Agenda (Sunday 1/20/2008, 2-5 pm, Captain Cook Hotel, Voyager Room)
1) Match field data and models (Kerim Aydin and Nick Bond), including data templates
(Ken Coyle)
2) BEST overview (Carin Ashjian
3) Integration of BEST and BSIERP (Mike Sigler)
4) Titles or one line descriptions of the papers that will be written (request before the
start of the workshop, tell PIs to look at their detailed study plans)
5) Discuss the synthesis at end of study
6) What do PIs desire from NPRB Program Management?
Workshop goals
1) Understand interface between modelers and data collection
2) Understand integration between BSIERP and BEST
3) List of titles and one line descriptions of the papers that (PIs) will write
Meeting notes plus post-meeting discussions
1) Integration of BSIERP and BEST
a) The vertically-integrated models provide a method for an overall analysis of the
BEST and BSIERP data. Currently data from all BEST and BSIERP projects are
identified with components of the vertically-integrated model set (Project links
V2.ppt), i.e. all data has a home in the vertically-integrated models.
b) Currently all BSIERP projects are identified with one or more BSIERP
hypotheses. A logical next step for BEST-BSIERP integration is to also identify
all BSIERP projects with one or more BEST hypotheses and vice versa, identify
BEST projects with BSIERP hypotheses.
c) Meetings and cruises to promote collaboration: PI workshop (January 2008; this
meeting); ASLO/AGU workshop: Understanding climate impacts in sub-arctic
seas (Hunt et al.; March 2008); Healy cruises (March and May 2008); PI meeting
(January 2009); SAB meetings (monthly, phone).
d) Schedule sessions for hypothesis-driven discussions at annual PI meetings to
promote integration of BEST and BSIERP
2) Synthesis
a) Manuscripts based on BEST-BSIERP will form a pyramid. Project-level
manscripts will form the base, multidisciplinary manuscripts that integrate
projects will form the mid-level and an overall synthesis(es) will form the peak. A
list of possible manuscripts is attached (BSIERP BEST PI meeting possible
manuscript titles.ppt).
b) One study goal is preparation of manuscript(s) that synthesize results of BSIERPBEST. However different PIs may have different ideas of what this entails. Thus
request examples (manuscripts) of syntheses from other multidisciplinary studies.
One example of a synthesis paper is Hunt et al. 2002. Climate Change and control
of the southeastern Bering Sea pelagic ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research II 49:
5821-5853.
3) Model validation
a) Field biologists check model output for realism. This will occur two ways. First,
pairing of field biologists and modelers (e.g. Phyllis Stabeno reviews realism of
physical oceangraphic (ROMS) output with Al Hermann; a detailed review).
Second, annual review of model outputs with field biologists at annual PI meeting
(a bird’s eye review).
b) Model testing: Build “simple” models to test representation of processes with
completion goal of July 2009.
c) Compare results of field data collection, modeling and retrospective analyses. Are
they consistent? Which results support study hypotheses?
4) Discussion
a) Ichthyoplankton, spawning locales, growth potential
b) Small group meeting, identify what a data set can do for other PIs
c) Why have UTLs changed location? Ocean conditions, prey? Advection vs.
endogenous production. Life history effects.
d) Why have large zooplankton disappeared from the middle shelf?
e) Compare ecosystem view from community harvest data to ecosystem modeling
result.
f) Local observations of ice conditions
g) Integration papers (in chunks, e.g. ice through zooplankton, then build hypotheses
and a synthesis (e.g. Oscillating Control Hypothesis))
h) How does the GOA (upstream) affect the Bering Sea shelf, as well as effect of
Bering Sea basin?
i) Go back to the original 5 BSIERP hypotheses and use the small groups to
examine these hypotheses.
j) Link/compare broad and small (patch dynamics) studies.
k) Seasonal use of prey by migratory seabirds (species segregation of habitats)
l) Discuss integration of BSIERP and BEST hypotheses (agenda item 1 for Science
Advisory Board)
m) Evaluate predictive ability including economic consequences
n) Compare how humans, fish, seabirds, etc. are sampling the environment.
o) Look for thresholds, breakpoints.
p) Hypothesis testing and predictions.
q) Evaluate certainty of observations (e.g. use patch dynamics study to evaluate finescale variability and effect on coarse-scale surveys) (“reliable” extrapolation and
how far and space and time).
r) Local observations of food quality and concomitant changes in ocean conditions.
s) Red light, green light cruise diagram
t) Overlays of surveys, with sampling time on web site
u) Show functional group names and PI names together
v) Compare BEST BSIERP hypotheses
w) Use hypotheses for building blocks for integration and overall synthesis
x) Small group evaluation of hypotheses and integration at next PI meeting and
ASLO evening workshop