Study Finds That Geoengineering Technique of Ocean Iron Fertilization Can Stimulate Toxic Diatom Blooms
21 March 2010
In a new collaborative study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), oceanographers and students from Canada and the United States have demonstrated that ocean iron enrichment—a proposed geo-engineering technique designed to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and curb climate change—sharply increases the chances of developing toxic diatom blooms.
Adding iron to large regions of iron-deficient but otherwise nutrient-rich, ocean waters stimulates massive blooms of phytoplankton (photosynthetic, microscopic plant-like organisms), thereby increasing carbon dioxide uptake and removal from surface waters as these cells die and sink, or are eaten by zooplankton and then sink as fecal pellets, and sequestering the excess carbon flux into the deep sea for many years to come.
The phytoplankton species of concern belong to the pennate diatom genus Pseudo-nitzschia, a group of species that produce a potent neurotoxin that causes the human illness Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning. The naturally occurring biotoxin, called domoic acid, could put human health at risk if accumulated in shellfish, and can damage marine mammals and seabirds that feed on small fish that feed on plankton. In coastal systems, such toxic blooms contaminate organisms such as shellfish and could cause economic losses through the closure of commercial fisheries.
Based on ship-based experiments conducted in the subarctic Pacific Ocean near the Gulf of Alaska, the researchers found that iron enrichment increased the concentration of the toxin produced by each Pseudo-nitzchia single-celled organism. The scientists also found that in water samples enriched with iron, the population of the toxic algae Pseudo-nitzchia doubled in nine days relative to control samples, suggesting that the addition of iron creates conditions that give the toxic species an advantage over non-toxic species, increasing the chances of an ecologically harmful outcome.
It is an indication that we are not the masters of nature when it comes to large-scale ecological manipulations. Any positive carbon sequestration must be balanced against the evident and unforeseen environmental consequences.
—Charles Trick, University of Western Ontario
The research was led by Charles Trick of University of Western Ontario in collaboration with SF State researchers William P. Cochlan and Brian D. Bill, as well as Mark L. Wells and Lisa D. Pickell of the University of Maine and Vera L. Trainer of NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
The research was funded primarily by the National Science Foundation (Chemical Oceanography), the US Department of Energy (Ocean Carbon Sequestration), and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Resources
Charles G. Tricka, Brian D. Bill, William P. Cochlan, Mark L. Wells, Vera L. Trainer, and Lisa D. Pickell (2010) Iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas. PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910579107
So dumping huge amounts of ANYTHING in the ocean (with well meaning intentions of course) is a stupid idea and we can't control the worlds climate without breaking other things???????
Wow, who'd of thunk it??? ROFL
Posted by: DaveD | 21 March 2010 at 07:18 AM
For every action, there is a reaction, for every decision there is a consequence. There is no free lunch and those that are on track to terraform the earth to "save" it are on the wrong track.
Just quit using such massive amounts of fossil fuels and use cleaner and more sustainable alternatives. Is that such a difficult concept to understand? What part of this simple solution are people not getting and why? I believe it is the fear factor conditioning that some have spread. You want a clean environment, you lose your jobs.
Posted by: SJC | 21 March 2010 at 12:29 PM
"Just quit using such massive amounts of fossil fuels and use cleaner and more sustainable alternatives. Is that such a difficult concept to understand? What part of this simple solution are people not getting and why? I believe it is the fear factor conditioning that some have spread. You want a clean environment, you lose your jobs."
This should be clear enough.
Think of sustainability as common sense or good manners if all else fails.
Posted by: kelly | 21 March 2010 at 01:25 PM
I remember reading a Popular Science article once on geoengineering to counter AGW. They were coming up with plans like; putting a gaint parasol in orbit at the L1 point to shade the Earth or building thousands of huge technological trees to suck CO2 out of the air. And I remember thinking; 'those techtrees are bigger than the windturbines they could build now!' and 'gaint parasol? you dumbies why not solar power satellites?'
http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=aAJ8pAwSkkUC&pg=54&query=geoengineering
Posted by: ai_vin | 21 March 2010 at 03:05 PM
We use less fossil fuels, there are lower CO2 emissions. It does not matter what you believe about CO2 nor global warming, using less fossil fuel is what we must do. Don't confuse the issue, it is very clear.
Posted by: SJC | 21 March 2010 at 04:06 PM