyses of ocean circulation and other envi- ronmental data suggest that this anomaly may be attributed to the oil spill. The second is a spatially coherent FLH anomaly during December 2010 and January 2011, extend- ing from Mobile Bay to the Florida Keys (mainly between 30 and 100m isobaths). This anomaly appears to have resulted from unusually strong upwelling and mixing events during late fall. Available data are insufficient to support or reject a hypothesis that the subsurface oil may have contrib- uted to the enhanced biomass during December 2010 and January 2011. Citation: Hu, C., R. H. Weisberg, Y. Liu, L. Zheng, K. L. Daly, D. C. English, J. Zhao, and G. A. Vargo (2011), Did the northeastern Gulf of Mexico become greener after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L09601, doi:10.1029/2011GL047184. 1. Introduction [2]A massive explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil drilling platform in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (NEGOM) on 20 April 2010, after which the platform sank to the 1500m seafloor on 22 April 2010. This tragic event cost 11 lives and led to the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. It has been estimated that about 4.9 million barrels of crude oil and an unknown amount of gas were released into the ocean over 83 days (22 April 14 July; McNutt et al., 2011). [3] The oil spill, plus the application of chemical dis- persants, poses an unprecedented threat to the GOM, its coastline, sensitive ecosystems, and economy. Over the past several decades, there have been a number of field and laboratory studies investigating the ecological impacts of oil spills in the aquatic environment [Teal and Howarth, 1984]. Of these, only a handful of studies focused on phytoplankton (base of the food web), and results varied substantially. Some studies observed an increase in phytoplankton growth [Parsons et al., 1976; Linden et al., 1979; Vargo et al., 1982], while others found inhibition of photosynthesis [Nuzzi, 1973; Dunstan et al., 1975; Miller et al., 1978]. In some cases, increased biomass was attributed to the reduction in zoo- plankton [Miller et al., 1978; Linden et al., 1979]. Batten et al. [1998] found no significant oil spill impact on plank- ton in the Southern Irish Sea. In contrast, a phytoplankton bloom was observed following the IXTOC1 oil spill in the southern GOM during 1979 [Jernelöv and Lindén, 1981]. The use of chemical dispersants adds another complexity, as the shortand longterm effects of dispersants on phyto- plankton abundance and community structure rarely have been studied [e.g., Brown et al., 1990]. [4] The NEGOM is a complex marine environment, where coastal runoff from point (e.g., Mississippi River) and nonpoint sources, upwelling of deep ocean water onto the continental shelf, teleconnections by the Loop Current and its eddies, tropical storms, and their concomitant effect on marine organisms result in a dynamic marine ecosystem. Thus, despite efforts by federal and state agencies, academic institutions, environmental groups, and private sector entities, it is challenging to assess the potential impacts of the DWH oil spill on local and Gulfwide ecosystems, especially when baselineinformation on the natural variability of relevant environmental and biological variables is largely unknown [National Research Council, 2003]. One possible exception is phytoplankton biomass, as modern satellites are expected to provide consistent and synoptic estimates of several biooptical properties of the surface ocean over multiple years. [5] Here, using MODIS satellite observations between July 2002 and January 2011, circulation models, and other data, we attempt to address two questions: (1) Was there a significant change in surface phytoplankton biomass in the NEGOM after the oil spill and (2) if so, was the change related to the spill? 2. Data Selection and Processing Methods [6] Although standard data products of MODIS chloro- phylla concentrations (Chl in mg m 3 ) were available, their accuracy and consistency are questionable for the NEGOM [Hu et al., 2003a; DSa et al., 2006], mainly because of the interference of variable colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) with the chlorophyll algorithm, as sediment 1 College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA. Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union. 00948276/11/2011GL047184 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L09601, doi:10.1029/2011GL047184, 2011 L09601 1 of 5

Upload: truonghanh

Post on 16-Mar-2019

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Did the northeastern Gulf of Mexico become greenerafter the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?

Chuanmin Hu,1 Robert H. Weisberg,1 Yonggang Liu,1 Lianyuan Zheng,1

Kendra L. Daly,1 David C. English,1 Jun Zhao,1 and Gabriel A. Vargo1

Received 17 February 2011; revised 28 March 2011; accepted 30 March 2011; published 3 May 2011.

[1] Assessment of direct and indirect impacts of oil anddispersants on the marine ecosystem in the northeasternGulf of Mexico (NEGOM) from the Deepwater Horizonoil spill (April – July 2010) requires sustained observationsover multiple years. Here, using satellite measurements,numerical circulation models, and other environmental data,we present some initial results on observed biologicalchanges at the base of the food web. MODIS fluorescenceline height (FLH, a proxy for phytoplankton biomass) showstwo interesting anomalies. The first is statistically significant(>1 mg m−3 of chlorophyll‐a anomaly), in an area exceeding11,000 km2 in the NEGOM during August 2010, about3 weeks after the oil well was capped. FLH values in thisarea are higher (i.e., water is greener) than in any Augustsince 2002, and higher than ever since 2002 in an area of∼3,000 km2. Analyses of ocean circulation and other envi-ronmental data suggest that this anomaly may be attributedto the oil spill. The second is a spatially coherent FLHanomaly during December 2010 and January 2011, extend-ing from Mobile Bay to the Florida Keys (mainly between30 and 100‐m isobaths). This anomaly appears to haveresulted from unusually strong upwelling and mixing eventsduring late fall. Available data are insufficient to support orreject a hypothesis that the subsurface oil may have contrib-uted to the enhanced biomass during December 2010 andJanuary 2011. Citation: Hu, C., R. H. Weisberg, Y. Liu,L. Zheng, K. L. Daly, D. C. English, J. Zhao, and G. A. Vargo(2011), Did the northeastern Gulf of Mexico become greener afterthe Deepwater Horizon oil spill?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L09601,doi:10.1029/2011GL047184.

1. Introduction

[2] A massive explosion occurred on the DeepwaterHorizon (DWH) oil drilling platform in the northeasternGulf of Mexico (NEGOM) on 20 April 2010, after whichthe platform sank to the 1500‐m seafloor on 22 April 2010.This tragic event cost 11 lives and led to the largest offshoreoil spill in U.S. history. It has been estimated that about4.9 million barrels of crude oil and an unknown amountof gas were released into the ocean over 83 days (22 April –14 July; McNutt et al., 2011).[3] The oil spill, plus the application of chemical dis-

persants, poses an unprecedented threat to the GOM, its

coastline, sensitive ecosystems, and economy. Over the pastseveral decades, there have been a number of field andlaboratory studies investigating the ecological impacts of oilspills in the aquatic environment [Teal and Howarth, 1984].Of these, only a handful of studies focused on phytoplankton(base of the food web), and results varied substantially.Some studies observed an increase in phytoplankton growth[Parsons et al., 1976; Linden et al., 1979; Vargo et al., 1982],while others found inhibition of photosynthesis [Nuzzi, 1973;Dunstan et al., 1975; Miller et al., 1978]. In some cases,increased biomass was attributed to the reduction in zoo-plankton [Miller et al., 1978; Linden et al., 1979]. Battenet al. [1998] found no significant oil spill impact on plank-ton in the Southern Irish Sea. In contrast, a phytoplanktonbloom was observed following the IXTOC‐1 oil spill in thesouthern GOM during 1979 [Jernelöv and Lindén, 1981].The use of chemical dispersants adds another complexity, asthe short‐ and long‐term effects of dispersants on phyto-plankton abundance and community structure rarely havebeen studied [e.g., Brown et al., 1990].[4] The NEGOM is a complex marine environment,

where coastal runoff from point (e.g., Mississippi River) andnon‐point sources, upwelling of deep ocean water onto thecontinental shelf, tele‐connections by the Loop Current andits eddies, tropical storms, and their concomitant effect onmarine organisms result in a dynamic marine ecosystem.Thus, despite efforts by federal and state agencies, academicinstitutions, environmental groups, and private sector entities,it is challenging to assess the potential impacts of the DWHoil spill on local and Gulf‐wide ecosystems, especially when“baseline” information on the natural variability of relevantenvironmental and biological variables is largely unknown[National Research Council, 2003]. One possible exceptionis phytoplankton biomass, as modern satellites are expectedto provide consistent and synoptic estimates of several bio‐optical properties of the surface ocean over multiple years.[5] Here, using MODIS satellite observations between

July 2002 and January 2011, circulation models, and otherdata, we attempt to address two questions: (1) Was there asignificant change in surface phytoplankton biomass in theNEGOM after the oil spill and (2) if so, was the changerelated to the spill?

2. Data Selection and Processing Methods

[6] Although standard data products of MODIS chloro-phyll‐a concentrations (Chl in mg m−3) were available, theiraccuracy and consistency are questionable for the NEGOM[Hu et al., 2003a; D’Sa et al., 2006], mainly because ofthe interference of variable colored dissolved organicmatter (CDOM) with the chlorophyll algorithm, as sediment

1College ofMarine Science,University of South Florida, St. Petersburg,Florida, USA.

Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union.0094‐8276/11/2011GL047184

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L09601, doi:10.1029/2011GL047184, 2011

L09601 1 of 5

resuspension is restricted to nearshore waters [Salisburyet al., 2004]. Under such circumstances, several studieshave shown that MODIS fluorescence line height (FLH)was relatively stable against CDOM changes and could beused as a better proxy for phytoplankton biomass [Hu et al.,2005; McKee et al., 2007]. For example, McKee showedthat for a 20‐fold increase in CDOM, FLH decreased by atmost 50%. Thus, given the 2–4‐fold changes in CDOM forthe NEGOM [Hu et al., 2003a; Nababan, 2005] and rela-tively stable chlorophyll-a fluorescence efficiency (MODIS/Aqua measurements are within 1–2 hours of solar noon),MODIS FLH was assumed to be nearly immune to suchchanges and consistent across different years for the purposeof assessing inter‐annual changes in phytoplankton biomass(water greenness).[7] MODIS monthly data at 4‐km resolution were obtained

for the period of July 2002 to January 2011 from the U.S.NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. These included: FLHnormalized to the same incident irradiance (in mW cm−2

mm−1 sr−1), night‐time sea surface temperature (NSST, °C),photosynthetically available radiation (PAR, mol photonsm−2 day−1), and remote‐sensing reflectance at 667‐nm(Rrs667, sr

−1). The products were derived using the mostrecent updates in calibration and algorithms in the softwarepackage SeaDAS (version 6.1), and were used to generatemonthly climatologies, monthly means, standard deviations,and anomalies. If the anomaly deviated from the climatol-ogy by >2 standard deviations, it was regarded as statisticallysignificant. For the identified anomalies, 3‐day products wereobtained and examined for episodic events. For each month,a 2002–2009 climatological monthly maximum was alsoderived in order to evaluate whether FLH in 2010 exceededthe historical maximum.[8] The surface oil location was determined from the daily

MODIS data (250‐m resolution) and MERIS data (300‐mresolution) between 22 April and 31 July 2010 [Hu et al.,2003b, 2009], complemented by some radar observations.Because it was impossible to estimate the oil film thickness,we simply used oil presence/absence to estimate the fre-quency of oil appearance during this period, normalized bythe number of valid observations. In addition, numerical

circulation models were used to estimate the potential tra-jectories of surface and subsurface oil [Liu et al., 2011].

3. Did the NEGOM Become Greener?

[9] Figure 1a shows the percentage of days of surface oilobserved from 22 April 2010 (the first day after the oilplatform sank) to 31 July 2010 (when surface oil expressiondisappeared in satellite imagery) from 58 cloud‐free images.The surface area affected by oil is about 103,000 km2, mostof which (∼96,000 km2) is in the NEGOM (bounded by27.5°N to 31°N and 91°W to 82.6°W). This corresponds tonearly half (45%) of the entire NEGOM water area(∼212,000 km2). About 21,800 km2 of ocean surface areawas exposed to oil for >20% of the time (white outline inFigure 1a), while about 3,600 km2 showed oil for 50% ofthe time. These results clearly indicate large‐scale oil con-tamination in both time and space.[10] Figure 1b shows the MODIS FLH anomaly for

August 2010, the first month after the surface oil dis-appeared. A large, contiguous patch (∼11,100 km2) of asignificant positive anomaly was observed in the easternside of the region bounded by the 20% surface oil line. Mostof the patch had FLH anomalies >0.01 mW cm−2 mm−1 sr−1,corresponding to roughly 1 mg chlorophyll‐a m−3 [Hu et al.,2005]. Figure 1c further shows that in this patch FLH valuesare higher than in any August between 2002 and 2009,suggesting that 11,100 km2 of the NEGOM water wassignificantly greener during August 2010. Even when alldata between July 2002 and March 2010 were combinedtogether, about 27% (3,000 km2) of this patch still showedhigher FLH value than the cumulated maximum. Severalstatistically significant smaller patches also appeared in thevicinity and to the southwest of the Mississippi Rivermouth, but they did not show similar spatially coherentpatterns. The 3‐day composite FLH and FLH anomalyimages between late July and early September 2010 wereexamined to see whether this large anomaly patch waspersistent and coherent during August. Although frequentcloud cover and sun glint created data gaps and imagepatchiness, the anomaly indeed started from early August,

Figure 1. (a) Frequency of surface oil appearance in satellite imagery (number of valid observations = 58). The oil riglocation is marked with “X”, and the dashed rectangular box shows the NEGOM region (27.5°N to 31°N, 91°W to82.6°W). (b) MODIS FLH anomaly (mW cm−2 mm−1 sr−1) for August 2010, referenced against the climatological mean.The black contours outline the patches where significant anomaly (>2 standard deviations) was found. The 20% surfaceoil presence line is annotated in white in Figure 1a and brown in Figure 1b. The three R/V WB‐II stations are marked with“+”. (c) The inset shows the same anomaly as in Figure 1b but referenced against the climatological maximum for August of2002–2009.

HU ET AL.: GULF OF MEXICO GREENER AFTER OIL SPILL? L09601L09601

2 of 5

lasted for most of the month, and disappeared in earlySeptember.[11] There were no similar significant FLH anomalies

(either positive or negative) between April and July or afterAugust. During December 2010, a coherent positive FLHanomaly was observed extending from Mobile Bay to theFlorida Keys, mainly between the 30 and 100‐m isobaths onthe west Florida shelf (WFS, Figure 2a). This positiveanomaly was above 1 standard deviation, but not statisti-cally significant. Concurrent MODIS SST data showed asignificant negative anomaly (Figure 2b) corresponding tothe same regions of the positive FLH anomaly. More recentdata showed that the FLH anomaly lasted through January2011 and became statistically significant.[12] Two questions thus arise from the above observa-

tions: 1) Is the significant FLH anomaly in August 2010 dueto the DHW oil spill? 2) Is it possible that some of thesubsurface oil and/or dispersants contributed to the positiveFLH anomaly in December 2010 and January 2011, viaocean circulation and a combination of upwelling andmixing?

4. Causes of the FLH Anomalies

4.1. The August 2010 Case

[13] Data collected from nine oceanographic cruises in theNEGOM between November 1997 and August 2000 sug-gest that surface chlorophyll‐a distributions are stronglyinfluenced by river discharge [Hu et al., 2003a; Qian et al.,2003; Nababan, 2005], where in situ Chl in the western partof NEGOM typically ranged between 0.2 and 2 mg m−3.Discharge data from the two major rivers (the Mississippiand Apalachicola rivers) collected by the USGS in the pastdecades, however, did not reveal a significant anomalyduring summer 2010, and river discharge anomaly did notcorrelate to FLH anomaly (R2 < 0.06 for the 26 summermonths and <0.01 for the entire MODIS time series for100 pixels in the center of the FLH anomaly patch). Datacollected from three stations on 9–10 August 2010 to thewest of the FLH anomaly patch (Figure 1b) during the R/VWB‐II survey showed surface salinities of ∼30, yet histor-ical data from the NEGOM cruises also showed similarsalinity values in this region. The anomaly patch in August

did not connect with the river mouths. FLH data did notshow significant anomaly in summers of 2002–2009 withsimilar characteristics, even when the Mississippi dischargewas unusually high. These findings, along with neitherPAR, NSST, nor ocean circulation data revealing anycoherent anomalies, suggest that the FLH anomaly inAugust 2010 could be caused by other factors.[14] Indeed, the location of the FLH anomaly patch was

consistent with satellite inferred oil locations and with thelocation of surface and subsurface oil trajectories predictedby circulation models [Liu et al., 2011]. Although deep(1200–1400 m) subsurface trajectories tended to followisobaths toward the southwest, baroclinicity caused trajec-tories to be increasingly decoupled from topography atshallower depths, where subsurface trajectories tendedtoward the northeast (Figures 3a and 3b). The subsurfacetrajectories were used to direct two R/V WB‐II cruises (Juneand August 2010) to locations where subsurface hydro-carbons were found and fingerprinted to the DWH spill(J. Paul et al., Toxicity and mutagenicity of Gulf of Mexicowaters contaminated by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,submitted to Nature, 2011). Several other publications[Camilli et al., 2010; Schrope, 2010] also reported subsur-face hydrocarbons in the vicinity of the FLH anomaly patch.Such evidence suggests a possible link between the August2010 anomaly patch and the oil spill.[15] A number of factors may affect phytoplankton

abundance and diversity [Elmgren et al., 1978; Vargo et al.,1982], such as increased nutrients, reduced grazing due toimpacts of oil on zooplankton, or regenerated nutrients fromdead zooplankton or other organisms. One possible expla-nation for why the anomalous bloom lasted for only aboutone month is that enhanced nutrients may have been con-sumed and/or lost via sinking particulate matter. DuringAugust 2010, data collected from three stations near thewestern edge of the FLH anomaly patch (Figure 1b) showedthat the phytoplankton community (>20 mm) was dominatedby oceanic diatom and dinoflagellates species (5,333–405,833 cells L−1), with suppressed activities in microbialand phytoplankton communities (Paul et al., submittedmanuscript, 2011). No toxic species (Karenia brevis,Pseudo‐nitzschia sp) were present. Preliminary analyses ofzooplankton abundances indicate a high spatial variability,

Figure 2. (a) MODIS FLH anomaly (mW cm−2 mm−1 sr−1) for December 2010. The black lines denote isobaths of 10, 20,30, 50, 100, and 200 m, respectively. Most of the positive anomaly between 30 and 100‐m isobaths are above 1 standarddeviation but <2 standard deviations. (b) MODIS SST anomaly (°C) for December 2010. The black lines denote significantanomaly (>2 standard deviations). (c) The inset shows MODIS Rrs667 anomaly (sr−1), where most yellow and red colors(>1 standard deviation) along the west Florida’s coast are within 20‐m isobaths.

HU ET AL.: GULF OF MEXICO GREENER AFTER OIL SPILL? L09601L09601

3 of 5

with surface (20 m) zooplankton densities ranging fromabout 10,000 to >70,000 individuals m−3. Thus, complexecosystem interactions may account for the observed posi-tive (significant) and negative (insignificant) FLH anomaliesin August 2010.

4.2. The December 2010–January 2011 Case

[16] The FLH anomaly showed a discontinuity betweenoffshore (100–30 m) and inshore (20–0 m) regions. Inshore,the Rrs667 anomaly (Figure 2c) indicates that a signifi-cant sediment resuspension occurred due to strong winds(Figure 3c). Thus, the high FLH anomaly in nearshorewaters suggests high turbidity as opposed to high biomass[Gilerson et al., 2007]. In contrast, the offshore FLHanomaly from Mobile Bay to the Florida Keys appears to berelated to enhanced phytoplankton biomass.[17] A spring phytoplankton bloom typically occurs south

of Apalachicola Bay and is referred to as the “green river”[Gilbes et al., 1996]. The origin of this feature is related toseasonally varying circulation [Weisberg et al., 1996; Heand Weisberg, 2002], driven by both varying winds andsurface warming. Anomalous forcing, by either anomalouswinds or the Loop Current and eddy interactions with theshelf slope, may further accentuate circulation and upwell-ing processes, increasing advection and mixing of deepGOM nutrients across the shelf break and onto the conti-nental shelf [Weisberg and He, 2003; Walsh et al., 2003].An early onset of strong weather fronts led to anoma-lously strong upwelling favorable winds in December 2010(Figure 3c) [Weisberg, 2011]. Thus, the spatial extent of thebloom (from Mobile Bay to Florida Keys) and the concur-

rent SST anomaly suggest that the bloom was the result ofupwelling and mixing of nutrients across the shelf break.[18] Although circulation models indicate that subsurface

oil may have spread southward along the slope of the WFS[Liu et al., 2011], it is uncertain whether or not concurrentupwelling and mixing of subsurface hydrocarbons and dis-persants contributed to this anomaly owing to a lack ofin situ data. Systematic sampling is needed from the headof Desoto Canyon southeast along the shelf break and ontothe shelf, because this is where deep ocean nutrients areadvected onto the shelf. Clues may eventually be found inthe sediment samples.

5. Conclusion

[19] The use of synoptic, consistent, and multi‐yearMODIS FLH data product is believed to provide a reason-able proxy for ocean greenness (phytoplankton biomass) inthe optically complex NEGOM region, which led to thedetection of a significant positive anomaly during August2010. Yet the argument that the anomaly is due to the spill isbased on indirect evidence through satellite observations,modeling, and ruling out other possibilities. Unfortunately,field observations before and after the spill were too scarceto provide direct evidence on what biogeochemical pro-cesses led to the observed biomass changes. Such a lack ofadequate data to assess the impacts of the DWH oil spillhighlights the need for sustained ocean observations, espe-cially when the chronic biological effects of the DWHoil spill are to be assessed. The optical complexity in theNEGOM also calls for improved remote sensing algorithms

Figure 3. Modeled particle trajectories on 31 May 2010. The particles were released at (a) 400 m and (b) 1200 m every3 hours starting from 21 April (blue color, i.e., initial particle release or 0 days) through 31 May 2010 (red color, 41 days).The WFS ROMS model was forced by realistic winds and nested into the global HYCOM model to obtain boundary con-ditions. (c) Climatological (1994–2010) monthly mean winds (blue) and their standard errors (black) versus 2010 monthlymean winds (red) measured at NDBC buoy 42036 on the northern WFS. Mean wind in December 2010 is in the along‐shelfdirection (i.e., parallel to Florida’s west coast) and much stronger than the December climatology, therefore more effectivein driving the shelf‐wide upwelling.

HU ET AL.: GULF OF MEXICO GREENER AFTER OIL SPILL? L09601L09601

4 of 5

to better estimate chlorophyll‐a concentrations and otherbiogeochemical properties.

[20] Acknowledgments. Funding for satellite work was provided bythe US NASA Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry (OBB) program andGulf of Mexico program. We thank the NASA Ocean Biology ProcessingGroup for providing satellite data. We also thank Jennifer Wolny and SueMurasko (Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute) for collecting andanalyzing phytoplankton samples. WFS observing and modeling activitiesbenefited from many funding sources, including the State of Florida,NOAA, ONR, NSF, and NASA. We also acknowledge support from theUniversity of South Florida Research Foundation grant 94302 and FIO‐Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill grant 4710‐1101‐01 to KLD. The authorthanks two anonymous reviewers for their assistance in evaluating thispaper.[21] The Editor thanks two anonymous reviewers for their assistance in

evaluating this paper.

ReferencesBatten, S. D., R. J. S. Allen, and C. O. M. Wotton (1998), The effects of theSea Empress oil spill on the plankton of the southern Irish Sea, Mar.Pollut. Bull., 36, 764–774, doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(98)00039-3.

Brown, H. M., et al. (1990), Dispersion of spilled oil in freshwater systems:Field trial of a chemical dispersant, Oil Chem. Pollut., 6, 37–54,doi:10.1016/S0269-8579(05)80038-3.

Camilli, R., et al. (2010), Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport andbiodegradation at Deepwater Horizon, Science, 330, 201–204,doi:10.1126/science.1195223.

D’Sa, E. J., R. L. Miller, and C. Del Castillo (2006), Bio‐optical proper-ties and ocean color algorithms for coastal waters influenced by theMississippi River during a cold front, Appl. Opt., 45, 7410–7428,doi:10.1364/AO.45.007410.

Dunstan, W. M., L. P. Atkinson, and J. Natoli (1975), Stimulation and inhi-bition of phytoplankton growth by low molecular weight hydrocarbons,Mar. Biol. Berlin, 31, 305–310, doi:10.1007/BF00392087.

Elmgren, R., G. A. Vargo, J. F. Grassle, J. P. Grassle, D. R. Heinle,G. Langlois, and S. L. Vargo (1978), Trophic interactions in experimen-tal marine ecosystems perturbed by oil, in Microcosms in EcologicalResearch: Selected Papers From a Symposium Held at Augusta, Georgia,November 8–10, 1978, DOE Symp. Ser., vol. 52, edited by J. P. Giesy,pp. 850–868, Tech. Inf. Cent., Washington, D. C.

Gilbes, F., C. Thomas, J. J. Walsh, and F. E. Muller‐Karger (1996), Anepisodic chlorophyll‐a plume on the west Florida shelf, Cont. ShelfRes., 16(9), 1201–1207, doi:10.1016/0278-4343(95)00065-8.

Gilerson, A., et al. (2007), Fluorescence component in the reflectance spec-tra from coastal waters. Dependence on water composition, Opt. Express,15, 15,702–15,721, doi:10.1364/OE.15.015702.

He, R., and R. H. Weisberg (2002), West Florida shelf circulation andtemperature budget for the 1999 spring transition, Cont. Shelf Res., 22,719–748, doi:10.1016/S0278-4343(01)00085-1.

Hu, C., F. E. Muller‐Karger, D. C. Biggs, K. L. Carder, B. Nababan,D. Nadeau, and J. Vanderbloemen (2003a), Comparison of ship andsatellite bio‐optical measurements on the continental margin of the NEGulf of Mexico, Int. J. Remote Sens., 24, 2597–2612, doi:10.1080/0143116031000067007.

Hu, C., F. E. Müller‐Karger, C. Taylor, D. Myhre, B. Murch, A. L.Odriozola, and G. Godoy (2003b), MODIS detects oil spills in LakeMaracaibo, Venezuela, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(33), doi:10.1029/2003EO330002.

Hu, C., F. E. Muller‐Karger, C. Taylor, K. L. Carder, C. Kelble, E. Johns,and C. Heil (2005), Red tide detection and tracing using MODIS fluores-cence data: A regional example in SW Florida coastal waters, RemoteSens. Environ., 97, 311–321, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2005.05.013.

Hu, C., X. Li, W. G. Pichel, and F. E. Muller‐Karger (2009), Detectionof natural oil slicks in the NW Gulf of Mexico using MODIS imagery,Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L01604, doi:10.1029/2008GL036119.

Jernelöv, A., and O. Lindén (1981), Ixtox I: A case study of the world’slargest oil spill, Ambio, 10, 299–306.

Linden, O., R. Elmgren, and P. Boehm (1979), The Tsesis oil spill: Itsimpact on the coastal ecosystem of the Baltic Sea, Ambio, 8, 244–253.

Liu, Y., R. H. Weisberg, C. Hu, and L. Zheng (2011), Tracking the Deep-water Horizon oil spill: A modeling perspective, Eos Trans. AGU, 92(6),doi:10.1029/2011EO060001.

McKee, D., et al. (2007), Potential impacts of nonalgal materials on water‐leaving Sun induced chlorophyll fluorescence signals in coastal waters,Appl. Opt., 46, 7720–7729, doi:10.1364/AO.46.007720.

McNutt,M., R. Camilli, G. Guthrie, P. Hsieh, V. Labson, B. Lehr, D.Maclay,A. Ratzel, and M. Sogge (2011), Assessment of flow rate estimates for theDeepwater Horizon/Macondo well oil spill. Flow Rate Technical Groupreport to the National Incident Command, Interagency Solutions Group,March 10, 2011.

Miller, M. C., V. Alexander, and R. J. Barsdate (1978), The effects of oilspills on phytoplankton in an arctic lake and ponds, Arctic, 31, 192–218.

Nababan, B. (2005), Bio‐optical variability of surface waters in thenortheastern Gulf of Mexico, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of South Fla.,St. Petersburg.

National Research Council (2003), Biological effects of oil releases, in Oilin the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, chap. 5, pp. 119–157, Natl.Acad. Press, Washington, D. C.

Nuzzi, R. (1973), Effects of water soluble extracts of oil on phytoplankton,in Proceedings of Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of OilSpills, pp. 809–814, Am. Pet. Inst., Washington, D. C.

Parsons, T. R., W. K. W. Li, and R. Waters (1976), Some preliminaryobservations on the enhancement of phytoplankton growth by low levelsof mineral hydrocarbons, Hydrobiologia, 51, 85–89, doi:10.1007/BF00007989.

Qian, Y., A. E. Jochens, M. C. Kennicutt, and D. C. Biggs (2003), Spatialand temporal variability of phytoplankton biomass and community struc-ture over the continental margin of the NEGOM based on pigment anal-ysis, Cont. Shelf Res., 23, 1–17, doi:10.1016/S0278-4343(02)00173-5.

Salisbury, J. S., et al. (2004), On the seasonal correlation of surface particlefields with wind stress and Mississippi discharge in the northern Gulf ofMexico, Deep Sea Res., Part II, 51, 1187–1203.

Schrope, M. (2010), Oil cruise finds deep‐sea plume, Nature, 465, 274–275,doi:10.1038/465274a.

Teal, J. M., and R. W. Howarth (1984), Oil spill studies: A review of eco-logical effects, Environ. Manage. N. Y., 8, 27–43, doi:10.1007/BF01867871.

Vargo, G. A., M. Hutchins, and G. Almquist (1982), The effect of lowchronic levels of no. 2 fuel oil on natural phytoplankton assemblagesin microcosms: 1. Species composition and seasonal succession, Mar.Environ. Res., 6, 245–264, doi:10.1016/0141-1136(82)90040-X.

Walsh, J. J., et al. (2003), Phytoplankton response to intrusions of slopewater on the west Florida shelf: Models and observations, J. Geophys.Res., 108(C6), 3190, doi:10.1029/2002JC001406.

Weisberg, R. H. (2011), Coastal ocean pollution, water quality and ecology:A commentary, Mar. Technol. Soc. J., in press.

Weisberg, R. H., and R. He (2003), Local and deep‐ocean forcing contri-butions to anomalous water properties on the west Florida shelf, J. Geo-phys. Res., 108(C6), 3184, doi:10.1029/2002JC001407.

Weisberg, R. H., B. Black, and H. Yang (1996), Seasonal modulation of thewest Florida shelf circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 2247–2250,doi:10.1029/96GL02184.

K. L. Daly, D. C. English, C. Hu, Y. Liu, G. A. Vargo, R. H. Weisberg,J. Zhao, and L. Zheng, College of Marine Science, University of SouthFlorida, 140 Seventh Ave. S., St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA. ([email protected])

HU ET AL.: GULF OF MEXICO GREENER AFTER OIL SPILL? L09601L09601

5 of 5