After the SOIREE: Testing the Limits of Iron Fertilization
"To Fe or not to Fe?" If that is the question, oceanographers have been
seeking answers ever since the late John Martin proved that the element iron
(Fe) is a limiting nutrient for the growth of phytoplankton in many regions of
the ocean.
John Martin proposed it would be possible to add sufficient iron to the
oceans to induce large phytoplankton blooms that would affect and reduce the
rising concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere.
Remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere by this process, he surmised,
and Earth's climate could even be affected (hence Martin's humorous comment
that if you gave him a trainload of scrap iron, he'd give you another Ice
Age).
So, oceanographers have been seeking to determine if might be possible
to do what Martin's jest suggested -- in particular, they have been trying to
answer the question of whether it is actually possible to reduce the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by fertilizing the oceans
with iron. If this were done on a sufficiently large scale, such a program
would potentially cause the enhanced growth of phytoplankton, bigger and
longer-lasting phytoplankton blooms, the accompanying extraction of
CO2 from the atmosphere, and - if the bloom sank into the ocean -
this effort would ultimately result in the long-term sequestration of carbon
derived from the atmosphere in the ocean depths.
Experiments such as Iron-Ex and SOIREE (see the link below to the
Science Focus! article about SOIREE) showed that it was indeed possible
to conduct large-scale ocean iron fertilization experiments. The
recently-published results of two such experiments, SERIES (Subarctic Ecosystem
Response to Iron Enrichment Study) and SOFeX (Southern Ocean Iron Experiment)
have provided a range of answers to the prior question: one negative result and
several results that might be positive.
The image below is a "lucky catch". SeaWiFS was fortunate to acquire two
images of the SERIES iron-stimulated bloom in the cloudy northeastern Pacific
Ocean (see Boyd et al. 2004). The image below was acquired on July 29,
2002, when the bloom was close to its peak, i.e., the concentration of
phytoplankton was maximal as a result of previously rapid growth induced by the
addition of iron. This image was acquired 19 days after the initial addition of
iron to the surface ocean.
SeaWiFS image of the northeastern Pacific Ocean
acquired on July 29, 2002, showing the SERIES iron-fertilized bloom at
bottom center. (Click on the image for a full-size version.)
Close-up of SERIES iron-fertilized bloom.
SeaWiFS also acquired an image of the declining phase of the bloom five
days later, when the growth of the phytoplankton had slowed down considerably.
At this point, the bloom appears much "dimmer" because much of the bloom was no
longer present in the upper ocean. The primary reason that the growth of
phytoplankton slowed down between over those five days was the depletion of the
important nutrients iron and silicic acid (which can be referred to as Si or
silica). Without these nutrients, the phytoplankton couldn't continue to grow,
and so the bloom declined, with only a small portion of the carbon it had
produced sinking deep into the ocean.
The SERIES experiment results emphasized the importance of silica for
the growth of the ubiquitous phytoplankton called diatoms. Diatoms form
shells out of silica, and these shells come in an enormous variety of shapes
and sizes. An example of a few different diatoms is shown below.
Photomicrograph of various diatom species.
Although SERIES produced a large amount of data for oceanographers to
consider, two results were considered of primary importance. The first was the
importance of silicic acid as a limiting nutrient for the continuing growth of
diatoms and diatom blooms (see the section entitled "What is a limiting
nutrient?" below). When iron was present in sufficient concentrations, the
availability of silicic acid, used by the diatoms to make their shells, was the
main control on the rate of diatom growth. When the added iron was used up,
diatom growth was limited by both Fe and Si.
The second result concerned the rate of particulate organic carbon
export from the bloom. Carbon export is important because the transfer of
carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean is how iron fertilization would
ultimately alter the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Growing
diatoms are subject to a variety of fates; one of the most common fates is that
they are eaten by zooplankton. The zooplankton excrete fecal material, which
then sinks, which is an important mode of carbon export. However, if the
zooplankton keep living near the surface of the ocean, getting bigger and
fatter from feasting on diatoms, that's not a form of carbon export! Another
diatom fate is that they simply die and sink, which is an export mode. A third
fate is that they die and the organic matter they contain is digested
(oceanographers use the term "remineralized") by bacteria. Because
remineralized carbon from the diatoms also stays near the surface, this is also
not a form of carbon export.
In the SERIES experiment, only a very small amount of organic carbon
created by the growth of the diatoms was actually exported (traps for settling
material deployed underneath the bloom were used to measure how much of the
carbon sank into the deep ocean). So the SERIES results indicated that iron
fertilization for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 would not work,
especially if there wasn't enough silicic acid to allow the continuing growth
of diatoms.
But what if types of phytoplankton other than diatoms could utilize
added iron to fuel their growth and reproduction? The results of SOFeX
addressed that question.
SOFeX was conducted in two different locations in the Southern Ocean
(the ocean around Antarctica). In the southern location, SOFeX-S, silicic acid
concentrations are very high. In the northern location, SOFeX-N, silicic acid
concentrations are very low. The following images are MODIS and SeaWiFS images
of the SOFeX-N and SoFeX-S blooms, respectively. The images
are excerpted with permission from Coale et al., "Southern Ocean Iron Enrichment
Experiment: Carbon Cycling in High- and Low-Si Waters, Science,
Vol 304, Issue 5669, 408-414, 16 April 2004. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1089778]
Copyright 2004 AAAS.
(left) MODIS image of the SOFeX-N northern iron-
fertilized bloom. This image was acquired on day 28 of the experiment.
(right) SeaWiFS image of the SOFeX-S southern iron-fertilized bloom. This
image was acquired on day 20 of the experiment.
Click on images for larger version
Chlorophyll concentration color scale for the
SOFeX images. Use of these images is with the express permission of
Science magazine. Readers
may view, browse, and/or download these images for temporary copying
purposes only, for noncommercial personal use. Except as provided by
law, these images may not be further reproduced, distributed, transmitted,
modified, adapted, displayed, published or sold in whole or in part without
the express written permission of the publisher.
SoFeX-S produced a phytoplankton bloom consistent with expectations: a
bloom consisting primarily of diatoms. Due to the high concentration of silicic
acid and sufficient iron, this bloom kept on blooming and blooming -- it was
still "healthy" when the research vessel monitoring it had to return to port.
As the diatoms were still healthy, not many of them died and sank to deeper
waters, to the carbon flux exported from the bloom (measured by instrumented
traps deployed beneath the bloom) was underestimated. And because the bloom
consisted of diatoms, chemical measurements indicated that the bloom
substantially depleted the available silicic acid in the waters where the bloom
was active.
SoFeX-N produced a bloom that was somewhat more unusual. Rather than
being composed primarily of diatoms, this bloom was a mixture of about 50%
diatoms and 50% phytoplankton that did not make shells out of silica. This
unusual bloom composition was one of the most significant results of SoFeX. The
MODIS image indicates (by the shape of the bloom) that it was in an area with
an oceanic front, and the circulation at the front carried part of the bloom
down to deeper waters (a process called subduction. Subduction of the
bloom meant that more carbon was transferred to deeper waters than the simple
sinking of carbon particles would have accomplished. Another significant result
was that this bloom also showed no signs of slowing down when the experiment
was over when ships had left the sites of the blooms. Free-drifting robotic
buoys that measured seawater carbon chemistry were deployed in each bloom
(Bishop et al. 2004), and these buoys oontinued to report back on the
status of the bloom.
An important result from both SERIES and SoFeX was that the carbon
export measurements were still considerably lower than estimates which have
been used to model the use of oceanic iron fertilization for the purpose of
removing CO2 from the atmosphere. So even though the SERIES results
indicated that iron fertilization was unlikely to appreciably affect
atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and the SoFeX results were more
promising, iron fertilization is probably not an effective strategy to
significantly alter CO2 in the atmosphere.
There is, however, much more that can be learned about iron and
phytoplankton. At the end of 2004, an experiment named CROZEX (see link below)
will investigate how iron from the Crozet Islands creates a persistent
phytoplankton bloom in that region of the far southern Indian Ocean. The KEOPS
study (also linked below) is already underway, with several cruises
investigating the how the Kerguelen archipelago may provide iron to the ocean
waters in that region. The Science Focus article "The Low Zone" also
discusses phytoplankton productivity, or the lack of it, in this region of the
world.
What is a limiting nutrient?
One of the concepts central to the investigation of iron fertilization
in the oceans is the concept of a "limiting nutrient". Put simply, the limiting
nutrient is the nutrient, an element required for phytoplankton growth, that is
in shortest supply relative to the needs of the phytoplankton. The limiting
nutrient will be the element that is used up by the growing phytoplankton
first, and when the nutrient is used up, phytoplankton will cease growing.
While that concept may be simple, in the oceans it is not always easy to
determine which nutrient is the limiting nutrient. The most common nutrients
are nitrate (N) and phosphorus (P), and because marine organisms need a lot
more N than P, nitrate is frequently the limiting nutrient, particularly in
coastal areas. N is usually available to organisms in the form of dissolved
nitrate ion, but ammonia and urea may also be utilized. Complicating the
situation is the activity of phytoplankton, notably Trichodesmium, which
can fix N from the atmosphere (as soybeans do on land) and act as a source of N
for other phytoplankton.
As noted in the article, in the SERIES experiment, silicic acid became
the limiting nutrient because diatoms require silicic acid to manufacture their
ornate shells. However, the focus of the iron fertilization experiments has
been on what are called high-nitrate low-chlorophyll (HNLC) regions of the
ocean, where it is obvious that nitrate is not the limiting nutrient. The
initiation of phytoplankton blooms by the addition of iron in HNLC regions
confirmed that iron is the limiting nutrient in most of these areas.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully thank Dr. Philip Boyd for an expert review of
this Science Focus! article.
Links
References
Note that these references are available online at Science, but
require a subscription for access. The link after the reference will provide
access to the article only if you have a subscription.
- Philip Boyd, "Ironing Out Algal Issues in the Southern Ocean",
Science, Vol 304, Issue 5669, 396-397, 16 April 2004. [DOI:
10.1126/science.1092677]
[Link]
- Coale et al., "Southern Ocean Iron Enrichment Experiment: Carbon Cycling
in High- and Low-Si Waters, Science, Vol 304, Issue 5669, 408-414,
16 April 2004. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1089778]
[Link]
- Buesseler et al., "The Effects of Iron Fertilization on Carbon
Sequestration in the Southern Ocean", Science, Vol 304, Issue 5669,
414-417 , 16 April 2004. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1086895]
[Link]
- Bishop et al., "Robotic Observations of Enhanced Carbon Biomass and
Export at 55S During SOFeX", Science, Vol 304, Issue 5669, 417-420, 16
April 2004. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1087717]
[Link]
Return to Index
|
|