Reply to University Plymouth Marine Biologist in response to plastic pollution and ocean acidification.

Plymouth Marine Laboratory is an independent marine research organization, but it collaborates closely with the University of Plymouth and the Marine Biological Association. This collaboration is formalized through Marine Research Plymouth, which unites the three institutions to strengthen their capabilities in marine science. 

15/6/2021

From Professor Hall Spencer., of the University of Plymouth, in relation to our report

Plastic and toxic chemical induced ocean acidification will cause a plankton crisis that will devastate humanity over the next 25 Years, unless we act now to stop the pollution.

 http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860950

The following are the comments received

• I think the title ‘Plastic and toxic chemical-induced ocean acidification is causing a plankton crisis and will devastate humanity in the next 25 years’ is pessimistic, exaggerated and unfounded. 

• I have attached a paper that shows very little noticeable effect of ocean acidification on plankton[34][10] and another that shows an interaction between plastic[22] and ocean acidification that does not raise concerns about the devastation of humanity.

• There is absolutely no truth in the statement that ‘The evidence shows that we have reached the point that, unless there is an immediate and radical shift to upgrade, adopt and ratify Government policies to address marine pollution both toxic chemicals and plastic, all carbonate based marine life, including plankton, seals, whales, birds, fish, will disappear from our seas within the next 25 years.’  I attach a paper showing that a range of carbonate-based life is resilient, although some is not.

• It is a huge exaggeration to say that ‘The continued loss of marine plants will transform our oceans into a toxic soup of cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates and their neurotoxins will pollute the air we breathe. The oceans are the life blood for the entire planet and are responsible for regulating our climate and quality of air. We are on the precipice of allowing our life support system to completely collapse.’

• The problems the ocean faces are bad but hyperbole and unscientific claims don’t help target a measured response from the insurance companies.  Please take a look at the Laffoley paper attached[1][35] as it has well thought through terminology that can be used to describe the problems facing the ocean.

• I’m sorry not to be more supportive of the document, but I honestly think it falls wide of the mark.

---

Dear Professor Hall Spencer

Re: Response from the GOES Team re your comments in relation to the following paper:

Plastic and toxic chemical induced ocean acidification will cause a plankton crisis that will devastate humanity over the next 25 Years, unless we act now to stop the pollution.

 http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860950

The GOES Team were pleased that you took time to read and respond to our paper. We were somewhat dismayed, almost stunned, by your response that you do not think the oceans are under threat or that there is any imminent danger to marine life. However, we have taken time to fully read and reflect on your comments, and the papers you kindly provided. 

We had hoped to find some reassurance in the papers you selected and that perhaps you might convince us that we are completely wrong, but sadly, that was not the outcome; if anything, it has alarmed us even more and leaves us feeling distraught that the academic marine biological community seems to be simply kicking the can down the road and leaving future generations to suffer the consequences. Your statements also reflect one of the three main outcomes from the UNESCO conference on the Oceans in Paris that we attended in June 2019, when the Director General said “ We are doing a really good job of cataloguing the destruction of the Oceans.”

We have summarised the main points in your email into four points and make a considered reply in response.

1. The title is pessimistic, inflammatory, and unfounded
2. Ocean acidification is having little effect on plankton
3. Plastic is having no effect on ocean acidification and is no threat to humanity
4. The claims are unscientific that dinoflagellates will not take over the plankton, and that they are not toxic. Humans are not exposed to plankton and dinoflagellates will not impact on the oceans and industry or the air we breathe. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The basics

The IPCC Global Carbon Budget states that:

Anthropogenic carbon equates to approximately to 11.1 giga tonnes, of which 5.9 giga tonnes is sequestered, with 5.2 giga tonnes entering the atmosphere. Of the 5.9 giga tonnes being sequestered, the oceans account for 2.5 giga tonnes.

Over the last 70 years, marine productivity has declined by 50%, and it continues to drop by approximately 1% year on year.

Also from the IPCC: Oceanic pH was approx. 8.2 in 2050, it is now 8.04 and in 25 years it will be 7.95 under RCP 8.5; under RCP4.5, it will also reach pH 7.95 by 5 to 10 years later.

1. The title is pessimistic, inflammatory, and unfounded

• You state, “the ocean is the linchpin supporting life on Earth, but it is in declining health due to an increasing footprint of human use and climate change” [1], Laffoley & J.M Hall Spencer 2021

• So, we have established that all life on Earth depends upon the oceans, yet there has been a systematic destruction of the oceans over the last 70 years, and the lack of real action to protect water quality and marine life is well documented. We now have a situation where HNLC zones[2] cover 30% of the world’s oceans that are essentially dead zones, and that are spreading, yet there are plenty of nutrients in these areas. It could be that there is a lack of trace nutrients, but why should it happen now?

• There is a long list of reports, failed treaties, failed programmes, and missed targets in relation to ‘ocean health’[3]. We think your report to the G7, which was essentially a request for more funding, will add to that detailed catalogue. What we should be providing is the guidance to deliver effective action on some of the most toxic ocean pollutants, like photoactive sunscreens, car tyre microplastics, hospital laundry microplastic and pharma along with the other obvious culprits like PCBs. Research programmes should be about providing solutions and the mapping of rapid ocean recovery, not as the Director General stated, cataloguing the destruction.

• We provide an estimate of “25 years to save the oceans and humanity”, and appreciate that in your paper [1], that while you are in agreement with the fact that humanity depends upon the oceans, you see no threat at this time. Perhaps we are looking at a very different reading list, but here are a few peer-reviewed reports that state the opposite:  

• We have already lost in the order of 50% of all life in the oceans [4][5][6]
• The IPCC data [7] states that surface ocean pH will be pH 7.95 in around 25 years
• More than 50% of the coral reefs, and 71% or more by 2050 [8],  25% of all marine life in the oceans depend upon coral, so just with the loss of coral reefs, the oceans may not survive
• The IPCC BioAcid report states that we potentially lose another 50% of the remaining marine life - especially marine life based on magnesium calcite and aragonite [9] by the time the pH reaches 7.98
• Ocean acidification increases the risk of marine regime shift [10]: In natural coastal ecosystems, mean pCO2 levels predicted for as soon as the mid-century will have periods of such low aragonite saturation and high availability of inorganic carbon that this will cause biodiversity loss driven by a decline in habitat-forming species [11]
• When you plot the above data, it translates into a 75% to 90% loss of marine life over the next 25 years, so for sure we have reasons for concern [12] and on that basis the 25 years in the title is justified

We have spent the last 40 years working as consultants, designers, manufactures and operators on some of the largest marine public aquaria life support systems, with upwards to 20 million Euros-worth of fish and invertebrates living in in large communities in each of these aquaria over decades.  So, we are aware of the cumulative impact of stressors, such as plastic, toxic chemicals, temperature, and pH, all working together over long time frames. We also know, then, when the pH drops below pH 7.95, the system could very easily flip, and you lose all the animals. These aquaria are excellent proxies for polluted oceans, and we are among world experts in this market.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

• Ocean acidification is having little effect on the plankton

• You state that pH is not having a major effect on the plankton, and cite a reference based on coastal data from the North Sea [10],  which is only 50m deep

• The GOES report refers to oceanic systems off the continental shelf in water over 1000m in depth, not coastal communities, so you reference is not applicable. However, we agree with you, pH has not as yet started to have a major impact.

• Our concern is with the mechanisms at play involving hydrophobic lipophilic chemicals adsorbed and concentrated onto hydrophobic particles such as micro and nano-plastics. There is an estimated 21 million tonnes of microplastics in the Atlantic, around 7 particles in every litre of water[13]. There are only 10 zooplankton in every litre of water, so you can be sure that most of the zooplankton will be eating plastic. Nano plastic and molecular plastic will be absorbed by phytoplankton, and in both cases the plastic will have adsorbed varying amounts of lipophilic chemicals. Our report goes into detail to explain how this chemical - plastic combination is toxic, and that it is the most likely reason why plankton productivity and life support system for the planet is crashing.

• The ability of the oceans to sequester carbon dioxide is lost as we lose the phytoplankton, and this will accelerate the acidification process.

• If we had not polluted the oceans, then productivity may have been double the current level, and we not now be experiencing ocean acidification.

• It is our view that ‘closed communities’, for example, the Marmaris Sea, is being affected in the manner described, and at the time of writing, the sea is suffering from huge blooms dinoflagellates referred to as ‘Sea Snot’ (see video from Reuters from earlier this month here https://youtu.be/9D1BeQQUNQ8).

• The Mediterranean Sea is at a pH7.9 and the water is devoid of fish, but tourists are enjoying crystal clear water. Details provided in a report from the European Commission about the severe decline in fish and marine mammals in the Mediterranean [14]

• According to the IPCC BioAcid report, even if we achieve RCP4.5 by 2030 (which would be impossible), atmospheric carbon dioxide would still hit 500ppm and ocean pH would drop to 7.95. Based on the available data and our own experience, we consider pH 7.95 to be the tipping point. This means that climate mitigation is not going to work, and we are going to lose the oceans. Your own paper also reports a loss of aragonite forming habitat species, and regime shifts and we believe there will be consequences of this as a result.

• There is no hope to save most marine life, we are too late with carbon mitigation. The only hope is if we regenerate marine life, so we must bring on a series of measure now, the most important of which is to stop the pollution from plastic and toxic chemicals. If we are extreme in our language, it is because we believe that we are in grave danger and we must act now – not in 10 or 20 years’ time.

To say that ocean acidification is not having an impact on marine life by citing a paper centred on plankton in one of the most polluted shallow seas on earth and relating this to the wider oceans is inappropriate.

____________________________________________________________________________________

• Plastic is having no effect on ocean acidification and is no threat to humanity

There are numerous peer reviewed reports that state eroded plastic, especially when coupled with toxic chemicals, is toxic to plankton of all types including cyanobacteria.

Here are a few examples:

• Prochlorococcus was discovered in 1985 and is responsible for up to 20% of our oxygen and carbon sequestration. An excellent report based on observations over a 30 year period has confirmed that plastic is very toxic to the bacteria. [15].

• It is likely that plastic will exert its greatest toxicity to mesoplankton and probably protists, and new references are appearing almost every day on the subject.[16][17][18][19][20].

• Plastic can also act as a carrier for chemicals such as Oxybenzone which is toxic at 62ppt, and we note that Dr Craig Down, who we work with, is referenced as an adviser in the G7 advice piece.

• Discussions with Craig have highlighted those huge volumes, in the millions of tonnes, of oxybenzone is used every year. An estimated 20,000 tonnes are used just in cosmetics and plastics use could be in the region of 3 million tonnes. Add in adhesives, paints, lead plasticisers, TBT, DBT and these plastics transform into sources of extremely toxic leachates, which we all know are making their way into the oceans either via waste-water plants, storm overflows, and poor waste management. Craig states that Oxybenzone is toxic down to 10ppt, and at this level 70,000 tonne would wipe out most larvae and plankton in the world’s oceans.

• The peer reviewed papers included in our literature review and think-piece confirm that plastic and toxic chemicals do have a negative impact on phytoplankton. It follows that the same chemicals are impacting on the ability of the oceans to sequester inorganic carbon. If the rate of carbon sequestration is reduced, then the rate of ocean acidification will accelerate.

• You kindly provided a helpful paper/reference[21], and you may be familiar with another paper by the same author on the impact of plastic on the soil biome [22].  Both papers confirm a major impact of plastic on plankton and bacteria. Plastic will act as a selective incubator for certain species of bacterium, and this makes plastic more palatable to zooplankton and one of the reasons why zooplankton eat plastic, and why it is so dangerous to marine life.

• Plastic acts as a selective incubator for pathogenic species such as Vibro [23][24][25]. Vibro spp are responsible for killing fish, invertebrates and corals. Corals are suffering from disease all over the world because of Vibro.

We therefore stand by our comment that plastic has an impact on marine productivity and ocean acidification and is a threat to humanity, and frankly I am shocked that you do not consider plastic a risk to the marine environment.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

• The claims are unscientific, and dinoflagellates will not take over the plankton, and are not toxic

• We are already seeing that carbonate-based marine life affected by ocean acidification, especially those based which are magnesium calcite and aragonite.
• The current oceanic pH is 8.04, in 25 years it will be pH7.95 and we lose a high percentage of the carbonate-based plankton.
• Nature will fill any gap and other non-carbonate phytoplankton/protists. Dinoflagellates and bacteria would be strong candidates, but if you have other suggestions, we would be keen to hear your views.
• The IPEN reports funded by the German and Swedish Government state the same change in biodiversity[4][26], and this is also being observed in the Marmara Sea. 

• The GOES team also have direct commercial experience:
• Pump-ashore desalination plants. These systems are now failing all over the world due to dinoflagellate Red Tides ( HABS) and cyanobacteria, which block the desalination prefiltration works

• Pump-ashore aquaculture systems are now installing ozonation systems to address toxin levels. The GOES team have been working with Vietnam’s largest shrimp farming company, which due to the toxicity of the local sea water, they have had to move to closed systems.

NOAA states:

Harmful algal blooms, or HABs, occur when colonies of algae—simple plants that live in the sea and freshwater—grow out of control while producing toxic or harmful effects on people, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, and birds. The human illnesses caused by HABs, though rare, can be debilitating or even fatal.

While many people call these blooms 'red tides,' scientists prefer the term harmful algal bloom. One of the best known HABs in the nation occurs nearly every summer along Florida’s Gulf Coast. This bloom, like many HABs, is caused by microscopic algae that produce toxins that kill fish and make shellfish dangerous to eat. The toxins may also make the surrounding air difficult to breathe. As the name suggests, the bloom of algae often turns the water red.

HABS and atmospheric pollution is an issue [27][28][29][30], this trend will continue to spread and unless we can reverse ocean acidification it will become the norm. In our view, the oceans will become more toxic, respiratory disease risk will increase for those who live next to the sea, and most forms of marine aquaculture will become impossible unless they are onshore and in RAS systems.

Dinoflagellates and bacteria will therefore fill the hole left by the loss of diatoms and carbonate-based plankton.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Summary

We hope that this short note in response to your email (a copy of which is below for your reference) is of use.  We believe that we all want the same thing – a healthy ocean for us all. = As blue water sailors, we are directly observing a decline.

We are systems thinkers, we join dots across ecosystems, and it is clear to us that the ocean is a direct reflection of what is happening on land, i.e. with an 80% worldwide decline of insects [31], as well as the health of humans as detailed in the Lancet Report[32]. 

Universities and the academic community can continue to struggle for grants, and catalogue ocean destruction or we can act together and try to regenerate nature everywhere. We need to take action to prevent pollution and protect the oceans, because there is already a major problem with the convergence of stressors on all marine life. Marine public aquaria operators, such as Jennifer Driban of the Baltimore Aquarium[33], who really see the impact and the cumulative impact of stressors on marine ecosystems, agree with us that we must now act fast to save the oceans, and start to become part of the solution.

We must take a precautionary approach and implement processes to protect and regenerate marine life as stated in our report, because the sooner we act, the easier it will be to recover the oceans and avoid a catastrophic trophic cascade failure, which will happen if we continue to allow the uncontrolled discharge of chemicals and plastic, and the pH to fall below 7.95.

We need to become net zero for carbon as soon as possible, but it will all be in vain unless we also eliminate toxic chemical and plastic pollution over the next 10 years.

Comments from Professor Jason Hall Spencer of Plymouth University in relation to the GOES report are given below, he made no comment or replied to the explanation above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference list from GOESfoundation:

[1]           D. Laffoley et al., ‘Evolving the narrative for protecting a rapidly changing ocean, post-COVID-19’, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1512–1534, 2021, doi: 10.1002/aqc.3512.

[2]           T. Tyrrell, A. Merico, J. J. Waniek, C. S. Wong, N. Metzl, and F. Whitney, ‘Effect of seafloor depth on phytoplankton blooms in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll (HNLC) regions’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, vol. 110, no. G2, 2005, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JG000041.

[3]           jo | 18 Oct 2018, ‘Ocean Pollutants Guide – Toxic Threats to Human Health and Marine Life | NATIONAL TOXICS NETWORK’. https://ntn.org.au/ocean-pollutants-guide-toxic-threats-to-human-health-and-marine-life/ (accessed May 04, 2021).

[4]           ‘Landos et al. - Aquatic Pollutants in Oceans and Fisheries.pdf’. Accessed: Apr. 29, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ipen.org/transfer/embargo/aquatic_pollutants_in_oceans_and_fisheries_ipen-en.pdf

[5]           D. Boyce, M. Lewis, and B. Worm, ‘Global phytoplankton decline over the past century’, Nature, vol. 466, pp. 591–6, Jul. 2010, doi: 10.1038/nature09268.

[6]           ‘The European environment — state and outlook 2020 — European Environment Agency’. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/soer-2020 (accessed Jun. 11, 2021).

[7]           ‘Surface ocean pH and buffer capacity: past, present and future | Scientific Reports’. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55039-4 (accessed Mar. 01, 2021).

[8]           C. E. Cornwall et al., ‘Global declines in coral reef calcium carbonate production under ocean acidification and warming’, PNAS, vol. 118, no. 21, May 2021, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2015265118.

[9]           ‘Assessing the risks of ocean acidification – BIOACID: Biological Impacts of Ocean Acidification’. https://www.bioacid.de/assessing-the-risks-of-ocean-acidification/?lang=en (accessed Feb. 25, 2021).

[10]         J. Hall-Spencer and B. Harvey, ‘Ocean acidification impacts on coastal ecosystem services due to habitat degradation’, Emerging Topics in Life Sciences, vol. 3, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1042/ETLS20180117.

[11]         S. Agostini et al., ‘Ocean acidification drives community shifts towards simplified non-calcified habitats in a subtropical−temperate transition zone’, Sci Rep, vol. 8, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29251-7.

[12]         B. C. O’Neill, ‘IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change risks’, NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, vol. 7, p. 11, 2017.

[13]         ‘High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic Ocean | Nature Communications’. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17932-9 (accessed Feb. 27, 2021).

[14]         G. D. VREESE, ‘Saving our heritage, our future: The worrying state of Mediterranean fish stocks’, EU Science Hub - European Commission, Apr. 03, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/saving-our-heritage-worrying-state-mediterranean-fish-stocks (accessed Jun. 17, 2021).

[15]         S. G. Tetu et al., ‘Plastic leachates impair growth and oxygen production in Prochlorococcus , the ocean’s most abundant photosynthetic bacteria’, Communications Biology, vol. 2, no. 1, Art. no. 1, May 2019, doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0410-x.

[16]         Z. L. R. Botterell et al., ‘Bioavailability of Microplastics to Marine Zooplankton: Effect of Shape and Infochemicals’, Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 54, no. 19, pp. 12024–12033, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02715.

[17]         J.-P. W. Desforges, M. Galbraith, and P. S. Ross, ‘Ingestion of Microplastics by Zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean’, Arch Environ Contam Toxicol, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 320–330, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5.

[18]         R. L. Coppock, T. S. Galloway, M. Cole, E. S. Fileman, A. M. Queirós, and P. K. Lindeque, ‘Microplastics alter feeding selectivity and faecal density in the copepod, Calanus helgolandicus’, Science of The Total Environment, vol. 687, pp. 780–789, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.009.

[19]         I. L. N. Bråte et al., ‘Mytilus spp. as sentinels for monitoring microplastic pollution in Norwegian coastal waters: A qualitative and quantitative study’, Environmental Pollution, vol. 243, pp. 383–393, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.077.

[20]         ‘Size-Dependent Effects of Micro Polystyrene Particles in the Marine Copepod Tigriopus japonicus | Environmental Science & Technology’. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401932b (accessed Mar. 16, 2021).

[21]         B. Harvey, D. Kerfahi, Y. Jung, J.-H. Shin, J. Adams, and J. Hall-Spencer, ‘Ocean acidification alters bacterial communities on marine plastic debris’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 161, p. 111749, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111749.

[22]         J. Rüthi, D. Bölsterli, L. Pardi-Comensoli, I. Brunner, and B. Frey, ‘The “Plastisphere” of Biodegradable Plastics Is Characterized by Specific Microbial Taxa of Alpine and Arctic Soils’, Frontiers in Environmental Science, vol. 8, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2020.562263.

[23]         A. L. Laverty, S. Primpke, C. Lorenz, G. Gerdts, and F. C. Dobbs, ‘Bacterial biofilms colonizing plastics in estuarine waters, with an emphasis on Vibrio spp. and their antibacterial resistance’, PLoS One, vol. 15, no. 8, p. e0237704, 2020, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237704.

[24]         V. Foulon, F. Le Roux, C. Lambert, A. Huvet, P. Soudant, and I. Paul-Pont, ‘Colonization of Polystyrene Microparticles by Vibrio crassostreae : Light and Electron Microscopic Investigation’, Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 50, no. 20, pp. 10988–10996, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02720.

[25]         M. M. Silva et al., ‘Dispersal of potentially pathogenic bacteria by plastic debris in Guanabara Bay, RJ, Brazil’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 141, pp. 561–568, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.064.

[26]         ‘Lloyd-Smith and App - TOXIC THREATS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND MARINE LIFE.pdf’. Accessed: Jun. 01, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-ocean-pollutants-v2_1-en-web.pdf

[27]         K. Moeltner et al., ‘Harmful algal blooms and toxic air: The economic value of improved forecasts’, p. 40.

[28]         K. Aoki, T. Yamatogi, S. Hirae, K. Yamamoto, K. Yoshida, and K. Muta, ‘Increased occurrence of red-tides of fish-killing dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi and related environmental conditions in Imari Bay, Japan’, Regional Studies in Marine Science, vol. 39, p. 101470, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101470.

[29]         L. C. Backer et al., ‘Occupational Exposure to Aerosolized Brevetoxins during Florida Red Tide Events: Effects on a Healthy Worker Population’, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 644–649, May 2005, doi: 10.1289/ehp.7502.

[30]         S. S. Patel, V. J. Lovko, and R. F. Lockey, ‘Red Tide: Overview and Clinical Manifestations’, The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1219–1223, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.10.030.

[31]         ‘Dirzo et al. - 2014 - Defaunation in the Anthropocene.pdf’. Accessed: Jun. 05, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DirzoEtAl_DefaunationInTheAnthropocene_Science_2014.pdf

[32]         ‘The Lancet Commission on pollution and health - The Lancet’. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32345-0/fulltext (accessed Feb. 27, 2021).

[33]         D. Journal, ‘Jennifer Driban | To heal the ocean, we must act fast’, Richmond County Daily Journal, Jun. 17, 2021. https://www.yourdailyjournal.com/opinion/101470/jennifer-driban-to-heal-the-ocean-we-must-act-fast (accessed Jun. 17, 2021).

[34]         D. Beare, A. McQuatters-Gollop, T. van der Hammen, M. Machiels, S. J. Teoh, and J. M. Hall-Spencer, ‘Long-Term Trends in Calcifying Plankton and pH in the North Sea’, PLOS ONE, vol. 8, no. 5, p. e61175, May 2013, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061175.

[35]         D. Laffoley et al., ‘Eight urgent, fundamental and simultaneous steps needed to restore ocean health, and the consequences for humanity and the planet of inaction or delay’, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 194–208, 2020, doi: 10.1002/aqc.3182.

---

---

There was no reply from the Plymouth Marine Lab regaring our comments, and they refused to have any communications with the Goes Foundation even after numerous attemps.