Iron fertilization of the oceans

[Vitul]

Hello,

 

Iron fertilization is the process of fertilizing select zones of the ocean with iron compounds, so that it no longer acts as a trace element in the ocean. Thus, by removing the limitation on phytoplankton (marine algae), we can induce artificial phytoplankton blooms which draw in more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

 

Based on what I've studied, iron fertilization might potentially increase fish populations as well as reduce carbon emissions.

 

Do you think it is a good idea? Why/why not?

[Phi for All]

Are there drawbacks to the process that are currently recognized?

[Vitul]

Are there drawbacks to the process that are currently recognized?

 

Well, there is no concrete evidence for any drawback but there have been claims of nitrous oxide emissions. Moreover, more study needs to be done on various long-term effects, especially of the change in ecosystem structure from nanophytoplankton to diatoms. Overall, the verdict is that we require more funding for experiments and large-scale iron fertilization.

[Phi for All]

 

Well, there is no concrete evidence for any drawback but there have been claims of nitrous oxide emissions. Moreover, more study needs to be done on various long-term effects, especially of the change in ecosystem structure from nanophytoplankton to diatoms. Overall, the verdict is that we require more funding for experiments and large-scale iron fertilization.

 

What makes this process attractive to those interested in increasing fish populations? That sounds like a potential source for funding.

[Vitul]

Iron fertilization as potentially increasing fish populations hasn't been studied before, and therefore we don't have a solid basis for approaching those interested in the same. The claim is based on my own research and as a matter of fact, my latest paper is on the same thing. The problem is that I'm not being able to popularize the concept among people, which would be vital in reaching those interested in higher fish populations. If only I could get the backing of a recognized scientist, things would be different.

[Phi for All]

Do you have a list of benefits to iron fertilization? Inducing phytoplankton blooms, potentially increasing fish populations, possibly reducing carbon emissions, all of these things together increase the interest levels in investment. More benefits are going to make this process more appealing.

 

How solid is your research? Can you let us know some of the methodology used? Are the costs an obstacle at all?

[Anthony Morris]

I've read about this a little bit. Seems the iron has to be deposited in swift-moving current or the algal-bloom removes all of the oxygen from the area. As long as the current moves swiftly, the iron and the algae it fosters spread out over a wider area. I think the original intent was to sequester carbon in the algae as it sank to the ocean floor but there had been at least one report that a recent salmon harvest was enormous compared to previous hauls. I don't recall hearing or reading that the carbon sequestration was all that significant though. I think the improvement to fish population growth would be more than sufficient if the end result could be guaranteed to belong to the iron-depositors. Governments might opt to do this for the sake of their fishing rights perhaps. The potential for abuse of the tactic by the under-informed however could result in dead-zones in the oceans. Environmentalists would probably be difficult to pacify over that especially with the increase of fish manure in the waters potentially outgassing nitrous oxide. I have not seen any evidence of this however in the literature but I haven't really seen much about it either.

 

The whole idea of "hacking-the-planet" is anathema to many in the environmental arena. This idea is however potentially useful for preserving various species of fish and marine mammals and birds. I think the NO outgassing would be relatively minor compared with the benefits as only the most active portions of the oceans would be used for this.

[Vitul]

Do you have a list of benefits to iron fertilization? Inducing phytoplankton blooms, potentially increasing fish populations, possibly reducing carbon emissions, all of these things together increase the interest levels in investment. More benefits are going to make this process more appealing.

 

How solid is your research? Can you let us know some of the methodology used? Are the costs an obstacle at all?

My research is very basic, considering the equipment I've used. I barely have any specialized equipment, and my high school lab isn't willing to fund me. Most of my work is based on previous experiments on marine ecology.

 

The costs of fertilizing the ocean is very low, the only hurdle is transporting the iron to the location. The economic aspect isn't a drawback, definitely.

I've read about this a little bit. Seems the iron has to be deposited in swift-moving current or the algal-bloom removes all of the oxygen from the area. As long as the current moves swiftly, the iron and the algae it fosters spread out over a wider area. I think the original intent was to sequester carbon in the algae as it sank to the ocean floor but there had been at least one report that a recent salmon harvest was enormous compared to previous hauls. I don't recall hearing or reading that the carbon sequestration was all that significant though. I think the improvement to fish population growth would be more than sufficient if the end result could be guaranteed to belong to the iron-depositors. Governments might opt to do this for the sake of their fishing rights perhaps. The potential for abuse of the tactic by the under-informed however could result in dead-zones in the oceans. Environmentalists would probably be difficult to pacify over that especially with the increase of fish manure in the waters potentially outgassing nitrous oxide. I have not seen any evidence of this however in the literature but I haven't really seen much about it either.

 

The whole idea of "hacking-the-planet" is anathema to many in the environmental arena. This idea is however potentially useful for preserving various species of fish and marine mammals and birds. I think the NO outgassing would be relatively minor compared with the benefits as only the most active portions of the oceans would be used for this.

 

The potential nitrous oxide emissions is a well-known but unsupported argument. I agree with you, we will need to make a legal structure for the process to prevent misuse. On the other hand, carbon sequestration was also significant in some of the experiments. (Read up on EIFEX)