It’s not every day that you need to talk to one of the world’s leading experts on goose barnacles of the Indian Ocean, but today is one of those days, so I considered myself very fortunate to get in touch with Charles Griffiths, an emeritus professor of marine biology at the University of Cape Town and author of the seminal paper “South African pelagic goose barnacles (Cirripedia, Thoracica): substratum preferences and influence of plastic debris on abundance and distribution.”
I reached out to Dr Griffiths by email and he graciously answered my questions about the sea life found growing on the Reunion flaperon after I sent him a more detailed version of the picture above.
Is it possible to identify the species of barnacle growing on the debris?
In this case it is possible to identify this as being Lepas anserifera striata on the basis of the small row of pits across the shell, which is characteristic of that subspecies.
Can this tell us anything about where the debris might have been floating?
This is not much clue as the species has a wide global distribution in tropical and subtropical seas.
Can you say in very rough terms how long it takes the barnacles to reach this stage of growth?
I cannot accurately gauge the sizes of the largest specimens from the image but goose barnacles grow spectacularly fast e.g. 21 mm head length ( i.e. Without the supporting stalk) in 21 days cited in one paper I have at hand. I have seen very large barnacles (as long as my finger) growing on a cable known to have only been in the water for 6 weeks!
UPDATE: To clarify a point raised by commenters, I asked Dr Griffiths a follow-up question:
Is it true that barnacles can’t survive in the open ocean? Is it possible for a piece of debris floating far out to see be colonized by Lepas anserifera, or would it need to be in a coastal environment?
No, that is not the case. These goose barnacles are in fact characteristically oceanic beasts and only occur in floating objects in the open sea. Reaching the coast is in fact a death warrant for them and any that get washed up die! Interestingly they seem to know whether an object is floating, so for example are common on kelp that is uprooted and floating but never occur on the same kelp when it is attached.
Can you tell whether the barnacles in that picture are alive or dead? If alive, how long can they live after being washed up?
If you find a washed up item that is fresh (same day) the barnacles will still be opening their shells and waving around their cirri (legs) to try to feed. Obviously in a still image cannot see this. However I can see the cirri projecting from some animals. These would rot away and drop off in a few days in a tropical climate, so this wreckage has only been washed up a couple of days at most. Also crabs and other scavengers love to eat goose barnacles and will clean off most within a couple of days. There is no evidence of feeding damage or headless stalks here, so that suggests to me this wreckage was collected and photographed within a day or two of stranding.
@Spencer
Could be, but the tone of your posts severely impacts your credibility. Maybe you have heard that before? Are you still living with your parents? My guess is that you are.
@Dennis
MIT tone is admittedly less than perfect. We could both do better.
Cheers.
Attached is a comparative analysis of several ocean drift models. I hope it helps generate a more robust public debate on the asserted consistency between the Réunion debris and the current search area:
https://twitter.com/Brock_McEwen/status/632057517493780480
Now about two weeks since we found the flaperon. If it’s going deeply forensic to get a match there could be some issues?
Great paper comparing drift models Brock! (I had not realised you were preparing it). I’m particularly interested in Dr Erik van Sebille’s reverse drift model; as well as showing where the debris may have drifted from without assumption of current search area, it contradicts the media’s message that debris cannot cross the equator…. I also wonder why its no longer available at NYT.
BTW, its interesting to see who posts here at what times of the day (or night) – I thought you were from Canada 🙂
@Joe
1. Yes it can, absolutely. He wouldn’t want to take off from CI and it wouldn’t be his problem anyway (he would have other problems though after landing).
2. No, but he wouldn’t want to hide as he probably had different agenda.
@spencer
it’s not perhaps true, the known sea state for the current search area varied from 1,5-5m that day (for the most of area it was 3-4m though), it’s very known for its high waves and anyone meticulously planning disappearance would NOT choose that area, especially because he would have to overfly literally millions of sq miles where he could ditch it much easier (and the plane would lie much further from Australia which would further hamper the search)
@Brock
great job! Notice the area some 100-200 miles south of CI is very likely, together with one some 300-400 miles further to the south
@Brock, thanks for your work.
Question: do I understand you correctly,that van Sebille’s online model doesn’t show potential landfall of some debris “along the way” which could happen with varying likelihood during a drifting period? The northward drift of that model always seems to bypass the Australian westcoast entirely which seemed strange to me.
@Brock, unbelievable effort and work from you, thanks
I would think that the discussion below from over at the professional pilots network and particularly the linked image which is very clear and has the scale provided should still be of great interest to many here..
#507 (permalink)
14th Aug 2015 00:52 by _Phoenix
Pontius N
Quote:
Curious that Phoenix can postulate that the images, based on colour, is acceptable but two posts pointing out that these are SOUND images from which you cannot deduce color, and that the dark patches are SOUND shadows were both deleted.
Sorry for late answer, I login only several minutes in the evenings. I read your deleted post and I agree with you about sound imagine shadow. But, if you look closely to the darken tones, especially at “the engine“ on the left side of the imagine below, you can say that the projector was scanning from N-W of the imagine. If all darken areas are only shadow, then it seems that there are 2 shadows. However, if it`s an engine, the nozzle is in the shadow of the larger diameter anyway. I saw the most darken area as the nozzle and the bottom side as the nozzle shadow, but of course these are just personal suppositions.
thcrozier,
See scale in imagine below
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/…ane-330856.jpg
@jeffwise, Arthur Sorkin, littlefoot, DennisW
maintenance seal
In an article in WSJ dated Aug 7 is stated:
“… French investigators drilled into the recovered wing section, searching for signs of a maintenance seal that Malaysian authorities documented when the missing jet previously underwent repairs, according to Mr. Wattrelos and people familiar with the matter. The findings of the French investigators didn’t match the Malaysian records, Mr. Gaudino said, according to Mr. Wattrelos. …”
Jeff Wise posted on Aug 6 9:15 AM in the previous thread: “… As for for #3, I’m intrigued as to what this means, I’ve sent a DM to Mohsin on Twitter to see if I can find out more.”
Did you get an answer from Mohsin by now? Could you please advise?
Who is Mr. Gaudino?
@Gysbreght
Gaudino = French Prosecutor
Wattrelos is french next of kin who was briefed by mr. gaudino about the findings on the flaperon
@Gysbreght
just to be precise:
But a team of investigators led by Alain Gaudino, a French counterterrorism judge examining the flaperon at a military laboratory near Toulouse, isn’t yet certain.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/french-deepen-role-in-mh370-probe-1438987656
@ CosmicAcademy:
Thanks for those clarifications. So is it just the ‘seal’ (signature) that is missing, or the modification or repairs?
@Geysbreght
By MATTHEW DALTON in Paris and ANDY PASZTOR in Los Angeles
Aug. 7, 2015 6:47 p.m. ET
……On Thursday Mr. Gaudino briefed Ghyslain Wattrelos, whose wife, son and daughter were on the plane. The investigating judge told him an examination of the wing section didn’t yield confirmation it came from Flight 370, Mr. Wattros said…..
…French investigators drilled into the recovered wing section, searching for signs of a maintenance seal that Malaysian authorities documented when the missing jet previously underwent repairs, according to Mr. Wattrelos and people familiar with the matter. The findings of the French investigators didn’t match the Malaysian records, Mr. Gaudino said, according to Mr. Wattrelos……
@Brock
Thank you very much.
@Brock
BTW, Figure 3 is an awesome graphic.
@Brock – Nice effort on your analysis. Is there a trick to get the adrift.org.au to advance more slowly and/or have it stop after a set time period less than 10 years?
One issue that might affect the outcome of all of the different drift models is, I believe, the test buoys had sea anchors. The Flaperon did not. That could mean that the buoys were influenced mostly by currents and depending on the buoyancy of the Flaperon, it might have responded more to winds and surface waves.
@CA – I have to stick with littlefoot on the maintenance seal. I don’t see any reason why a Flaperon would need to be designed to float. While Arthur’s position that the Flaperon must minimize the air flow through it from the underside to the top, just the screws and/or rivets into a seam should be adequate.
Thanks, all.
@Lauren: the CSIRO model DID add 1.5% of wind-speed to the drift algorithm. Still couldn’t get from search area to Réunion (see Fig.3).
They seem to admit 1.5% is arbitrary, because varying this through a slight range (also tested 1.2% and 1.8%) was the only sensitivity analysis they published.
I am no expert, but 1.5% seems to me toward the HIGH end of the range, as it means a 30-knot wind pushes surface debris ahead of its fully submerged counterparts by 11 nmi in a single day. Accordingly, my guess would be that the right answer is somewhere in between.
I asked CSIRO for a “0% wind” version, to test sensitivity: if they supply one, I’ll add it to the report.
@Lauren: at great risk to my accumulated gravitas in this forum (such that it is), I will divulge that the secret to my success with adrift.org.au involved a lot of tense hovering over the “PrintScreen” key…
@gysbreght, @Lauren @littlefoot
lost in press coverage
I think i could pull this apart now. Littlefoot and me were talking about two different things:
1) the leak to the New York Times on Wednesday last week did not mention a seal like i believed, but a modification to the flaperon part, taht did not exactly match the records of MAS maintenance. That was some repair done that was not documented in the proper way. Boeing being very bureaucratic about that. That was the reason why the french Judge did not speak of 100% proof contrary to the malaysians.
2) Only on Friday were reports about a “maintenance record seal” of MAS with “the right colours” that was found in the interior of the flaperon during a camera inspection, which i think took place on Thursday last week. From the existence of this seal (in the wording sense of sigillum like littlefoot said) the malaysians again concluded, that the flaperon was from MH370. This is of course overoptimistic, because the seal does not prove anything.
@Cosmic, that’s probably how it went down.
The problem with the repair which doesn’t seem to be in the books and the maintenance seal which places the flap within MAS’s realm is of course that the seal doesn’t prove the part was attached to mh370 on March 8. Theoretically it could’ve come from any of the other B777s flying for MAS. It could even be a part which was exchanged earlier and kept around. It shouldn’t be like this. Everything should be meticulously documented. But the reality looks probably very different. I recommend reading the Wikipedia article “unauthorized aircraft part” and you’ll get the idea what has to be expected – especially when dealing with an airline in financial trouble.
If any of this is very likely is a different question. Apparently the French want to be sure. I find it interesting that reportedly French investigators want to travel to Malaysia for further investigations.
@CosmicAcademy:
Thanks again for your clarification. That largely explains the press reports, but still does not completely resolve the issue.
As to item 1.: why do you say “did not exactly match the records of MAS maintenance”,”not documented in the proper way”,”Boeing being very bureaucratic”?
I would say MAS maintenance records either document the modification or they do not. Apparently they do not.
In item 2. you say: “the seal does not prove anything”. Doesn’t the presence of a MAS ‘maintenance’ seal prove that the item was processed in a MAS maintenance facility?
@Brock & Lauren, I also had my difficulties keeping track of the debris spread. I wanted a slo-mo button.
For the record: I’m NOT saying MH370 won’t be found in the current search zone; just that, if it is, it will raise more questions than answers.
My next task will be to get a group together to demand Australian agencies turn ALL their internal models (fuel, signal, drift) over for public inspection. It is high time for suspicious folks like me to be proven wrong.
I’ll preface with admitting have no skills in performing or analyzing ocean drift models.
Question: Do any of the drift models out there employ actual recorded surface winds and actual surface current data from March 8, 2014 to July 29, 2015 including the impact from the specific storms?
@Gysbreght
item 1: did not match exactly match the records of the airline
this is from the NYT Article Wednesday 5th last week, and my conclusion is that its a bit of a hairsplitting thing and i think Boeing might be overbureaucratic since the final proof depends anyway on further investigation after opening the flaperon. What i want to see here is a serial number of any part in there, that fits to the characteristics of the used starting product and material at the production date and production plant of this part, and if this part then can be traced to the particular flaperon that was built into 9M MRO. Only then we will be 100% sure that its the flaperon in question.
item 2: if you want to get rid of conspiracy talk once and forever we should make sure, that the seal was not added before it was dropped into the sea. For more see the post of littlefoot.
@Benaiahu – The little white arrows on the CSIRO animation that Brock found (http://csironewsblog.com/2015/08/05/what-does-our-ocean-modelling-tell-us-about-the-fate-of-flight-mh370/) represent wind. Watch them over time and you’ll see storms pass through the Indian Ocean. Their model used the currents plus 1.2%, 1.5% and 1.8% of the wind to determine actual drift. They settled on the 1.5% model.
@Lauren H, I apologize for my lack of effort looking into available drift models but thank you for your kind reply. My take away is that some models are attempting to employ actual vs. historical data, that’s encouraging.
From the barnacle coverage on the flaperon it appears that it was significantly submerged to my untrained eye, if so, I would think that direct wind could have played a slightly smaller role (although I can imagine surface wind has a direct impact on surface currents…)
That’s enough for me now, I’m fearful of getting drawn into drift modeling spreadsheets due to mathematical curiosities. I better stop while I can 🙂
Thanks again for the quick and thorough response!
@all
the secret life of Barnacles
for everybody who wants to find out more about those little ocean beasts
http://www.asnailsodyssey.com/LEARNABOUT/GOOSE/goosFeed.php
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/10feat_secret_life_of_barnacles-3061.pdf
even if the a.m. descriptions might not completely compare the species lepas anserifera striata it offers some reasonable insights in the secrets of Barnacles.
1) From the works of Griffith and Ms. Jones its obvious, that most Goose Barnacles are pelagic and live in tropic and subtropic oceans worldwide, and therefore anserifera might have colonized an impacting flaperon at 34S 94E (this is in the subtropical zone) as early as last year march.
2) The capitulum – that is the part of the animal where the shells are, which we realize first – will grow in the first year at the pace of 17 or so millimeter per year. After the first year the growth largely decreases to a fraction of that like some 2 mm. The peduncle, the thing that attaches to a surface, can be much longer than the capitulum.
So i think its safe to say that the small size of the capitulae of the individuals on the flaperon might not lead to the idea, that the flaperon was not long enough in the water. To the contrary, the size of the Individuals tends to support a colonization 14-16 months ago.
3) The important information is, that its very difficult to say anything about the age of the animals. There are no marks in the shells or on the bodies, that tell you the months it spent on sea. There is only some rough guessing, where you would say, that a 20 gramm individual with a capitulum length of 30 millimeter might be 20 years of age. It might prove difficult for the frenc h lab to find proof of a specific time, the larger individuals spent on the flaperon.
4) There is hope though, that they can tell us one secret about their mating life. Since they mature only after a considerable amount of time like a year or so, one can physically see whether they had had reproduction contacts already or not. If you dont find matured individuals with larvae on the flaperon its highly likely that the thing was planted.
So this tells us a lot
Sorry, not researching details, just noting incompatibilities in posts:
Description of expert view of growth rate of flaperon’s variety goose barnacles, as given by…
@jeffwise: 1mm/day…size if man’s finger in 6 weeks
@CosmicAcademy: 17mm in 1st year, 2mm/year thereafter
These two descriptions are mutually incompatible.
Cosmic, Jeff has attached his name and reputation to his numbers – are you sure you’ve got this right?
This is the video of a worn seal that I tried to post before. Maybe it will work now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TIGVhW_N1w
@Brock
the secret life of Barnacles
Thanks for your reaction. Welcome as always. You forgot, that i spoke ab out one particular part of the beast, which is the part with the shells around it, which is called capitulum. While Jeff Wise speaks about the animal as a whole, i may suppose. The animal as a whole has a long stem, which is attached to a surface. Therefore if you have a 17 mm capitulum , the stem or “peduncle” might be well 85 mm. The growth rate is very fast in the first months and decreases with coming of age. Also you could assume the ambience plays out big here, if you have a barnacle on a rock in intertidal waters this will grow only a fraction of the same species 3 km away attached to an oil rig in the open sea. Then you must consider the available nutrients (mostly phytoplankton, Plankton, algae, small fish) – there are parts of the oceans where the phytoplankton is not available in winter and therefore any offspring would die, and then 34S 94E is not a tropical sea. its subtropical and the conditions for fast growth might not prevail. At last you should take into account, that i wanted only to give some impression of what these beasts can be like and dont guarantee for perfection. The species lepas anserifera striata might not exactly compare to the species pollicipes or anatifera in the links mentioned.
So you should not miss the resume, which is, that the only practical help for us would be, to find out whether we see some mature adult Barnacles on the flaperon, because we can be sure then, that the flaperon was in water for a considerable time span.
Its not the size that tells, its the maturity and the presence of larvae within the shells.
The following comment is directed to the people who think the flaperon is a plant or think there is a strong possibility that the flaperon is a plant.
My thoughts:
1. Based on the information provided by Professor Griffths it would be next to impossible to pull-off a plant that would fool people.
2. Boeing is performing (well, I am hoping this is what they are doing.), as we type this, tests to see if an undamaged flaperon can float. They will also test to see if a damaged (similar to the damage on the island flaperon) flaperon can float. I suspect the findings will show that an undamaged/damaged flaperon can float.
3. Boeing is locating every 777 flaperon in existence. I pretty sure a representative from Boeing is inspecting in person every 777 flaperon out there. A phone call will not suffice. Knowing Boeing when a flaperon is taken off an airplane the part is shipped back to Boeing for their inspection—big time. The flaperon is not recycled. Thus the odds of having a “lost” flaperon is slim and none. You can trust Boeing to account for every flaperon.
4. There is talk about a ‘seal’ or a maintenance ‘seal’ on or in the flaperon. I suggest we wait to see if the ‘seal’ is important.
5. People have suggested that there could be a problem with the investigation of the flaperon because we have not heard anything from the authorities (on the record) for a while. Nothing strange here, folks. Yes, Boeing is taking its sweet time and the French are taking their sweet time. They want to get it right. The French are giving the Boeing people all the time they want and the Boeing people are giving the French people all the time they want. When both sides have concluded their respected investigations we will have a news conference telling us what they have found.
6. If the I.D. marks on/in the flaperon cannot tell us that the flaperon came from MH370 then the authorities will have to use the process of elimination (see #3 above). This will make a lot of people unhappy. I will not be one of them.
When the dust clears we will learn that a damaged flaperon can float, the barnacles will not be able to tell us anything important about MH370, and the plane did hit the water somewhere in the southern India Ocean.
One last note. I expect to see our very own Jeff Wise on the update episode of ‘Why Planes Vanish’ swimming in a tank as he approaches a flaperon and as he looks into the camera he says ‘See, it floats’.
@Cosmic: Jeff’s quote of Dr. Griffith’s growth rate specifically indicated it was EXCLUDING the long stem. Here’s a copy/paste from the article above:
“21 mm head length (i.e. Without the supporting stalk) in 21 days”
Let’s please sort out the basic facts before drawing any conclusions.
@Joe T, you propose an intriguing documentary. To add some drama it should be shot not in a tank but on location in the shark infested waters around La Reunion. Jeff has done his share of action documentaries. But would you volunteer for the role of the flap? If you float as well as your arguments this will be a hit 😉
@littlefoot
I would let you test the shark infested waters first. Sharks like their food to have low electrical activity.
@Joe T, spoken like a true gentleman. So no problems 🙂 🙂 🙂
But getting back to the important beasts – the barnacles:
So far we haven’t heard them speaking – at least the investigators haven’t reported anything about them. I think – while all infos about the species in general are very interesting – it’s hard to speculate as non-experts and just by looking at the pictures. I showed the pictures to two marine biologists and they promptly came to very different conclusions: while one thought they belong to the tropical/subtropical kind, the other one was sure they prefer the colder waters.
@Brock
I am quite confident that Jeff Wise got the figures perfectly right. I dont see a contradiction there. The difference is only one magnitude. And that is nothing when it comes to Barnacles. Since i started to study this subject i came across a lot of sources who state very different things about Barnacles, some with foto-evidence and we just have to stay with a relatively broad range when it comes to growth rates and sizes. I had my figures from the paper about the species pollicipes, and given the right rich tropical conditions, the particular species in question here might have the tenfold growth rate. Or under conditions of living through two winter seasons in the SIO the growth rate might be considerably smaller. There are terrible differences within the same species, as i told you above. I dont see a problem here and i dont think Prof. Griffith made a typo.
The important question would be, if Prof. Griffith or the Cologne scientist friends of the sister of Littlefoot would be able to recognize a matured individual on the fotos and to tell the juveniles from the adult inividuals.
@Brock/CA/Littlefoot
Adding to the confusion barnacles, as all animal species, have a growth rate subject to the Bertalanffy Equation. That is, the rate of growth is proportional to the maximum size minus the current size. There is obviously some variability in maximum size as well. In other words the growth rate is much faster when an organism is small and exponentially goes to zero as the organism grows.
In the case of this specific species I find that a size of about 25mm (for the capitulum) would be considered reasonable at an age of one year. While there are no reference objects in the flaperon pics I have seen, the capitulum (capituli ??) appear to be about that size or so.
All very back of the envelop mind you, but a year or so in the water seems like a reasonable estimate and may be about all someone can say. I doubt any biologist will narrow it down to +/- a month.
@CosmicAcademy
@Brock McEewn
@littlefoot
@?????????
Thank you for the information on the barnacles. All that trouble was really not necessary.
At the end of the day all that you will learn about the barnacles as they relate to the flaperon and MH370 is that barnacles can grow on a flaperon—really,that’s all!
@Cosmic, I just tried to picture marine biologists who are listening to juvenile barnacles. Please, Gary Larson come out of retirement!
@littlefoot
This may work for you:
http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcfiex5XMf1qe0js6o1_1280.jpg
@Joe T,
🙂
Joe T – so we can all calm down then….go and make a pot of tea. And when you have extinguished curiosity on this blog you can move onto the next one, with a few drop ins along the way to make sure no one is off the leash?
Believe me this group has been together on this since the beginning, has been particularly civilized apart from the occasional arm waver who crashes in and tells us all how stupid we are, then goes away. At the moment that person is you. You haven’t brought anything new to the forum, and it’s not really here to amplify the established orthodoxy in any case. More like find holes in it and or group investigation in an open minded way. Is that you?
Joe T – and taking weeks to match a flaperon is not normal. Possibly not significant in the end but not normal.
@Matty
I too am frustrated by the glacial pace of the French flaperon investigation. I can only assume that if they found some reason to discredit it, we would have heard about it. As I said in a previous post, it takes longer to prove something is true than something is false. As time passes, I am actually very comfortable that it is the real deal. I am more interested in the forensics on the damage.
In the meantime, I am surprised there has not been more reaction to Brock’s drift work. Figure 3 of that paper seems like a slam dunk to me. While Henrik’s earlier paper is rock solid, the assumption that no other debris is available to be found weakens it in the short term. There may be beaches littered with debris that no one has yet found. The a’priori model Brock has presented is very very compelling to me, and makes the ATSB conclusion that they are searching in the right place highly questionable.