Warming Oceans May Threaten Krill, a Cornerstone of the Antarctic Ecosystem

Mimi Buendia

October 18, 2015

Earth Science/ Block D even/ McClellan

Innis, Michelle. "Warming Oceans May Threaten Krill, a Cornerstone of the Antarctic Ecosystem." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

“Warming Oceans May Threaten Krill, a Cornerstone of the Antarctic Ecosystem,” written by Michelle Innis, discusses the effects of krill due to the acidification in the ocean. The levels of activity, caused by carbon dioxide, in the ocean is increasing each year due to the pollution, which will kill the krill, disrupting the ecosystems.  Krill is an essential part of the ecosystems in the ocean. Without krill, there is less food for squid, whales, seals, fish, penguins, and seabirds. Scientist, Dr. Kawaguchi, conducted an experiment to see how the krill would react or adjust by having more carbon dioxide in the water it lives in. To acidify the water, Dr. Kawaguchi added carbon dioxide into water to mimic the conditions that are possible in the next three centuries. Once he did this, he soon realized none of the krill eggs were hatched because all the eggs were dead. The reason the krill is so affected by the carbon dioxide because the krills eggs sink to the bottom of the ocean from the water surface. The deeper the water gets, the more acidic it is. There have already been evidence in the change of the number of krill. “300,000 tons of krill was caught in 2014, significantly lower than the peak of around 500,000 tons caught around 30 years ago,” stated The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

The loss of krill in our oceans affects the entire ecosystem of the ocean, which would then affect people. Krill is the pray for many of the larger animals in the ocean, which disrupts the life circle in the echostorm. Dr. Kawaguchi’s research predicted the number of krill will decrease in the next 100 years because of the global carbon emissions. To support his prediction, he states, “If we continue with business as usual, and we don’t act on reducing carbon emissions, in that case there could be a 20 to 70 percent reduction in Antarctic krill by 2100.” Also the acidity of the water would also affect us, by not having a direct source or pure water.

This article published by The New York Times was very well written, however I felt it was sometimes unclear about experiments and facts supporting its claim. To fix that, the author could define more term and also write the paragraphs in a clear order to make the reader follow the article better. Besides that, the evidence used to support the article were perfect examples and helped explain the issue.