Talk:Iron fertilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] References

Hi there. By "missing references" I just mean there's no explicit citing of sources in the text (ideally primary sources such as scientific papers). There are links to some papers, but they're a bit haphazard and don't all seem to be primary sources. Considering that there is a fair amount of interest in iron limitation of marine phytoplankton, this seems a bit remiss.

Just to stick my oar in at this point. I don't think the correct way to tag this article is references needed as such. I think what it needs is a clean up of the existing references. If it was converted to use inline referemnces it would be easier to see where things stand. I will see what I can do here.--NHSavage 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Done the merge, which introduced a few more references. I also tidied up the subsection on DMS while I was at it. It rather misrepresented the results of the cited paper which says the DMS effect is very uncertain. Not good especially when one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner. I'll start sorting in-line refs next. Shout if you don't like--NHSavage 19:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Started in line refererences. It will be a bit of a mess while I am doing this with some in-line and some not. However it should end up being better. Feel free to help. I'd also like to modify it to use Wikipedia:Citation templates which give much nicer results.--NHSavage 20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally after giving this some more thought I now propose that we follow Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines in this article. A key part of this recomendation is "Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources at the start (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify later statements for which no in-line citation is provided." I will probably remove a lot of the references we have at the moment as too many of these are quite general and do not relate firectly to this article.--NHSavage 10:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that as I proceed (slowly!) with trying to match up references to statements in the article I am marking some statements as needing citation. This does not mean that there is no reference for these statement just that I can't find it. This could be because I am looking at the wrong reference (there are large numbers!) or because the references are not available to me (books which are not online, subsription only journals etc). If you can find a reference for ahything I mark as citation needed or a better reference than the one I find please add it into the article.--NHSavage 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant references

I have started commenting out references I cannot see any relevance of. If you can see where they should be cited please do cite them inline. If not I will eventually delete them. For now though I am also copying them here.--NHSavage 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asides

[edit] Gung ho?

As an aside, the article seems a bit gung-ho on iron fertilisation to me. Most of the research on iron focuses on understanding what limits primary production in the ocean, and isn't concerned with iron as a technological fix at all. Not least because idealised studies suggest that, even if pursued aggressively, it can only mop up a moderate amount of CO2 (Aumont & Bopp, 2006, Global Biogeochemical Cycles 20 : doi:10.1029/2005GB002591). There are also suspicions that it may well lead to negative consequences down the line as remineralisation of the fixed carbon depletes subsurface oxygen concentrations.

Ashiwia 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)I dont understand the stance of only mopping up a moderate amount of CO2, Iron Fertilization is what it is, It is purposed as a solution to lowering CO2 and proven to work in the fact that it does produce photosynthisizing plants. Iron fertilization happens naturally when volcanoes go off, Volcanoes have also fertilized enough to show lowered levels of CO2. The debate should be primarly on finding a balance of all the factors rather than each one bieng a barrier to the process itself.

[edit] Krill

I wonder if you have missed the point. Ice ages scour continents exposing rock and mineral deposits rich in iron. Read about Canada and the effect the last ice age had on its mineral riches. Anyway, back to the ice age: as the glaciers gouge their way to the sea they fertilize the water with iron and other minerals. Plankton are both rich in and stingy with iron so this multiplies the amount and the extent of this effect. This is how global warming could be affecting krill numbers by slowing down glacial erosion in Antarctica. This seems so obvious that I have not written a paper on this. But if you think I should... User_talk:Kevindavid

Another aside - am I incorrect in thinking that the loss of krill is largely due to our fishing them out? The article almost makes it sound like we'd be doing nature a favour helping to promote their numbers. But I'm probably being paranoid. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ONE RESPONSE

The references were a bit sporadic so included an explicit ref section with some of the more relevent studies - mostly primary sources. Welcome further beefing up of this if deemed necessary.

The "negative consequences" argument only stands if you are proposing to overshoot known population levels, and since plankton are currently running tens of billions of tons below 1980-normal, it's hard to see where this unique array of harms is supposed to emerge from if you are only restoring them.

It's sort of like saying, "Thanks to DDT we have 10% fewer songbirds in our woods than 20 years ago. We can't restore them though, because we don't know what grievous harm that 10% increment might wreak upon the environment."

And, yes, promoting krill numbers is a big league "good thing", at least if you want your grandkids to ever see a great whale.

PS: According to the Wiki "krill fishery" entry, "Estimates for how much krill there is vary wildly, depending on the methodology used. They range from 125–725 million tonnes of biomass globally.[1] The total global harvest of krill from all fisheries amounts to 150 – 200,000 tonnes annually." This range seems a bit absurd, but the relative proportion of fishing catch to even the lowest total doesn't in any way account for the die-offs we are witnessing see Study sees 80 percent less krill, follows Arctic report on warming for a quick secondary ref. --wdk July 31, 2006

Ah-ha. Thanks very much. Sorry I'm responding so late - I completely missed iron fertilization's appearance on my watchlist when you edited. I'll try to have a proper look soon.
Regarding my point about krill, I'm clearly wrong there, but I would add that just because krill numbers have fallen it doesn't follow that we should try to raise them. They may be on some long-term cycle that we don't know about. Or they may be in decline due to anthropogenic changes (though not fisheries as I'd suggested before). Until we know why, it'd probably not be a good idea to monkey about too much - our record on adjusting ecological systems isn't good (to say the least).
More generally, I still think the article is over-selling iron fertilization. Most of the literature on iron is not related to using it as a mechanism for counteracting anthro CO2, and those items that are don't find that it necessarily helps (let alone examine possible negative consequences such as deep water anoxia).
Anyway, thanks for your good works so far. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon balance

I see no analysis here that identifies the amount of CO2 that would be generated during the mining, ore processing, iron shaving preparation, transportation to coastal area, and transportation to/from 'sowing' site. Nor do I see an economic analysis of what would happen to iron prices. There's much more legwork to be done before this becomes a subject for consideration. Skyemoor 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the theory is that, mole for mole, iron added to the ocean would still remove more CO2 than would be generated mining it (as iron is only a micronutrient). As I've noted above, I think there are more serious problems with the idea of iron fertilization - not least the fact that some work suggests it's considerably less effective than its proponents suggest. And the consequences for deep ocean oxygen concentrations of suddenly importing more organic carbon aren't clear either. I've certainly read somewhere (but can't find the reference) that methanogenesis caused by deep anoxia may produce more than enough methane (a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2) to offset any gain from removing atmospheric CO2. Anyway, when I've the time to track down some more references, I'll have a go at addressing these issues. But please edit away in the meantime! Cheers, --Plumbago 11:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Iron is 5% of the earths crust and the 5th most abundant element I am not sure it would affect prices, as far as the cost of mining and processing the cost of iron fertilization is touted as cheap. Carbon is the 4th most abundant resource on earth. understanding the extent to what 5% of earths crust and 4th most abundunt resource is key here. As far as Methanogenisis, I have a hard time with the concept of methane being originally depleted in earths atmosphere because of photosynthizising plants yet it is said you could create more Methane than you break down in the process here. Deep sea anoxia occurs only in the deepest parts of the ocean where circulation is zero like in a trench it might produce some methane in those limited areas but Methane is also released as the polar ice caps melt, considering the current levels of methane which is in ppb and speed at which it is broke down by photosynthesis it just seems methane production would be very minimal if not even reduced. I would be interested in seeing some actual numbers on levels of methane that would be expected. I also would just like to mention there seems to be a dispute as to iron fertilizations effectivness, the gallapagos study was catagorized as dramatic in the info I read about it, just because it didnt work as well in antartica doesnt prove that its not as effective, Something seems to have happened between the first study and the kyoto protocal that has divided this topic but its effectiveness cant be denied by data allready given if used in the right areas IE: warmer water. However I am at a loss even with the antartica trials because it still worked! enough to track where the carbon went in deeper water! its limited effectivness seems to be a matter of who you talk to.Ashiwia 07:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing unsourced conversation

There are unsourced dialogues between 'critics' and 'advocates' with no identification as to who is criticising or advocating. It'd be useful to know exactly who these critics and advocates are, both so we can evaluate possible biases and also so that we can confirm that their arguments are accurately represented. --Ryan Wise 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] creation of methane int the deep oceans

Methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Anoxic decomposition of organic compounds would create methane, which could worsen global warming. Shouldn't this page address this concern?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.18.32 (talk • contribs)

Methane was originally broken down on earth because of photosynthisizing plants, so during fertilization methane should be reduced, Its definatly a concern but one of the objectives of lowering CO2 is to stop the ice caps from melting which also release methane. To say say global warming would be worse due to methane as a result of iron fertilization needs consideration of the release of methane if iron fertilization doesnt take place ultimately and the rates at which the environment allready reduces methane.Ashiwia 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, Ashiwia, you might like to read the articles on methane and methanogenesis. I don't think things work in quite the way you're suggesting. Methane, for instance, is not broken down by photosynthesising plants; as it happens, methane is often produced by the (anaerobic) breakdown of plant material. Also, the polar ice caps do not contain methane; instead, climate change may warm the ocean sufficiently for seafloor deposits of methane hydrate to be destabilised and enter the atmosphere.
In the case of iron, what may happen is that after fertilisation the resultant increased flux of organic carbon into the deep ocean may decrease oxygen concentrations there, causing the flourishing of methanogen communities. Eventually the methane they produce may reach the atmosphere and have climatic consequences more severe than those of the CO2 originally trapped by the iron fertilisation.
It is still unclear if this is a major consideration, however. Perhaps more significantly is the finding of models (such as Aumont & Bopp, 2006, Globalizing results from ocean in situ iron fertilization studies Global Biogeochemical Cycles 20 : doi:10.1029/2005GB002591) that iron fertilisation may be less effective at the global scale than small-scale field trials suggest. If these are correct, iron fertilisation of the oceans will not go ahead, and concerns about methanogens will be academic. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Ocean Nourishment

I notice the page on Ocean Nourishment has been unmerged. Please justify why this requires a seperate page to this one. As far as I can see the page contains no information about other methods of ocean norishment than are here. I accept that I may have acted too fast last time but please explain to me the logic of these two different pages.--NHSavage 11:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging?
Ocean Nourishment is a more general concept than iron fertilisation. It imagines providing the missing nutrient in regions were the recirculation of the deep water brings back the added nutrients to be used again in the biological pump. Iron fertilisation is expected to return the deep water without the added iron and so the carbon stored initially will return to the atmosphere.Ocean Engineer 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Iron fertilisation is a subtopic of the article in question, but are there any other forms of ocean nourishment besides iron fertilization? The article at this stage discusses no topics that aren't covered here, so I would support a merge. If there are other forms worth writing about, however, it can be left for later expansion. Richard001 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ocean Nourishment (never heard it expressed that way before!) should definitely be merged into this article. That said, this dodgy article describes a mechanism for fertilising the surface ocean with nutrients other than iron. Seems totally bogus to me (the proposal seems to forget that there's already carbon in the deep ocean, not just nutrients), but is a possible example of non-iron "ocean nourishment". Cheers, --Plumbago 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
YES PLEASE DO MERGE! I have personally done 2 experiments with phytoplankton. The first involved adding a bolt (which contains many elements including iron) and the other involved adding iron filings. Phytoplankton with the bolt did much better than those with just the iron! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:140.254.57.29 (talk • contribs).
I oppose merging, because this topic is about to get much more attention due to the Virgin Earth Challenge [1]. IMHO some kind of phytoplankton system is the most likely way to win the $25 million prize, and Ocean Nourishment with a variety or cocktail of nutrients is likely to be a subject of significant further research in the near to mid term. 24.57.191.81 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we merge the more specific article iron fertilization into the more general article ocean nourishment instead of vice-versa? Keep the article under the more general title. 38.100.34.2 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Support Make Iron fertilization the main page and Ocean Nourishment a redirect.
Google hits
  • "Iron fertilization" = 56,800
  • "Ocean Nourishment" = 876 . Lumos3 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions and further research

The last couple of sentences mention larger scale research due to be completed towards the end of 2006. What was the outcome? I notice they haven't been added to the history of oceanic trials... perhaps they didn't go ahead? 203.206.64.199 22:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for critics / Material from National Geographic

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0108_020108oceaniron.html

http://www.plentymag.com/thecurrent/2007/05/produce_plankton_curb_carbon.php

I'm afraid i'll not have the time right now to go over the article and provide sources for the critics with some of this material, but maybe someone can. 88.65.38.91 09:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ecological issues

I've removed this entire section as it has very little to do with iron fertilisation. None of the sources support the idea that iron fertilisation will alleviate the issues described. Furthermore, the section is riven with errors, such as the howlers about acidification (were it to work, iron fertilisation would increase ocean uptake of carbon, acidifying it even faster!). I've put it here in case anyone wishes to salvage anything from it. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ecological issues
NASA and NOAA recently reported that since the early 1980s marine phytoplankton populations have declined by over 20% in the Pacific Ocean [citation needed] and 6~9% globally [1]. Since these plankton constitute the base of the entire marine food pyramid, their declining numbers mean less nourishment for all other marine species. This relationship was dramatized by the great plankton die-off along America's Pacific Coast in the summer of 2005 that littered California beaches with thousands of fish and seabirds that had starved to death.[citation needed]
Marine Food Web
Marine Food Web
Most concerning, the southern ocean krill populations that feed directly on phytoplankton have plummeted nearly 80% since the 1970s.[2] These small crustaceans are the primary food for penguins, other seabirds, many commercially important fisheries, and the most endangered whale species[3]. Ocean scientists from Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute have in fact suggested that a large scale plankton restoration program in the cetacean nursery zones of the southern ocean could help return the krill-dependent great baleen whales (blue, humpback, gray, right, etc.) to healthy levels again in 10~20 years.[citation needed] This could also potentially benefit fisheries.
Besides recharging the marine food chain, iron-triggered plankton restoration could help reduce ocean surface acidification that has increased tenfold in the last two decades threatening the integrity of diatoms, foraminifera, coral and other creatures with acid-vulnerable carbonate skeletons. (Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase concentrations of carbonic acid in surface waters, but phytoplankton blooms absorb large volumes of CO2 during photosynthesis and help buffer the acidity.)[citation needed]

Further to the above, I'm removing more of this stuff - when it's not actually redundant, it's really half-baked, misleading nonsense at times. --Plumbago 12:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Climatic effects
As John Martin envisioned from his water research and the paleoclimatological record, increasing phytoplankton photosynthesis and primary productivity could have significant impacts on atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
Historically marine phytoplankton have absorbed and fixed nearly half of all planetary CO2 emissions or approximately 50 billion tons per year. NASA and NOAA's most conservative estimate of global plankton decline in the last 25 years is at least 6%. Simply returning these populations to known 1980 levels of health and activity could therefore annually sequester 2~3 billion more tons of CO2 than are being removed today or a third to one half of all current industrial and automotive emissions. Also, water with more algae has a higher albedo, it would reflect more sunlight and cause less heating of the ocean (see image at top).
Please put the good parts of the top section back in (the bottom one is too thin though) as it helps to point out how phytoplankton fits into the natural processes and other bits of the article seem kind of unballanced with comments like "Scale: most trials used less than 1000 kg of iron and thus created small blooms that were quickly devoured by opportunistic zooplankton, krill and fish that swarmed into the seeded region. " With the missing section in place it adds a more objective view and better understanding of the system in general. The cute little picture is also good for people like me that don't like to read things. Furthermore, your concerns about acidification are properly aleviated when you read the entire article and put together that the plankton produce oxygen and are themselves (a solid containing carbon) sinking to the botom as oposed to acidification via carbon dioxide disolved in water (carbonic acid). As the plankton are aquatic plants and don't have lungs they absorb disolved CO2 (which in this state is an acid)and release O2 which is, by process, disolved in the water and extracted by the gills of fish or other means of subsurface absorbtion or exchanged with the atmosphere at the surface. The solid carbon in the body of the plankton (carbohydrate)is either used by an organism that eats it or it makes it's way downward.
One other thing that recurently bothered me about this article (besides what apears to be a non-productive [needs citation]-commando) is that all thru it there are several mentions of how methane will be produced deep in the ocean where the carbon is sinking and it will get back into the atmosphere. How deep are we talking? Is this just a hypothysis? If I remember correctly CO2 becomes a liquid in the deepest parts of the ocean and the only known life in that area is around thermal vents because the temprature a few feet away is far below freezing (but can't freeze because of pressure) and the organisms there live via a sulfer cycle instead of just a carbon cycle. Methane is compressed to a liquid far easier than CO2 and *I'm assuming* would not rise any easier than CO2. There is a lot of talk about carbon causing oxygen depletion and methane production without mentioning the aerobic and anerobic processes of decomposition or the specific depths involved (the ocean is a layered ecosystem of various depths and widely varying physical properties) or other creatures that are expected to be in this area. This needs to be cleared up by very specific details because otherwise it just stinks of random opinions by laymen where this is an active scientific experiment that doesn't need any useless asumptions posted like facts that could rot it out before the experiments conclude and present their findings as a coherant model of what happens to the earth's entire system when you dump tons of iron dust in the iron empoverished regions of the ocean.
Ok, one more thing... There are several concerns about methane production from this thingie even though several spots in the article show that the very formula that demonstrates the function of iron in this whole concept is utterly dependant on vast quantities of nitrogen ( represented by the letter " N " ). 16 nitrogens for every 106 carbons some phosphorous (a common agricultural polutant) and a tiny amount of iron. So to save extra typing just re-read the part about solid carbon and carbohydrates and substitute nitrogen and protien respectively (though I'm not claiming nitrogen is a solid :).
I apoligize for the longwindedness there Plumbago and I've squeezed all my concerns from the article and discussions sections into this one chunk so I'm not aiming it at you. You seem to be the unofficial leader on this article so I hope you can aid the cleaning of this to some extent. Certainly an article about a scientific experiment is best supported by scientific procedures, formula, and results. Especialy one which has so many variables that are not commonly found in ones normal daily life. The implications of a success or failure of iron enrichment on the planet and the ability to continue populating it are huge. Craig 24.249.23.252 03:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

An interesting article, I have some questions:

- Don't carbon credits trade for about GBP 3, a fraction of the price in the article?

- What is the effect on fish stocks? As plankton blooms support the bottom of the food chain, might a commercial operator take a cargo of iron out and fish back, sketching patterns of iron on the ocean surface to concentrate fish in particular areas?

- The quantites involved seem vast. Given that you start with a desert-like section of ocean, might one seed an area of ocean with an iron/plankton mix to promote particular species? What's the before/after biomass in such an experiment?

I have no special knowledge in this field.

Mgrazebrook (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean Acidity.

If the oceans are becoming increasingly acidified as CO2 levels increase does this mean that they are less able to support life ? If so would reducing the acidity increase the ability to support life and therefore reduce CO2 levels . Perhaps this is another way in which charcoal or biochar can be used since charcoal can absorb and neutralise acids and poisons like hydrogen sulphide . It works on a small scale in ponds . Flumstead (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)