From: Donna Harris Sent: Thursday, 15 February 2018 12:56 PM Subject: IMOS Annual Meeting 26-28 Feb Hobart - Papers, Logistics and Accommodation Confirmation Importance: High Dear Colleagues The IMOS Annual Meeting is fast approaching and as such, I have attached an updated agenda and background papers, including a map on where to find the conference venue, accommodation and dinner venues. Dinner on evening 1 will be at the conference venue in the Harbour View room, Dinner on evening 2 will be at The Brick Factory in Salamanca (access through Grape Bar if entering from Salamanca strip, or alternatively from Salamanca Square) – you will need to collect a wrist band from me at the meeting on Tuesday prior to this dinner – no wrist band no service. For those requiring accommodation, please take note of your accommodation venue/booking confirmation below. If you are not on this list, we are not holding any accommodation for you. IMOS Board Members- please note board papers are currently being finalised and will be distributed separately. We look forward to seeing you in Hobart! Kind Regards Donna

HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR - 03 6235 4535

CONFIRMATION NUMBER GUEST NAME CHECK IN CHECK OUT396234/006 ANTONIE, DAVID, MR 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/002 BABCOCK, RUSS, MR 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/007 BAINBRIDGE, SCOTT, MR 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/008 BECKLEY, LYNNATH 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/022 BEGGS, HELEN, MS 26/02/2018 1/03/2018396234/001 BENTHUYSEN, JESSICA, MS 25/02/2018 1/03/2018396234/009 COSOLI, SIMONE, MR 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/003 ERBE, CHRISTINE, MS 25/02/2018 1/03/2018396234/014 FENG, MING 25/02/2018 1/03/2018396234/004 HAYDEN, BARB, MS 25/02/2018 1/03/2018396234/005 HEUPEL, MICHELLE, MS 25/02/2018 27/02/2018396234/015 LEWIS, ADAM, MR 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/024 MACCAULEY, ROB, MR 25/02/2018 1/03/2018396234/023 MACKAY, KEVIN, MR 25/02/2018 2/03/2018396234/016 MIDDLETON, JASON, MR 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/010 OLSEN, MELANIE, MS 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/026 PARKER, BARBARA, MS 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/011 PATTIARATCHI, CHARITHA 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/027 PIZARRO, OSCAR, MR 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/021 POINER, IAN, MR 26/02/2018 2/03/2018396234/028 PRZESLAWSKI, RACHEL, MS 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/012 ROUGHAN, MONINYA 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/029 SCHROEDER, THOMAS, MR 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/030 SCHULZ, ERIC, MR 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/017 SEYMOUR, JUSTIN, MR 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/013 STEINBERG, CRAIG, MR 25/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/019 TRELEAVEN, JAMIE, MR 26/02/2018 1/03/2018396234/020 VAN RUTH, PAUL, MR 26/02/2018 28/02/2018396234/025 WILLIAMS, DAVID, MR 25/02/2018 1/03/2018396234/018 WOODHAM, ROBERT, MR 26/02/2018 28/02/2018

THE OLD WOOLSTORE - 1800 814 676

Folio Member Names CHECK IN CHECK OUT384885 Hejinis Henk 26/02/18 28/02/18384878 Brinkman, Richard 25/02/18 02/03/18384887 Cabrie, Joel 26/02/18 28/02/18384888 Cleugh, Helen 26/02/18 02/03/18384880 Everett, Jason 25/02/18 01/03/18384884 Fabrice, Jaine 26/02/18 28/02/18384895 Freeman, Fiona 26/02/18 01/03/18384896 Harch, Bronwyn 27/02/18 01/03/18384875 Hardisty, Paul 23/02/18 02/03/18384886 Huveneers, Charlie 26/02/18 28/02/18384892 Ierodiaconou, Daniel 26/02/18 28/02/18384889 Ingleton, Tim 26/02/18 28/02/18384890 Jones, Nicole 26/02/18 28/02/18384891 Kelly-Gerreyn, Boris 26/02/18 28/02/18384881 Lee, Randall 26/02/18 28/02/18384879 Llewellyn, Lyndon 25/02/18 01/03/18384893 Middleton, John 26/02/18 28/02/18384897 Mooney, Pauline 28/02/18 01/03/18384894 Neilson, Jo 27/02/18 01/03/18384898 Owens, Robyn 28/02/18 01/03/18384883 Robillot, Cedric 26/02/18 01/03/18384882 Scognamiglio, Mark 26/02/18 28/02/18384900 Steinberg, Peter 27/02/18 02/03/18384877 Twoomey, Luke 25/02/18 28/02/18384876 Williams, Stefan 25/02/18 01/03/18

AGENDA IMOS-12 – Annual Planning Meeting

Hotel Grand Chancellor, Hobart 26-28 February 2018

Attendees – Facility and Sub-Facility Leaders, Operator Representatives, Node and Deputy Node Leaders, representatives from Operational Partners and Research Partners, IMOS Office staff, IMOS Advisory Board (if they are able), and other invited guests

Meeting Overview This will be the twelfth IMOS Annual Planning Meeting, with >100 people expected to be in attendance. It is being held in Hobart as part of the regular rotation of IMOS Annual Planning Meetings (APMs) across major centres of presence. The meeting has two major themes: 1. Sustaining and developing IMOS capability, and 2. Planning for use and impact. Topics related to the themes have been interspersed across the agenda, and we will move between themes over the course of the meeting. Major topics are as follows: 1. Sustaining and developing IMOS capability • Facilities – Updates will be provided for selected Facilities, where there is a need to

inform and/or seek input from the national community. The Facility-specific Acoustic Telemetry and Ocean Colour Radiometry Task Teams have wrapped up and will provide final reports.

• QA/QC by variable – Following an initial audit of QA/QC by variable across all Facilities, an implementation plan has been developed to address identified issues. Status of the implementation plan will be reviewed.

• New Technologies * – It is time for IMOS to place some emphasis on technology scanning, assessing readiness, and considering pilot projects to evaluate new technologies which could be brought into our observing system over time.

2. Planning for use and impact • IMOS Strategy * – The concept of planning for use and impact is new to IMOS, and we

need to take time to discuss this shift at whole-of-community level. • Value added products * – A new SST climatology will be featured, and further

discussion held on the potential for IMOS to underpin periodic assessment of ‘State and trends of Australia’s ocean environment’.

• Modelling and Operational use - A report on FOO 2017 (including working group activity) will be provided, along plans for ACOMO 2018 and a discussion about the future of the Marine Virtual Laboratory (MARVL).

• Academia and Research Training – Consideration will be given to use of IMOS research infrastructure by ARC-funded projects and initiatives, and opportunities to enhance the role of IMOS observations and data in advancing a ‘marine’ STEM agenda.

* Background papers (x3) have been provided with the agenda, in advance of the meeting

DAY 1 – Monday 26 February 2018 Start Duration Subject Speakers 1:00 60 min LUNCH ON ARRIVAL Scene Setting 2:00 5 min Welcome

Ian Poiner

2:05 40 min The second decade of IMOS – are we there yet?

Tim Moltmann

2:45 115 min QUESTIONS and DISCUSSION

all

THEME 1 – Sustaining and developing IMOS capability Facility and Task Team updates #1 3:00 20 min

+10 min* Argo Australia – core Argo for research and operations, ice-capable, deep, bio-optical/BGC

Peter Oke et al

3:30 30 min AFTERNOON TEA 4:00 20 min

+10 min Ocean Gliders – different modes of use, strengths and weaknesses, future directions

Glider User Group

4:30 20 min +10 min

Task Team on ‘Synthesis and national scale analysis of IMOS acoustic telemetry data’ – final report

Michelle Heupel et al

5:00 20 min +10 min

AUV Facility – integrated benthic monitoring program, status of new vehicle, status of marine image processing

Stefan Williams, Oscar Pizarro, Nev Barrett, Roger Proctor et al

THEME 2 – Planning for use and impact 5:30 20 min

+10 min The need for IMOS – moving to a systematic and dynamic analysis of the socio-economic and policy drivers for sustained ocean observing in Australia

Indi Hodgson-Johnston

6.00 Close Day 1 7.00 Late DINNER

Hotel Grand Chancellor – Harbour View Room

* For items with two times indicated, the first one is for presentation (e.g. 20 mins) and the second is for discussion (e.g. 10 mins).

DAY 2 – Tuesday 27 February 2018 Start Duration Subject Speakers 8.30 30 min COFFEE ON ARRIVAL THEME 2 – Planning for use and impact 9:00 15 min

+15 min Planning for use and impact – moving from use and impact being something that emerges from what we do and how we do it, to being something that we actively plan for and measure

Tim Moltmann

Value added products 9:30 15min

+30 min State and tends of Australia’s ocean environment – discussion of ‘Strawman V.2.1’ developed with Node input, and formation of a Task Team to take this forward

Anthony Richardson, Ruth Eriksen et al

10:15 20 min +10 min

An unexpected journey – resulting in a new high resolution SST Atlas for the Australian Regional Seas (SSTAARS1.0)

Susan Wijffels (WHOI) – special guest appearance!

10.45 30 min MORNING TEA THEME 1 – Sustaining and developing IMOS capability Facility and Task Team updates #2 11:15 20 min

+10 min Ocean Radar – network consolidation, new co-invested sites, DMQC surface currents, wave data

Radar User Group

11:45 20 min +10 min

Ocean Colour Radiometry Task Team – final report and implementation planning

David Antoine, Thomas Schroeder et al

12:15 20 min +10 min

Passive Acoustic Observatories and their uptake, outcomes and impacts

Christine Erbe

12:45 15 min +15 min

QA/QC by variable - status of the implementation plan, and feedback from the IMOS community

Ana Lara-Lopez et al

1:15 60 min LUNCH THEME 2 – Planning for use and impact Research and Operations 2:15 10 min Report on FOO 2017 Indi Hodgson-

Johnston 2:25 15 min

FOO Working Group - Surface Waves Mark Hemer et al

2:40 15 min

FOO Working Group - Surface Currents David Griffin et al

2:55 20 min Discussion of FOO as a mechanism for IMOS engagement with operational user communities, including new working groups in Industry Data Sharing and Shelf Reanalysis

all

3.15 30 min AFTERNOON TEA Observations and Modelling 3:45 15 min ACOMO 2018 – current status of planning ACOMO Steering

Committee 4:00 15 min

+30 min Beyond MARVL - The Marine Virtual Laboratory, what now and what next?

Roger Proctor et al

Academia and Research Training 4:45 15 min

+30 min Use of IMOS research infrastructure by ARC-funded projects and initiatives – how widespread is it, and what could we do in increase it in a ‘marine’ STEM context?

Indi Hodgson-Johnston

5.30 Close Day 2 7:00 late DINNER – The Brick Factory (wrist band required – see Donna)

DAY 3 – Wednesday 28 February 2018 Start Duration Subject Speakers 8.30 30 min COFFEE ON ARRIVAL THEME 1 – Sustaining and developing IMOS capability New technologies 9:00 15 min Adoption of new technologies within IMOS as a

sustained observing system – how should we go about it?

Tim Moltmann

9:15 30 min +15 min

Identifying new technologies that are ready for piloting in IMOS to measure variables of interest – views from the technologists

Mark Underwood, Lyndon Llewellyn, Andreas Marouchos, Melanie Olsen, et al

10:00 30 min Are there new or different variables we should be measuring using technologies now available? - table discussions

all

10:30 30 min Feedback from table discussions Wrap up of new technologies session

all Tim Moltmann

11.00 30 min MORNING TEA Wrap up 11:30 60 min Sum up and agreed actions

Meeting close Tim Moltmann Ian Poiner

12:30 LUNCH

Map

1. The Old Woolstore Hotel,1 Macquarie St, Hobart TAS 7000 (Accommodation)

2. Hotel Grand Chancellor1 Davey St, Hobart TAS 7000 (Conference Venue and Dinner night 1)

3. The Brick Factory55 Salamanca Pl, Hobart TAS 7000 (Dinner night 2)

4. IMAS Building(IMOS Board Meeting, Natta Board Room, Level 1), 20 Castray Esplanade,Hobart

Background papers

1. New Technologies - Adoption of new

Technologies within IMOS, as a national collaborative research infrastructure, focused on sustained observing of the marine environment

2. IMOS Strategy – Planning for IMOS

Use and Impact

3. Value added products – State and trends of Australia’s ocean environment (‘Strawman’ Version 2.1)

1

Adoption of New Technologies within IMOS, as a national collaborative research infrastructure, focused on sustained observing of the marine environment

Tim Moltmann, IMOS Director – 19 January 2018

Introduction

The agenda for the 2018 IMOS Annual Planning Meeting includes a discussion on New Technologies, aimed at helping to determine how we address the following issue:

It is time for IMOS to place some emphasis on technology scanning, assessing

readiness, and considering pilot projects to evaluate new technologies which could

be brought into our observing system over time.

This paper is intended to provide context for the discussion.

Background

IMOS invests in Facilities that “are funded to deploy equipment and deliver data streams”.

The role of Facilities involves purchasing, commissioning, operating, maintaining and decommissioning the equipment.

When IMOS was established in 2006-7 under NCRIS phase one, conscious choices were made about technology selection. The IMOS Office had a half-time Technical Director in Simon Allen, who at the time headed CSIRO’s Scientific Equipment and Technology Group. This arrangement continued into the second phase of IMOS, as $52M of EIF funding was invested from July 2009.

The arrangement with CSIRO unwound at the end of 2011. The IMOS Office attempted to employ a Technical Officer during 2012, but could not find a suitable candidate. In hindsight, the role was probably ill-defined.

By 2013, IMOS funding was very uncertain and all of the emphasis was placed on survival, and on operation and maintenance of as much of the existing equipment as possible. This situation continued through 2014 and 2015.

In December 2015, the Australian Government recommitted to NCRIS via the National Innovation and Science Agenda, and funding began to stabilise in the 2016-17 financial year. Allocation of the first two years of a new decade of NCRIS funding have now been made for 2017-19 (at current levels plus indexation).

It is therefore time for IMOS to consider how it will bring new technologies into the system over time, in response to new science questions, addressing contemporary societal needs. In reality, IMOS has not been in a position to invest in new technologies since 2009-10.

2

IMOS Five Year (2017-22)

The Five Year Plan makes the case for multiyear funding of IMOS under NCRIS. Drawing on the Framework for Ocean Observing that guides the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), it uses the construct of ‘readiness’ to explain how IMOS plans to be a dynamic infrastructure, able to respond to new scientific understanding, technological innovation, and new requirements – see diagram below:

The way to read this diagram is as follows.

As a research infrastructure, IMOS will be heavily invested in mature Facilities. The platforms and sensors we deploy need to return good data so that it can be used to undertake, science, research and teaching. Reusing IMOS observations for operational and management purposes increases our impact and provides greater return on public investment. However where the operational utility of an IMOS Facility becomes significant, there needs to be a dialogue with the relevant operational agencies about shared investment. The Australian Ocean Observing Partnership (AOOP), which was introduced at the 2017 Annual Planning Meeting, is intended to provide the mechanism for this dialogue to occur. It currently involves the Bureau of Meteorology, Department of Defence, and IMOS.

IMOS will also invest in pilot Facilities to test the utility of platforms and sensors in light of new scientific understanding, technological innovation, and new requirements. Pilots need to be evaluated, and matured if successful or discontinued if not.

As a research infrastructure, IMOS will not invest in proof-of-concept Facilities per se. However we do want to engage with communities involved in proving new concepts that are highly relevant to the objectives of IMOS as these are the ‘laboratories’ that will produce next

generation pilots.

The question we now have to confront is how to ‘operationalise’ this process within the IMOS plans and budgets. It should be noted that under the growth scenario in the Five Year Plan,

3

there was a new ‘Tech Proving’ Facility proposed by AIMS and CSIRO. The approved Five Year Plan notes that ‘There is potential to create an explicit focus on proving new technologies at program level’.

Issues

Significant issues already identified are as follows. Others may arise through discussion.

Funding: It will require some level of investment to operationalise this framework, which is not budgeted for in 2017-19. The level of funding available to IMOS from July 2019 will determine how easy, or how difficult it will be to carve out an investment stake for new technology evaluation and adoption. The willingness and ability of relevant operational agencies to share the cost of mature data streams will also be a factor.

Determining requirements: How should IMOS determine the highest requirements that aren't being met by the current Facilities? To date, IMOS requirements have been set through the development of Science and Implementation Plans. The package of National and Node SIPs sets out major research themes and high level science questions, and specifies what variables we need to measure, and how we will measure them. Attachment 1 shows the current table of variables and facilities/sub-facilities. There are two fundamental questions:

o In 2018, are the technologies we’re currently using the most effective and efficient to measure the variables of interest? Are there new or different approaches to consider?

o In 2018, do our requirements need reconsideration? Are there new or different variables we should be measuring using technologies now available?

Technology scanning and selection of pilots: How should IMOS undertake technology scanning and selection of pilots in a way that is seen to be open and transparent? We need to take full advantage of our international networks. We also need to play to the strengths of our national partner institutions, current and prospective. And we should consider whether IMOS has a role in working with the Australian marine technology industry.

Evaluation of pilots: How do we evaluate pilots and decide whether they should be matured or discontinued? How do we determine the criteria for success?

Efficiency versus effectiveness versus expansion: In the 2009-13 IMOS Strategy (‘Building on our strengths’), there was an explicit focus on driving down the cost per observation. This was never really achieved. In general, we are pretty good at identifying expanded requirements that could be met with additional funding. We are not so good at getting more observations and data from the same level of funding (greater effectiveness), or the same observations and data from a lower level of funding (greater efficiency). It will be important that in operationalising this framework, we don’t just set

ourselves up to specify an ever expanding and more expensive system. We must also operationalise effectiveness and efficiency.

4

2018 IMOS Annual Planning Meeting

It is proposed that we run a substantial, two-hour session to discuss this issue at the IMOS Annual Planning Meeting, to be held on 26-28 February in Hobart. A draft outline of the session is as follows:

THEME 1 – Sustaining and developing IMOS capability New technologies 9:00 15 min Adoption of new technologies within IMOS as a

sustained observing system – how should we go about it?

Tim Moltmann

9:15 30 min +15 min

Identifying new technologies that are ready for piloting in IMOS to measure variables of interest – views from the technologists

Mark Underwood, Lyndon Llewellyn, Andreas Marouchos, Melanie Olsen, et al

10:00 30 min Are there new or different variables we should be measuring using technologies now available? - table discussions

all

10:30 30 min Feedback from table discussions Wrap up of new technologies session

all Tim Moltmann

The IMOS Office has asked Lyndon Llewellyn and Melanie Olsen from AIMS, and Mark Underwood and Andreas Marouchos from CSIRO, to stimulate the discussion with a presentation at the Annual Planning Meeting.

5

Table 2: How variables required to IMOS science questions are delivered by IMOS facilities. Blue = directly measured variable; Red = derived variable; Orange = could be derived; Green =

relative estimate.

ATTACHMENT 1

How facilities deliver variables across IMOS

Sea

Su

rfac

e Te

mp

erat

ure

Sub

surf

ace

Tem

per

atu

re

Sub

surf

ace

Salin

ity

Surf

ace/

sub

surf

ace

cu

rren

ts

Sea

Su

rfac

e H

eigh

t

Sea

Stat

e (w

ave

par

amet

ers)

Oce

an s

urf

ace

vect

or

stre

ss

(win

d p

aram

eter

s)

Hea

t fl

ux/

rad

iati

on

Dis

solv

e o

xyge

n

Car

bo

nat

e Sy

stem

(p

CO

2)

Car

bo

nat

e Sy

stem

(p

H)

Car

bo

nat

e Sy

stem

(TI

C)

Susp

end

ed p

arti

cula

tes

(TSS

)

Car

bo

nat

e Sy

stem

(A

lkal

init

y)

Mac

ron

utr

ien

t co

nce

ntr

atio

n

Ch

loro

ph

yll a

/ fl

uo

resc

ence

CD

OM

Ph

yto

pla

nkt

on

sp

ecie

s

Ph

yto

pla

nkt

on

Bio

mas

s

Zoo

pla

nkt

on

Sp

ecie

s

Zoo

pla

nkt

on

Bio

mas

s

Nek

ton

Sp

ecie

s

Nek

ton

Bio

mas

s

Top

Pre

dat

ors

sp

ecie

s

Top

pre

dat

ors

– p

op

ula

tio

n

Ben

tho

s (

% c

ove

rage

of

spec

ies)

Det

ritu

s (f

lux)

Oce

an C

olo

ur

Pri

mar

y P

rod

uct

ivit

y

Argo

Ships of Opportunity (SOOP)

XBT

Sea Surface Temperature

Air-Sea Fluxes

Biochemistry (pCO2)

Cont. Plankton Recorder

Bioacoustics

Tropical RV/Temperate MV

Deep water Moorings

Air-sea fluxes

Deep water arrays

Southern Ocean Timeseries

Ocean Gliders

Seagliders

Slocum Gliders

Auto. Underwater Vehicle

6

How facilities deliver variables across IMOS

Sea

Su

rfac

e Te

mp

erat

ure

Sub

surf

ace

Tem

per

atu

re

Sub

surf

ace

Salin

ity

Surf

ace/

sub

surf

ace

cu

rren

ts

Sea

Su

rfac

e H

eigh

t

Sea

Stat

e (w

ave

par

amet

ers)

Oce

an s

urf

ace

vect

or

stre

ss

(win

d p

aram

eter

s)

Hea

t fl

ux/

rad

iati

on

Dis

solv

e o

xyge

n

Car

bo

nat

e Sy

stem

(p

CO

2)

Car

bo

nat

e Sy

stem

(p

H)

Car

bo

nat

e Sy

stem

(TI

C)

Susp

end

ed p

arti

cula

tes

(TSS

)

Car

bo

nat

e Sy

stem

(A

lkal

init

y)

Mac

ron

utr

ien

t co

nce

ntr

atio

n

Ch

loro

ph

yll a

/ fl

uo

resc

ence

CD

OM

Ph

yto

pla

nkt

on

sp

ecie

s

Ph

yto

pla

nkt

on

Bio

mas

s

Zoo

pla

nkt

on

Sp

ecie

s

Zoo

pla

nkt

on

Bio

mas

s

Nek

ton

Sp

ecie

s

Nek

ton

Bio

mas

s

Top

Pre

dat

ors

sp

ecie

s

Top

pre

dat

ors

– p

op

ula

tio

n

Ben

tho

s (

% c

ove

rage

of

spec

ies)

Det

ritu

s (f

lux)

Oce

an C

olo

ur

Pri

mar

y P

rod

uct

ivit

y

Moorings

National Reference Stations

Shelf Arrays

Acidification Moorings

Passive Acoustics

Ocean Radar WERA

CODAR

Animal Tagging

Acoustic Tagging ?

Biologging ?

Wireless Sensor Networks

Satellite Remote Sensing

Sea Surface Temperature

Sea Surface Height

Ocean Colour

Repeat Hydrography

Tide Gauges

Wave buoys

Discussion Paper

PLANNING FOR IMOS USE AND IMPACT Prepared by the IMOS Office

14 November 2017

Executive Summary

This paper has been prepared to stimulate a discussion within the IMOS community about how we move from use and impact being something that emerges from what we do and how we do it, to being something we actively plan for and measure. Such a discussion is timely, given the recent engagement and impact policies set out in the National Innovation and Science Agenda.

The paper includes an Introduction that sets the context, followed by five sections assessing current and emerging pathways for IMOS uptake and impact i.e. Facilities, Nodes, Research Partnerships, Essential Ocean Variables, and Other Mechanisms.

The following key observations are made:

1. It would be timely for IMOS to review its policy concerning Facility User Groups. They won't be practical or necessary in all cases. In some cases, however, they are in place and working well, and some other Facilities would probably benefit from reinvigoration of this approach. The interplay between international coordination of broadscale Facilities, and national use and impact, also warrants consideration.

2. The roles and responsibilities of IMOS Nodes need to be reviewed and redefined. The governance and resourcing of Nodes need to be matched to the agreed roles and responsibilities.

3. Research Partnerships are a significant pathway for uptake and impact, but recognition of IMOS as a partner is rare. The IMOS Office largely manages these relationships, not the Nodes. In some cases, the current Node structure is an impediment.

4. IMOS should remain open to variable-based approaches to plan for use and impact, where ocean variables of interest cross Facilities, Nodes and Partnerships.

5. Other mechanisms, including ACOMO, MARVL and FOO, have become quite significant components of the IMOS strategy for driving use and impact over the last five years. ACOMO is now pretty well embedded. MARVL and FOO are currently over-reliant on individuals (Proctor and Moltmann respectively) and need to become more broadly supported across the IMOS community.

In summary, there are many positives in the way IMOS has approached use and impact to date, so there is a lot to build on. Areas for improvement and enhancement can be readily identified, and others may emerge through discussion within the community.

The final section sets out a future framework for IMOS science and implementation planning that explicitly includes planning for use and impact.

This paper will be discussed with the Node Steering Committee on 23rd November 2017. Amended as required after that discussion, it will be circulated more broadly within the community for consideration in advance of the Annual Planning Meeting in Hobart on 26-28 February 2018. Planning for use and impact will be a major agenda item at the 2018 APM.

Introduction

IMOS works in a traditional, public sector, ‘outputs and outcomes’

framework. We manage IMOS outputs through (1) deployment and recovery of equipment, and (2) making all data discoverable and accessible. The success of IMOS is ultimately judged on outcomes we cannot fully control as an open access, national research infrastructure, i.e. (3) uptake and use of the data for research and other purposes, and (4) relevance and impact of the science outputs delivered using IMOS observations and data.

The IMOS community manages (1) deployment and recovery and (2) data accessibility very well. There have been many issues to work through over the years, and the ocean will continue to present operational challenges. By all objective measures, however, IMOS delivers its outputs to a high standard.

Uptake and use (3) are monitored via an online database that records publications, projects, presentations and products using IMOS observations and data. This system has worked ‘well

enough’ to date. However providing input to the database is overly manual, and there are numerous reasons why it currently under-reports uptake and use. It also does not take advantage of the reporting that research organisations already undertake. The IMOS Office is establishing a project specifically targeted at implementing measures to minimise under-reporting, and streamline existing reporting processes.

Relevance and impact (4) are even harder to measure. The primary strategy IMOS has adopted is to negotiate and, where possible, formalise partnerships with major marine, climate and Antarctic research programs that need the types of observations and data IMOS can provide. Again, this strategy has worked ‘well enough' to date. However, it has some obvious shortcomings, including an over-reliance on the IMOS Director/Office, lack of reciprocal recognition, and being essentially qualitative.

In summary, it is proposed that the IMOS community needs to evolve its approach to uptake and impact to be optimally positioned for the future. Presently we assume outcomes will emerge from outputs based on structural pathways we have put in place, but that we know have limitations. We need to shift to planning for uptake and planning for impact.

As a first step, this discussion paper looks at the current and emerging pathways for IMOS uptake and impact and assesses their status. These are

1. Facilities 2. Nodes 3. Research Partnerships 4. Essential Ocean Variables 5. Other Mechanisms

1. Facilities

Facilities are the mechanism by which IMOS delivers its outputs, i.e. (1) deployment and recovery of equipment, and (2) making all data discoverable and accessible.

Facility and Sub-Facility leaders, staff involved in running facilities, and their colleagues and collaborators undoubtedly form an essential part of the IMOS user community. However, for a national collaborative research infrastructure, Facility user communities need to be much broader than that. In fact, where the use of IMOS observations and data is dominated by Facility operators, which has been the case for some more specialised data streams, this is seen as a negative and efforts have been made to address it, e.g. by the development of data tools or value-added products.

Facility User Groups are one way to broaden use and impact. According to IMOS Policy 1.5 on governance of Facilities (see here):

Each Facility/Sub-facility or group of similar Facilities will have an associated User Group to work with the Facility Leaders in the development of operational plans and associated user protocols and relevant technical matters including training for users. The Facility Leader will convene the User group. Membership of the User Groups will be drawn from interested personnel from the relevant Nodes.

This policy is not something the IMOS Office has been enforcing, which warrants discussion in this context.

A summary of the current situation across Facilities is as follows:

Facility Current situation

Argo Arguably covered by international mechanisms. Nothing national.

Ships of Opportunity

For XBT, BGC, SST and ASF, arguably covered by international mechanisms. Nothing national.

For CPR, there is a self-organised national plankton community. For TRV, BA and TMV, nothing currently in place.

Deepwater Moorings

SOTS is part of the international OceanSites program, but this is not particularly strong (cf Argo). Nothing national.

EAC arguably covered by international mechanisms. Nothing national.

Ocean Gliders There used to be a user group, but it’s no longer active. The absence of a Glider user group has recently been raised with the IMOS Office.

AUV The Integrated Benthic Monitoring Steering Committee chaired by Neville Barrett (UTAS/IMAS) is playing this role.

National Moorings Network

Some aspects of the NRS Network have user communities, e.g. plankton, microbes. Others don't.

Nothing currently in place for shelf arrays, though the regional ocean modelling community plays a role de facto.

Ocean Acidification arguably covered by international mechanisms. Nothing national.

Passive Acoustics, nothing currently in place.

Ocean Radar Nothing currently in place at national level.

Animal Tracking For Acoustic telemetry, the ATN Steering Committee is playing this

role. Nothing currently in place for satellite tracking.

Wireless Sensor Network

Nothing currently in place.

Satellite Remote Sensing

At the global level, arguably covered by international mechanisms.

At the national level, an Australian Marine Remote Sensing Group has been formed but is not currently very active.

OceanCurrent Nothing formal in place, though OceanCurrent does have an extensive user base and feedback is regularly provided.

AODN Has a Help Desk, and produces monthly reports, and now has oversight by the National Marine Science Committee.

OBSERVATION #1 It would be timely for IMOS to review its policy concerning Facility User Groups. They won't be practical or necessary in all cases. However in some cases, they are in place and working well, and some other Facilities would probably benefit from reinvigoration of this approach. The interplay between international coordination of broadscale Facilities, and national use and impact, also warrants consideration.

2. Nodes

According to IMOS Policy 1.4 on governance of Nodes (see here):

The key responsibilities of the Nodes are:

To represent the scientific opinion of the marine research community, provide scientific rationale for IMOS, develop research goals and identify the need to obtain specific streams of data.

To support the development of a National Science Plan through the development of the regionally based science plans and national level planning and coordination

To advise the IMOS office on assessment of the technical implementation of IMOS and scientific merit of research undertaken with IMOS data;

To advise the office on priority future observations based on scientific merit, technical maturity and capability/capacity within the community to deliver/use the data.

To support the office in tracking the use of IMOS data.

Make nominations for, and approve the membership of the IMOS Advisory Board

Promote use of IMOS data

The Nodes will have a formal structure including:

Node Sponsors (the institutions of the Node leadership that will provide funding for meetings, travel for national coordination and possibly other node-activity),

elected officers (either two Node Leaders; or a Node Leader and Deputy Node Leader(s); all of whom will also be on the IMOS Steering Committee),

a list of members,

an agreed process for decision making (which is usually a majority of those responding to an issue canvassed or attending a meeting), and

a ‘Node reference group' to inform the development of IMOS Science and Implementation Plans, who will also form a broader base of leadership within the Nodes.

Nodes will meet twice per year, or more frequently if required or desired by the marine community. Node reference groups are expected to meet twice a year, or more frequently as required.

The focus of Node meetings is primarily to promote the use and uptake of IMOS data, facilitate collaboration and integration across institutions, disciplines and datastreams, and engage with stakeholders and the broader marine community.

In assessing the current status of IMOS Nodes against this policy, some issues arise:

When IMOS was established, the key role of Nodes was in scientific advice and science planning. The Nodes have done this very well. As noted in the Five Year Plan (2017-22),

IMOS Node science and implementation plans have continued to be reviewed and developed over a number of years. In total, they represent 650 pages of high quality, internationally peer-reviewed planning that provides a tremendously strong scientific underpinning for IMOS.

It was also envisaged that Nodes would promote use and uptake, facilitate collaboration, and engage with stakeholders. The track record here is much more mixed.

There are numerous reasons for this, including the fact that Nodes are not directly resourced. However, Node governance is also an issue.

According to the Node policy, there should be an agreed process for decision making, a

Node reference group, and twice yearly or more meetings of both the Node and the Node reference group. The IMOS Office has not enforced this across the Nodes, and frequency of meetings, engagement of reference groups, and clarity of decision-making processes varies widely across the six Nodes.

Due in part to these governance issues, and the fact that Nodes are inherently competitive for Facility resources across the IMOS enterprise, their advice has become less and less useful to the IMOS Office and Board as we have had to cope with annual funding cliffs and declining budgets over the last six years, from 2013-2019. The IMOS Five Year Plan (2017-22) used the construct of broadscale, backbone and regional Facilities to overcome this issue:

The burden of prioritisation within and across Nodes and Facilities falls heavily on the IMOS Office and Advisory Board. By design, IMOS funds (national) Facilities on the advice of Node science and implementation plans. The Node plans are not financially constrained. At inception, it was decided that IMOS would not fund Nodes. It was posited that a Node funding model would never deliver national Facilities, and would tend to foster inter-nodal competition rather than community-wide collaboration. The current Node/Facility model has been made to work well with strong leadership and clear performance assessment criteria. However, it does present challenges in prioritising across and within Nodes, and across and within Facilities. The IMOS Five Year Planning process needs to deal with this.

Feedback from the Node Steering Committee is that, as a result, the Nodes feel somewhat sidelined from IMOS decision making.

OBSERVATION #2 The roles and responsibilities of IMOS Nodes need to be reviewed and redefined. The governance and resourcing of Nodes need to be matched to the agreed roles and responsibilities.

3. Research Partnerships

Unlike Facilities and Nodes, Research Partnerships are not formally part of the IMOS governance model. Research Partnerships are a construct developed by the IMOS Office to drive use and impact, and ensure that IMOS is well aligned with national innovation and science priorities to maximise its chances for ongoing funding as a national collaborative research infrastructure. The rationale is pretty simple. If IMOS claims to be the national marine observing and ocean data infrastructure, it needs to be recognised and valued as a partner by the major, national marine, climate, and Antarctic research programs that require ocean observations and data. And if not, why not?

The major Research Partnerships identified by IMOS (see here), with some commentary on the current nature of the relationship, are summarised as follows:

Research Partnership

Current Situation

ACE CRC Approx. 17% of IMOS investment supporting the ACE CRC program. IMOS not currently visible when looking through the ACE lens.

Bluelink Argo and Satellite Altimetry are key data streams. IMOS not currently visible when looking through a Bluelink lens.

eReefs IMOS moorings are fundamentally important. Additional IMOS glider capability deployed in the GBR with incremental co-investment by CSIRO, AIMS and eReefs. IMOS Satellite Remote Sensing investments also highly relevant (SST and OCR), but consistently under-recognised.

IMOS not visible through an eReefs lens. IMOS Director on the eReefs Operations Committee, though status is currently uncertain.

FRDC Project level engagement until recently. IMOS Director now a member of the National Fisheries and Aquaculture

Research Providers Network (RPN). GAB RP Program is winding up, though it does provide a good case study for the

power of combining industry need, R&D capacity, and national research infrastructure (IMOS and MNF).

That said, IMOS was never formally recognised as a partner. NESP ESCC Hub

IMOS Director on the Hub Stakeholder Advisory Group. IMOS not currently visible when looking through the NESP ESCC lens.

NESP MB Hub

This is currently the ‘gold standard’ IMOS research partnership. IMOS is formally recognised as a Hub research partner, and the IMOS

Director is on the Research Partners’ Committee. The Node structure has in fact been an impediment to Hub engagement

with IMOS, and the relationship has only matured through focus and effort by IMOS Office and AODN staff.

RIMREP IMOS Director on the RIMREP Steering Committee, and is Co-Chair of the Data Management and Systems (DMS) Working Group (one of three). Roger Proctor (AODN) co-leading DMS project implementation.

As a result, IMOS does have visibility as a RIMREP partner. WAMSI IMOS is an Associate Member of WAMSI but is not currently visible when

looking through the WAMSI research lens.

OBSERVATION #3 Research Partnerships are a major pathway for uptake and impact, but recognition of IMOS as a partner is rare. Relationships are largely managed through the IMOS Office, not the Nodes. In some cases, the current Node structure is an impediment.

4. Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs)

IMOS has always had a focus on ocean variables to be measured in the context of our science and implementation planning. EOVs have become a major organising construct within the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) since the Framework for Ocean Observing was released in 2011 (see here). GOOS now has three expert panels (on which Australian scientists are quite prominent), for physics, biogeochemistry, and biology and ecosystems. The panels are currently focused on specifying and implementing measurement of ~30 EOVs.

IMOS science and implementation plans cover 30 EOVs – see below. These are largely the same as those of GOOS, but with some differences. The main effort around EOVs within IMOS at the moment is the QA/QC by Variable project being led by Ana Lara-Lopez.

1. Temperature- surface 2. Sea Surface Height 3. Surface waves – amplitude 4. Surface waves – spectrum 5. Velocity 6. Wind velocity (stress) 7. Air-sea fluxes 8. Temperature- Subsurface 9. Salinity 10. Waves – internal 11. Oxygen 12. Macronutrient concentration 13. pCO2 14. pH 15. Total. Inorg. Carbon

16. Alkalinity 17. Total Suspended Solids 18. CDOM and Backscatter 19. Chlorophyll a concentration 20. Phytoplankton species 21. Phytoplankton Biomass 22. Zooplankton Species 23. Zooplankton Biomass 24. Top Predators species 25. Top predators – population 26. Nekton Species 27. Nekton Biomass 28. Benthos (% coverage of species) 29. Detritus (flux) 30. Primary Productivity

EOVs are an internal, science construct, though in some cases, they may provide a useful mechanism to plan for use and impact where ocean variables of interest cross Facilities, Nodes and Partnerships. Arguably this is what the self-organised Plankton community has done. The Forum for Operational Oceanography (FOO) Surface Waves Working Group is another interesting example.

OBSERVATION #4 IMOS should remain open to variable-based approaches to plan for use and impact, where ocean variables of interest cross Facilities, Nodes and Partnerships.

5. Other Mechanisms

Over time, IMOS has developed other mechanisms to help drive use and impact.

After the international peer review of Node science and implementation plans in 2009-10, a concerted effort was made to establish mechanisms for engagement with coastal and ocean modelling communities. This gave rise to the Australian Coastal and Oceans Modelling and Observations (ACOMO) Workshop series. With successful workshops held in 2012, 2014 and 2016, and planning for 2018 well underway, ACOMO has become a valued event in the national marine science landscape.

Also, we have secured additional investment from other NCRIS capabilities (mainly NeCTAR) to build the Marine Virtual Laboratory (MARVL) with the aim of accelerating use and impact of IMOS observations and data through modelling studies. Progress has been somewhat hampered due to funding constraints (both level and timing of), but we hope this will change. Current efforts are focused on preparing the way for an Australian National Shelf Reanalysis (ANSR).

IMOS has also taken a leading role in establishing, hosting, and sustaining the Forum for Operational Oceanography (FOO). FOO provides a pathway to grow the operational use and impact of IMOS observations and data. It brings the R&D sector together with operational government agencies (such as the Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Maritime Safety Authority), the services sector, and marine industries (such as offshore oil and gas, ports and shipping, fishing and aquaculture). FOO is developing and progressing its agenda through biennial conferences and intersessional Working Groups, presently focused on Surface Waves (see the previous section), Surface Currents, Industry Data Sharing and ANSR (see above).

IMOS Task Teams can also play a role in improving use and impact, noting that they are by nature focused, time-bounded (1-3 years) activities rather than permanent mechanisms.

OBSERVATION #5 Other mechanisms, including ACOMO, MARVL and FOO, have become quite significant components of the IMOS strategy for driving use and impact over the last five years. ACOMO is now pretty well embedded. MARVL and FOO are currently over-reliant on individuals (Proctor and Moltmann respectively) and need to become more broadly supported across the IMOS community.

Future framework for IMOS science and implementation planning

As noted in the Introduction, it is proposed that the IMOS community evolves from assuming outcomes will emerge from outputs based on structural pathways we have put in place, to actively planning for uptake and planning for impact at whole-of-IMOS level.

The IMOS Strategy (2015-25) is based around three key imperatives, of Need, Capability and Impact. These provide the framework for evolving future IMOS science and implementation planning, as set out in the figure below:

Realising the vision of the IMOS Strategy (2015-25) will however require some transitions to take place. Noting the strengths and weaknesses of existing mechanisms as outlined and assessed above, three key transitions are currently emerging, as follows.

Firstly, the analysis and understanding of Need must evolve from being Node-based and static, to being IMOS-wide and dynamic. The IMOS Office established a new position in mid-2017 to build capacity in this area, and Indi Hodgson-Johnston is well-advanced in developing a ‘Socio-Economic-Policy-Jurisdictional Database’ which will be showcased at the 2018 Annual Planning Meeting.

Secondly, the measurement of Impact must evolve from annual, post-hoc summation of what is manually reported by Facilities and Nodes, to an IMOS-wide system combining online harvesting of quantity and quality metrics/measures, with targeted impact case studies in priority areas of ‘Socio-Economic-Policy-Jurisdictional’ need.

Finally, the science and implementation planning that will inform the size, shape, and trajectory of IMOS Capability must evolve in response to transitions in how we think about Need and Impact. This is where IMOS most needs input from Nodes (as well as Facility User Groups, Research Partnerships, EOV communities, and Others such as modelling and operational communities).

State and trends of Australia’s ocean environment

An assessment of our ocean based on physical, chemical and biological indicators

Introduction: There is a clear need for scientifically robust information about current state and trends in the ocean

environment around Australia. This need comes from multiple drivers – national, international, regional and local.

Coordinated, collaborative approaches to marine observing, information management, modelling and analysis are

required. Australian is fortunate to have strong marine science institutions (universities, publicly funded research

agencies), an established national Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) with a clear focus on data access

and use, and established national research collaborations such as the NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub (and its NERP

and CERF antecedents). In 2015, IMOS and CSIRO produced ‘Plankton 2015, State of Australia’s Oceans,

Linking science and policy: an assessment of our oceans using plankton indicators of ocean change’. This report

was well received, and used in 2016 State of the (Marine) Environment reporting. It has laid the basis for this much

more ambitious attempt to use all available physical, chemical and biological indicators to report on the state and

trends of Australia’s ocean environment.

This ‘strawman’ document was originated by Anthony Richardson, Ruth Eriksen and colleagues (as version 1),

drawing on Plankton 2015. It was reviewed and commented on the IMOS Node Steering Committee (version 2),

with comments synthesised by the IMOS Office in arriving at this version (2.1) for discussion at the IMOS 2018

Annual Planning Meeting in Hobart on 26-28 February 2018.

A list of potential contributors is shown at ATTACHMENT 1. This is a combination of names suggested by the

original authors and additions made through subsequent consultation to date. It is not meant to be prescriptive nor

exclusive, and can be expanded and contracted as required. A subset of the broader group will be required to lead

the process (perhaps as an IMOS funded Task Team) if this concept is to be realised.

Scope and Context: Investigate the current state and trends in the ocean environment around Australia, including

physical, chemical and biological components (including archaea, bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and mid

trophic levels). This report will not be a rating system (good or poor quality) because such a rating system is not

relevant for many parts of the environment (what is poor quality for temperature, bacteria and plankton?). The report

will describe indicators and show how these vary spatially and temporally. This approach distinguishes this report

from others such as the State of Environment and GBR Outlook Reports, both of which deliver a rating for each

habitat, based on expert elicitation and time series. The indicator time series produced in the State and trends of

Australia’s ocean environment will thus be strong candidate variables for inclusion in future State of Environment

and GBR Outlook Reports. To support the use of indicators in the State and trends of Australia’s ocean environment,

we will include additional information where it provides useful context for understanding the ocean environment.

For example, time series for phytoplankton biodiversity in Australia are short, but showing the spatial distribution of

phytoplankton biodiversity nationally provides valuable context. In terms of the area of interest, it is primarily the

Australian EEZ, particularly the bioregions used for marine spatial management, but we will also include relevant

information from outside this region, especially from the Southern Ocean (e.g. SOTS).

Audience: Policy makers, marine managers, scientists, marine industries

Approach

● Produce different indicators that represent part of the system state. Not all indicators are sufficiently long to

be informative now, but will be showcased for the future

● Calculate indicators within the EEZ and each bioregion

● Time series will have the mean value dashed to highlight the most recent year in relation to earlier years

● Additional information such as spatial distribution will be included where it provides useful context

● Produce a dynamic product or output that will have longevity and utility, with consideration given to the

presentation of the state and trends. This could include platforms such as online dashboards and

downloadable figures for practical use by various audiences.

● Examples of figures

Australia’s management bioregions

Time series with mean dashed showing interannual variation and current year in a longer-term context. Can

compare seasonal cycles too

Information on zooplankton biomass

Example of a bioregionalisation on copepods

Structure

1. Physical status and trends

● Time series of mean annual SST since 1860 around Australia (EEZ), and for each bioregion

● Map of temperature change (difference) around Australia since 1860 (bioregions superimposed)

● Measured temperature changes from PHB, MAI, ROT since 1940s (us)

● Time series of EAC strength

● Time series of Leeuwin Current strength

● Time series of ENSO – marine heatwaves and GBR

2. Chemical status and trends

● Time series of Oxygen

● Time series of pH over past 50-100 yr

● Time series of measured pH

● Time series of Nitrate and Silicate concentration from PHB, MAI, ROT since 1940s

● Time series of Nitrate and Silicate concentration from PHB, MAI, ROT since 1940s

● Nutrients and Oxygen time-series from SOTS

Outline for a contribution: trend and status

Why is pH important and how does it influence biology

What contributes to changes in pH

Description of current status and trends

Time series and/or a map of change (say delta pH over last 100 yrs)

Populated example of nutrients and temperature

Why is oxygen important and what contributes to changes in oxygen?

3. Biological status and trends

Productivity

Phytoplankton (primary production)

● Time series of phytoplankton biomass/productivity from satellite in EEZ, bio-regions and key KEFS/MPAs

● Time series of phytoplankton size from satellite in EEZ, bio-regions and key KEFS/MPAs

● Time series of phytoplankton function types from satellite in EEZ, bio-regions and key KEFS/MPAs

● Monthly/seasonal means of modelled integral productivity at each NRS

● Phytoplankton time-series from SOTS

Zooplankton (secondary production)

● Time series of zooplankton abundance/biomass from NRS and bioregions from AusCPR

● Time series of zooplankton size (weighted mean copepod size) from NRS and bioregions from AusCPR

● Australia-wide map of zooplankton biomass (based on GAM/GLM): 1. Nets. 2. CPR. 3. LOPC. 4.

Combined

● Map of zooplankton size around Australia (from Nets, CPR, LOPC and using GAM/GLM)

Fish (tertiary production)

● Time series of mid-trophic level biomass from IMOS bioacoustics

● Maps of mid-trophic level biomass from IMOS bioacoustics

● Animal movement, connectivity and allometric analysis from IMOS Acoustic Animal Tracking

● Time series of fish catches around Australia and bioregions (which are important species)

● Map of fish catches around Australia

● eDNA as an emerging method for fish monitoring

Biodiversity

Archaea, bacteria (from molecular approaches)

● The huge amount of diversity

● Differences regionally, seasonally and with depth (using NRS data)

● Microbial diversity by latitude

Phytoplankton (from microscopy)

● Time series of phytoplankton richness from NRS, bioregions from AusCPR, and selected KEFs/MPAs

● Australia-wide map of phytoplankton richness (based on GAM/GLM)

● Phytoplankton richness by latitude

Zooplankton (from microscopy)

● Time series of copepod richness from NRS, bioregions from AusCPR, and selected KEFs/MPAs

● Australia-wide map of copepod richness (based on GAM/GLM)

● Copepod richness by latitude

Fish larvae (NIMO)

● Time series of fish larval richness from NRS

● Time series of key fish larval species from NRS

● Seasonality of fish larval richness and key species from NRS

Ecosystem health

Jellyfish

● Time series of jellyfish abundance at NRS

● Time series of jellyfish abundance/PA in bioregions (based on nematocysts of jellyfish in CPR

phytoplankton count (16.5%))

● Long-term changes in Irukandji abundance?

HABs

● Time series of ASP producers in NRS (Pseudo-nitzschia delicatisima (81%), Pseudo-nitzschia seriata

(64%)) and Bioregions from AusCPR (P. delicatisima (5.7%), P. seriata (4.5%))

● Australia-wide map of ASP producers (P. delicatisima (5.7%), P. seriata (4.5%)), can include Southern

Ocean as Pseudo-nitzschia spp. is common (42%) (based on GAM/GLM)

● Time series of DSP producers in NRS (Dinophysis spp. (5%) + Prorocentrum lima (2%)) but not

Bioregions from AusCPR (too few, Dinophysis spp. (1.7%), Prorocentrum spp. (1.5%) - not all toxic)

● Time series of HAB species that can physically damage fish gills in NRS (Chaetoceros peruvianus (26%),

Ceratulina pelagica (27%)). Chaetoceros peruvianus is not common in CPR around Aus but it is in the

Southern Ocean (14.4%). Ceratulina pelagica rare in CPR

● Time series of species that cause aesthetic issues in NRS (Ceratoneis closterium (86%), Noctiluca (13%))

and bioregions (Ceratoneis closterium (2%), Noctiluca (6.5%))

● Australia-wide map of species that cause aesthetic issues (Noctiluca) (based on GAM/GLM)

● Time series of HABs at aquaculture farms

● Box: Alexandrium outbreak in Tasmania

● Box: Modelling Dinophysis response in Hawkesbury

● Genetic analysis of harmful organisms

Vibrios

● Vibrios on the GBR (copepods are the intermediate host of Vibrio, the causative agent of cholera),

including analysis of whether the El Nino in 2015/2016 had an impact

● Microbial time series from NRS (AMMBI)

Impacts of climate change

Range shifts

● Noctiluca expansion into southern Australia and into Southern Ocean

● Phytoplankton expansion

● Individual fish from IMOS ATF and RedMAP

●

Community composition implying range shifts

● Microbes

● MAI copepods

● Community Temperature Index change at Port Hacking from 1930s to the present

● Fish larvae

Phenology (from satellite)

● Peak timing and duration estimated from satellite data (combining CZCS, SeaWiFS, MODIS)

● NRS Zooplankton

Abundance (?)

● Salp blooms

Ocean acidification (us)

● Time series of calcifiers (bivalve larvae, echinoderm larvae, prosobranchs (molluscs), cavaliniids

(molluscs), Limacina (molluc), other gastropods, forams, coccolithophores?, each 3-5% occurrence) for

NRS and from the AusCPR for East, Southeast and maybe Southwest bioregions

Heat waves

● Decline in ROT zooplankton biomass and size during La Nina heatwave

● Heatwave atlas for Tasmnia

4. Management applications

Model assessment

Ecosystem reports

Bioregionalisations

● Map of bioregionalisation based on copepods, phytoplankton, both (using gradient forest). Compare with

IMCRA bioregionalisation

Fisheries and aquaculture industry

Water quality

Microbes

Additional ideas

Projected changes from NPZ models?

Time series of zooplankton biomass around Australia from an NPZ model

Make underlying data in the figures available through the AODN

The biological component will be presented thematically

Expanded HABs section

Shellfish industry

● Pseudo-nitzchia seriata and Pseudo-nitzchia delicatissima groups (ASP)

● Dinophysis acuta, D. acuminata, D. caudate, Prorocentrum lima – all pretty rare so sum? (DSP)

Physical damages to fish

● Chaetoceros peruvianus

● Ceratulina pelagica

● Pseudo-nitzchia spp.

Aesthetic issues

● Noctiluca scintillans

● Phaeocystis

● Ceratoneis closterium

● Pseudo-nitzchia spp.

ATTACHMENT 1 - Potential contributors

Suggested by the original authors

Anthony Richardson Anthony.Richardson@csiro.au CSIRO

Ruth Eriksen ruth.eriksen@csiro.au CSIRO

Claire Davies Claire.Davies@csiro.au CSIRO

Wayne Rochester Wayne.Rochester@csiro.au CSIRO

Ken Ridgway Ken.Ridgway@csiro.au CSIRO

Ming Feng Ming.Feng@csiro.au CSIRO

Neil Holbrook Neil.Holbrook@utas.edu.au University of Tasmania

Andrew Lenton andrew.lenton@csiro.au CSIRO

Bronte Tilbrook Bronte.Tilbrook@csiro.au CSIRO

Nick Hardman-

Mountford nick.hardman-mountford@csiro.au CSIRO

David Antoine david.antoine@curtin.edu.au Curtin University

Jason Everett jason.everett@unsw.edu.au University of New South Wales

Rudy Kloser Rudy.Kloser@csiro.au CSIRO

Ryan Downie Ryan.Downie@csiro.au CSIRO

Reg Watson r.a.watson@utas.edu.au University of Tasmania

Lev Bodrossy lev.bodrossy@csiro.au CSIRO

Mark Brown markbrown@unsw.edu.au University of New South Wales

Iain Suthers i.suthers@unsw.edu.au University of New South Wales

James Smith James.Smith@unsw.edu.au University of New South Wales

Steve Brett microalgae@bigpond.com Microalgal Services

Penelope Ajani Penelope.Ajani@uts.edu.au UTS

Gustaaf Hallegraeff gustaaf.hallegraeff@utas.edu.au University of Tasmania

Luigi Vezzulli luigi.vezzulli@unige.it Università degli Studi di Genova

Kerrie Swadling K.Swadling@utas.edu.au University of Tasmania

Mark Baird Mark.Baird@csiro.au CSIRO

Natasha Henschke natashahenschke@gmail.com University of New South Wales

Added through consultation to date

Tom Trull Tom.trull@csiro.au CSIRO

Rob Johnson robert.johnson@bom.gov.au Bureau of Meteorology

Justin Seymour Justin.Seymour@uts.edu.au UTS

Martin Ostrowski martin.ostrowski@mq.edu.au Macquarie University

Tim Ward tim.ward@sa.gov.au SARDI

Bronwyn Gillanders bronwyn.gillanders@adelaide.edu.au University of Adelaide

Paul Van Ruth Paul.VanRuth@sa.gov.au SARDI

Nicole Patten Nicole.patten@sa.gov.au SARDI

Michelle Heupel M.Heupel@aims.gov.au AIMS

Matt Taylor matt.taylor@dpi.nsw.gov.au NSW DPI

Bernadette Sloyan Bernadette.Sloyan@csiro.au CSIRO

Madeleine Cahill Madeleine.Cahill@csiro.au CSIRO

Nic Bax Nic.Bax@csiro.au NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub

Gretta Pecl Gretta.Pecl@utas.edu.au University of Tasmania

Alistair Hobday Alistair.Hobday@csiro.au CSIRO

David Souter D.Souter@aims.gov.au AIMS

Craig Steinberg C.Steinberg@aims.gov.au AIMS

Eduardo Klein eklein@usb.ve AIMS