March 2023

This issue includes a look at hot vents along Gakkel Ridge, turbulence in the deep Mediterranean, an array of ocean education subjects, and more…

March 2023 | Oceanography











VOL. 36, NO. 1, MARCH 2023

Oceanography | Vol. 36, No. 1

March 2023 | Oceanography

contents VOL. 36, NO. 1, MARCH 2023


06 Hot Vents Beneath an Icy Ocean: The Aurora Vent Field, Gakkel Ridge,


By E. Ramirez-Llodra, C. Argentino, M. Baker, A. Boetius, C. Costa, H. Dahle, E.M. Denny,

P.-A. Dessandier, M.H. Eilertsen, B. Ferre, C.R. German, K. Hand, A. Hilário, L. Hislop,

J.W. Jamieson, D. Kalnitchenko, A. Mall, G. Panieri, A. Purser, S.P. Ramalho, E.P. Reeves,

L. Rolley, S.I. Pereira, P.A. Ribeiro, M.F. Sert, I.H. Steen, M. Stetzler, R. Stokke, L. Victorero,

F. Vulcano, S. Vågenes, K.A. Waghorn, and S. Buenz

18 Sensitive Temperature Probes Detail Different Turbulence Processes in

the Deep Mediterranean

By H. van Haren

28 Extreme Upwelling Events in the Seas of the Alor Kecil, Alor Island, Indonesia

By A. Wirasatriya, R.D. Susanto, J.D. Setiawan, T. Agustiadi, I. Iskandar, A. Ismanto,

A.L. Nugraha, A.D. Puryajati, Kunarso, A. Purwandana, F. Ramdani, T.A. Lestari, J.F. Maro,

Y.N.S. Kitarake, Y.L. Sailana, M.S. Goro, B.K. Hidayah, R. Widiaratih, S. Fitria, and E.A. Dollu

38 Know Before You Go: A Community-Derived Approach to Planning for and

Preventing Sexual Harassment at Oceanographic Field Sites

By A. Ackerman, K. Yarincik, S. Murphy, I. Cetinić, A. Fundis, A. Miller, E. Shroyer,

A. Busse, Q. Covington, A. DeSilva, A. Haupt, L. Johnson, C. Lee, L. Lorenzoni, B. Murphy,

J. Ramarui, B. Rosenheim, and D. Steinberg


05 QUARTERDECK • How Might Artificial Intelligence Affect Scientific Publishing?

By E.S. Kappel

44 OCEAN EDUCATION • UC San Diego Undergraduates and the Ocean

Discovery Institute Collaborate to Form a Pilot Program in Culturally

Responsive Mentoring

By L.G. Adams, A.V. Bintliff, H.A. Jannke, and D. Kacev

51 DIY OCEANOGRAPHY • A Low-Cost, DIY Ultrasonic Water Level Sensor

for Education, Citizen Science, and Research

By P. Bresnahan, E. Briggs, B. Davis, A.R. Rodriguez, L. Edwards, C. Peach, N. Renner,

H. Helling, and M. Merrifield

59 HANDS-ON OCEANOGRAPHY • Do pH-Variable Habitats Provide Refuge for

Stone Crabs from Coastal Acidification?

By P.M. Gravinese, A.L. Smith, S.M. Stewart, and J. Paradis

67 MEETING REPORT • Community Perspectives on Justice, Equity, Diversity,

and Inclusion in Ocean Sciences: A Town Hall Discussion

By E.L. Meyer-Gutbrod, J.J. Pierson, and M. Behl

74 FROM THE TOS JEDI COMMITTEE • Relevance of the Guru-Shishya

Parampara to Modern-Day Mentorship

By M. Behl and C. Pattiaratchi

76 THE OCEANOGRAPHY CLASSROOM • The Soft Approach to Software

By S. Boxall

78 CAREER PROFILES • Angelica Rodriguez, Research Scientist, NASA Jet

Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology • Kaitlyn Lowder,

Program Manager, The Ocean Foundation





March 2023 | Oceanography

Oceanography | Vol. 36, No. 1



An isobaric gas-tight (IGT) sampler is

extracting fluids at the Ganymede smoker on

the Aurora Vent Field, Gakkel Ridge. See the

article by Ramiriz-Llodra et al. on page 6 for

details. Image credit: REV Ocean/HACON


The Oceanography Society

1 Research Court, Suite 450-117

Rockville, MD 20850 USA

t: (1) 301-251-7708


Send changes of address to or

go to, click on

Login, and update your profile.


Please send advertising inquiries to

or go to


Please send corrections to

Electronic versions of articles will be updated.

FEBRUARY 18–23, 2024


March 2023 | Oceanography

The Oceanography Society was founded in 1988 to advance

oceanographic research, technology, and education, and

to disseminate knowledge of oceanography and its appli-

cation through research and education. TOS promotes

the broad understanding of oceanography, facilitates con-

sensus building across all the disciplines of the field, and

informs the public about ocean research, innovative tech-

nology, and educational opportunities throughout the spec-

trum of oceanographic inquiry.


PRESIDENT: Deborah Bronk



SECRETARY: Allison Miller

TREASURER: Susan Banahan


AT-LARGE: Mona Behl




EARLY CAREER: Erin Satterthwaite

EDUCATION: Sara Harris



OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY: Leopoldo C. Gerhardinger





Jennifer Ramarui



Baker Donelson »

Integral Consulting Inc. »

National Oceanography Centre »


Sea-Bird Scientific »

Sequoia »


Ellen S. Kappel, Geosciences Professional Services Inc.


Vicky Cullen


Johanna Adams


Claudia Benitez-Nelson, University of South Carolina

Ian Brosnan, NASA Ames Research Center

Grace Chang, Integral Consulting Inc.

Kjersti Daae, University of Bergen

Mirjam Glessmer, Lund University

Charles H. Greene, University of Washington

Amelia Shevenell, University of South Florida

William Smyth, Oregon State University

Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge

Oceanography contains peer-reviewed articles that chronicle

all aspects of ocean science and its applications. The journal

presents significant research, noteworthy achievements, excit-

ing new technology, and articles that address public policy and

education and how they are affected by science and technol-

ogy. The overall goal of Oceanography is cross- disciplinary

communication in the ocean sciences.

Oceanography (Print ISSN 1042-8275; Online ISSN 2377-617X)

is published by The Oceanography Society, 1 Research Court,

Suite 450-117, Rockville, MD 20850 USA. Oceanography arti-

cles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format as long

as users cite the materials appropriately, provide a link to the

Creative Commons license, and indicate the changes that were

made to the original content. Third-party material used in arti-

cles are included in the Creative Commons license unless indi-

cated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If the material is

not included in the article’s Creative Commons license, users

will need to obtain permission directly from the license holder

to reproduce the material. Please contact Jennifer Ramarui at for further information.


March 2023 | Oceanography





Oceanography is an open-access journal whose main goal is

cross-disciplinary communication in the ocean sciences. The

journal publishes peer-reviewed articles that present significant

research, noteworthy achievements, and exciting new technol-

ogies, and that address aspects of undergraduate and graduate

education in the ocean sciences.


Submitted manuscripts should be of broad interest to our read-

ership. The desired writing style is less technical and more com-

pact than that typically used in scientific papers. Strive for clar-

ity and simplicity. Target your manuscript to graduate students,

professional oceanographers of all traditional disciplines, and

other scientifically literate audiences.


The fee for publishing Feature Articles that are not part of

invited special issues is $2,000. The publication fee for Breaking

Waves, Meeting Reports, Commentaries and Perspectives, and

Ocean Education articles of up to six magazine pages in length

will be $1,000. Authors can request a waiver from TOS (email

to for all or part of the publication fee if they doc-

ument their inability to cover the expense.


FEATURE ARTICLES (<7,000 words) provide an outlet for

making significant advances in oceanography accessible to a

broad readership. They can include review papers that summa-

rize the current state of knowledge of a particular topic, synthe-

sis papers that discuss new findings and how they significantly

revise our thinking about a topic, and more traditional scientific

research papers from across the full spectrum of ocean sciences.

BREAKING WAVES (<3,500 words) articles describe novel

approaches to multidisciplinary problems in oceanography.

These provocative papers present findings that are synthetic by

design and have the potential to move the field of oceanography

forward or in new directions.

OCEAN EDUCATION (<3,500 words) is a place to learn about

the ocean. These peer-reviewed articles should inspire teachers

in higher education to try new active, student-centered instruc-

tion (ranging from short activities to curricula) and provide

ideas/materials to do so.

DIY OCEANOGRAPHY (<3,500 words) shares all of the rel-

evant information on a homemade sensor, instrument, or soft-

ware tool(s) so that others can build, or build upon, it. These

short articles also showcase how this technology was used suc-

cessfully in the field.

See the online Oceanography Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Guide for a full listing of

manuscript categories and descriptions, for article length limitations, and for details of the manuscript submission process.

March 2023 | Oceanography

By publication time for this Quarterdeck column, ChatGPT

will already be old news. When the first stories about this arti-

ficial intelligence (AI) language tool came out early this year,

much of the discussion was focused on how the classroom might

change if non-beings can write credible essays. Instructors cov-

ering the spectrum of student ages questioned whether stu-

dents who handed off assignments to robots would still learn to

express themselves in writing. Some schools considered banning

ChatGPT, though how that would work is not clear, while some

instructors began to ask students to hand write their assignments.

Lately, news coverage about ChatGPT has turned toward the

scarier conversations people are having with the language robot.

Despite initial guardrails built into the platform, it appears that

ChatGPT can be tricked quite easily into having darker discus-

sions. For my part, instead of trying to be clever with this new

tool, I decided to ask it a simple question pertinent to my work as

editor of this journal: How might ChatGPT affect scientific pub-

lishing? I enlisted TOS Executive Director Jenny Ramarui, ever

on top of the latest technology, to put the question to ChatGPT

for me. Here is the robot’s response:

As an AI language model, ChatGPT can potentially change the

science publishing industry in a number of ways, although the full

extent of this change is difficult to predict. Here are a few potential

ways in which ChatGPT could have an impact:

1. Improved accuracy and quality of scientific writing: One of the

major advantages of using an AI language model like ChatGPT

in scientific publishing is that it can help improve the accuracy

and quality of scientific writing. ChatGPT can suggest edits,

correct grammar and syntax errors, and provide feedback on

writing style and clarity, helping authors to produce more pol-

ished and error-free manuscripts.

2. Faster review and turnaround times: Peer review is a critical

component of the scientific publishing process, but it can be a

time-consuming and sometimes subjective process. AI language

models like ChatGPT could potentially help speed up the review

process by automatically identifying potential issues with a

manuscript and providing feedback to reviewers. This could

lead to faster turnaround times for reviews and ultimately,

faster publication times.

3. More accessible and personalized scientific writing: Another

potential benefit of using an AI language model like ChatGPT

in scientific publishing is that it could help make scientific

writing more accessible and personalized. ChatGPT could be

used to automatically generate summaries of scientific papers in

plain language, making the research more accessible to a wider

audience. Additionally, ChatGPT could be used to tailor the

language and writing style of scientific papers to specific audi-

ences or readers, making the research more engaging and easier

to understand.

4. New forms of scientific writing and research: Finally, AI lan-

guage models like ChatGPT could potentially lead to new forms

of scientific writing and research. For example, ChatGPT could

be used to generate new hypotheses or research questions based

on existing data or to explore alternative explanations for exist-

ing findings. Additionally, ChatGPT could be used to generate

new forms of data visualization or to create interactive scien-

tific content that engages readers in new ways.

Language tools such as ChatGPT are no doubt here to stay,

and they can be helpful if used with caution. While speeding up

peer review is a noble goal, simply identifying potential issues

is only the first step in the review process. Good peer reviewers

would read manuscripts more than once. In addition to checking

whether the issues AI flagged were indeed valid, they would use

their deep subject knowledge to identify other, more nuanced

problems. This process still takes time. For scientists burdened

with numerous peer review requests, will AI wind up being a

substitute for truly scrutinizing a manuscript? Can an article be

called “peer reviewed” if the review was largely or completely

conducted by AI? If two or three reviewers rely on AI to review

the same manuscript, will all three reviews largely be the same?

If that were the case, our science would be the loser.

ChatGPT is an alluring tool. It took no more than a minute

to answer my question about scientific publishing. If I proposed

a subject, it could probably write a Quarterdeck column in the

same amount of time. But it is no substitute for human experi-

ence and judgment. For the publishing industry and our scien-

tific community, these new and emerging AI language platforms

generate as many questions as answers.



How Might Artificial Intelligence

Affect Scientific Publishing?

Ellen S. Kappel, Editor

Oceanography | Vol. 36, No. 1





By Eva Ramirez-Llodra, Claudio Argentino, Maria Baker, Antje Boetius, Carolina Costa, Håkon Dahle, Emily M. Denny,

Pierre-Antoine Dessandier, Mari H. Eilertsen, Benedicte Ferre, Christopher R. German, Kevin Hand, Ana Hilário,

Lawrence Hislop, John W. Jamieson, Dimitri Kalnitchenko, Achim Mall, Giuliana Panieri, Autun Purser, Sofia P. Ramalho,

Eoghan P. Reeves, Leighton Rolley, Samuel I. Pereira, Pedro A. Ribeiro, Muhammed Fatih Sert, Ida H. Steen, Marie Stetzler,

Runar Stokke, Lissette Victorero, Francesca Vulcano, Stig Vågenes, Kate Alyse Waghorn, and Stefan Buenz

R/V Kronprins Haakon is being positioned here on

an ice floe to drift toward the Aurora Vent Field on

Gakkel Ridge, Arctic Ocean. © REV Ocean

Oceanography | Vol. 36, No. 1

March 2023 | Oceanography



Forty-five years after the discovery

of hydrothermal vents (Corliss et  al.,

1979), research into these unique hab-

itats and their rich submarine ecosys-

tems has brought about revolutionary

findings in biology, chemistry, and geo-

physics. Understanding how these dis-

tinctive ecosystems are supported by

sunlight- independent microbial primary

productivity based on chemosynthesis

changed the way we understand life on

Earth (Van Dover et al., 2018). They have

inspired our understanding of the ori-

gin of life on Earth (Martin et al., 2008)

and are now influencing the choice of

exploration targets aimed at the discov-

ery of extraterrestrial life in our solar

system (Hand and German, 2018; Hand

et  al., 2020). The exotic faunal commu-

nities at active hydrothermal vents are

also of high interest given their physio-

logical adaptations and the high degree

of endemicity, and for their potential in

providing marine genetic resources of

use in biomedicine, cosmetics, and bio-

fuels, among others (Van Dover et  al.,

2018). In addition, interest in the poten-

tial for mineral resources in hydrother-

mal vent deposits has greatly increased

in the last two decades, and exploration

licenses for such resources have been

granted for national and international

waters (Jones et al., 2020).

Since the discovery of deep-sea hydro-

thermal vents in 1977, just over 30% of the

global mid-ocean ridge system has been

investigated (Beaulieu et  al., 2015). To

date, exploration has yielded an inventory

of 722 confirmed high-temperature vent

sites, with a further 720 high- temperature

vents inferred from water column data,

as reported in the InterRidge Vents

Database in September 2022 (Beaulieu

and Szafranski, 2020). There may be hun-

dreds of additional active hydrothermal

systems and their associated faunal com-

munities yet to be discovered worldwide

along the unexplored branches and sec-

tions of the global mid-ocean ridge sys-

tem, particularly along the least explored

slow and ultra-slow spreading ridges

(Beaulieu et al., 2015).

Current data on vent communities

globally has identified 11 biogeographic

provinces, but their delineation is still

being debated (Rogers et al., 2012). Until

now, the vent faunal communities of the

ice-covered Gakkel Ridge in the Central

Arctic Ocean remained unexplored

because of their remote and climatologi-

cally challenging location. This study puts

the Aurora Vent Field of the Gakkel Ridge

on the global map of chemosynthetic-

based ecosystems, providing an initial

overview of the vent field and the eco-

system it supports.

The Gakkel Ridge (Figure 1a) extends

1,800 km from the northern end of the

Lena Trough off Northeast Greenland

(81°N) to near the Siberian shelf at

87°N. It was initially predicted to host

an extremely low number of active sites

based on the assumption that hydrother-

mal flux scaled directly with spreading

rate (E.T. Baker et al., 1996). This hypoth-

esis was revisited after exploration of the

Southwest Indian Ridge showed that even

ultra-slow spreading ridges could host

abundant submarine venting (German

et al., 1998). Technological and method-

ological challenges of working at great

depth in regions of permanent sea ice

cover have constrained the exploration

of the Gakkel Ridge. In 2001, Edmonds

et  al. (2003) obtained first evidence of

hydrothermal venting on nine to twelve

discrete locations along the Gakkel Ridge

during the InterRidge two-icebreaker

(R/V Polarstern and USCGC Healy)

Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition

(AMORE; Figure 1a). Continued explo-

ration during the Arctic Gakkel Vents

(AGAVE) expedition in 2007 provided

evidence of explosive volcanism at 85°N

and demonstrated that large-scale pyro-

clastic activity is possible along even the

deepest portions of the global mid-ocean

ridge volcanic system (Sohn et al., 2008).

Seismic studies suggest substantial mag-

matic activity, serpentinization, and fluid

flow at this slowest of all Earth’s ridge sys-

tems (Michael et  al., 2003; Schlindwein

and Schmid, 2016). Between 2002 and

2010, the ChEss program aimed to

improve understanding of the global bio-

geography of chemosynthetic-based eco-

systems (M.C. Baker et al., 2010). Based

on the increasing evidence of hydro-

thermal venting along the Gakkel Ridge,

the ChEss program identified a num-

ber of poorly investigated regions where

research efforts should focus. The Gakkel

Ridge was recognized as one of the miss-

ing pieces of the global biogeographic

puzzle (Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2007).

Building on the results of the AMORE

2001 expedition (Edmonds et al., 2003),

in 2014, R/V Polarstern expedition PS86

AURORA aimed to study geophysical,

geological, geochemical, and biological

processes at hydrothermal vents on the

Gakkel Ridge, with a focus on the southern

segment (Boetius, 2015). In this region,

the spreading rate is 14.5–13.5 mm yr–1,

(slightly faster than the average rate for

the overall ridge), and the ridge axis floor

ABSTRACT. Evidence of hydrothermal venting on the ultra-slow spreading Gakkel

Ridge in the Central Arctic Ocean has been available since 2001, with first visual evi-

dence of black smokers on the Aurora Vent Field obtained in 2014. But it was not until

2021 that the first ever remotely operated vehicle (ROV) dives to hydrothermal vents

under permanent ice cover in the Arctic were conducted, enabling the collection of

vent fluids, rocks, microbes, and fauna. In this paper, we present the methods employed

for deep-sea ROV operations under drifting ice. We also provide the first description

of the Aurora Vent Field, which includes three actively venting black smokers and dif-

fuse flow on the Aurora mound at ~3,888 m depth on the southern part of the Gakkel

Ridge (82.5°N). The biological communities are dominated by a new species of coccu-

linid limpet, two small gastropods, and a melitid amphipod. The ongoing analyses of

Aurora Vent Field samples will contribute to positioning the Gakkel Ridge hydrother-

mal vents in the global biogeographic puzzle of hydrothermal vents.

Oceanography | Vol. 36, No. 1

at 4,200 m depth is bounded by steep rift

valley walls and punctuated by a series

of axial volcanic ridges and smaller vol-

canic mounds (Michael et  al., 2003).

Edmonds et al. (2003) inferred the pres-

ence of an active hydrothermal vent site

from chemical data and assigned to a

small (1.5–2  km in diameter) volcanic

mound rising approximately 400 m from

the seafloor, at depths between 4,300 m

and 3,850 m (Figure 1b,c). A dredge from

south to north across this mound recov-

ered components of a sulfide chimney

in addition to abundant pillow basalts.

In parallel, in situ sensor data from a

MAPR (Miniature Autonomous Plume

Recorder) instrument attached to the

dredge revealed evidence for a turbid-

ity anomaly consistent with a nearby

source of active black smoker venting at a

depth of 2,800–3,400 m (Edmonds et al.,

2003; Michael et  al., 2003). During the

PS86 AURORA expedition, CTD profil-

ing, coupled with water column chemis-

try, revealed further evidence for ongoing

hydrothermal activity on the Aurora

mound (Boetius, 2015; German et  al.,

2022a). Seabed surveys with the Ocean

Floor Observation System (OFOS) deep-

tow camera across the summit from

north to south revealed deep rifts through

the thick sedimented seafloor across the

base of the volcanic mound. This imag-

ing, paired with CTD data, led to the first

imaging of an active black smoker on

Gakkel Ridge at 82°53.83'N, 6°15.32'W,

at ~3,900 m depth, on what was named

the Aurora Vent Field (AVF; Boetius,

2015; German et al., 2022a). The OFOS

surveys showed that the Aurora mound

has steep vertical basalt walls intermixed

with lower angle, sediment-draped steps.

The top of the mound is flat and sediment

covered, and the observed fauna con-

sisted of high abundances of filter feeders,

mostly glass sponges and anemones, and

at least two species of shrimp. Ophiuroids,

swimming polychaetes, and crustaceans

(potentially isopods) were also observed.

At the active vent site, bacterial mats and

small gastropods and amphipods were

observed (Boetius, 2015). The physico-

chemical and microbiological character-

ization of the huge buoyant vent plume

hovering above the AVF showed evidence

for venting fluids enriched in meth-

ane, and possibly hydrogen, fueling high

microbial activity in the plume (German

et al., 2022a; Massimiliano Molari, Max

Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology,

pers. comm., 2022). Due to the lack of a

deep-diving remotely operated vehicle

(ROV), however, no physical samples of

fluids, rocks, microbes, or animals could

be collected from the vent field.

In 2019, the Hot Vents in an Ice-

Covered Ocean (HACON19) cruise on

R/V Kronprins Haakon returned to the

Aurora mound, with the aim of conduct-

ing a multidisciplinary survey of the sea-

floor ecosystems centered around the

coordinates of the black smoker iden-

tified in 2014 by the PS86 Aurora team

(Boetius, 2015). This cruise obtained

new visual data of the AVF with the

towed Ocean Floor Observation and

Bathymetry System (OFOBS; Purser

et al., 2019; German et al., 2022a), con-

firming the presence of at least three black

smokers colonized by sparse fauna com-

posed of mostly gastropods and amphi-

pods (Bünz et  al., 2019). In addition, a

wealth of samples on the sedimented sur-

face of the Aurora mound were collected,

Gakkel Ridge



FIGURE 1. (a) Map of the Gakkel Ridge in the Central Arctic Ocean with known hydrothermal plume

signals indicated by yellow stars (from Edmond et al., 2003) and the Aurora Vent Field marked with

a red star. (b) A red triangle locates the Aurora Vent Field within the Aurora mound based on pre-

vious bathymetry from the AMORE and AURORA/AWI expeditions. (c) The Aurora Vent Field (red

triangle) is shown against multibeam bathymetry of the Aurora mound based on bathymetry from

the HACON19 and HACON21 expeditions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84