From the Alfred Wegener Institute and the what took you so long department comes this interesting result. Carbon sequestration via algal blooms that sink to the sea floor after expiring – just add iron.
The results, which were published in the scientific journal Nature, provide a valuable contribution to a better understanding of the global carbon cycle

An international research team has published the results of an ocean iron fertilization experiment (EIFEX) carried out in 2004 in the current issue of the scientific journal Nature. Unlike the LOHAFEX experiment carried out in 2009, EIFEX has shown that a substantial proportion of carbon from the induced algal bloom sank to the deep sea floor. These results, which were thoroughly analyzed before being published now, provide a valuable contribution to our better understanding of the global carbon cycle.
An international team on board the research vessel Polarstern fertilized in spring 2004 (i.e. at the end of the summer season in the southern hemisphere) a part of the closed core of a stable marine eddy in the Southern Ocean with dissolved iron, which stimulated the growth of unicellular algae (phytoplankton). The team followed the development of the phytoplankton bloom for five weeks from its start to its decline phase. The maximum biomass attained by the bloom was with a peak chlorophyll stock of 286 Milligram per square metre higher than that of blooms stimulated by the previous 12 iron fertilization experiments. According to Prof. Dr. Victor Smetacek and Dr. Christine Klaas from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association, this was all the more remarkable because the EIFEX bloom developed in a 100 metre deep mixed layer which is much deeper than hitherto believed to be the lower limit for bloom development.
The bloom was dominated by diatoms, a group of algae that require dissolved silicon to make their shells and are known to form large, slimy aggregates with high sinking rates at the end of their blooms. “We were able to prove that over 50 per cent of the plankton bloom sank below 1000 metre depth indicating that their carbon content can be stored in the deep ocean and in the underlying seafloor sediments for time scales of well over a century”, says Smetacek.
These results contrast with those of the LOHAFEX experiment carried out in 2009 where diatom growth was limited by different nutrient conditions, especially the absence of dissolved silicon in the chosen eddy. Instead, the plankton bloom consisted of other types of algae which, however, have no protective shell and were eaten more easily by zooplankton. “This shows how differently communities of organisms can react to the addition of iron in the ocean”, says Dr. Christine Klaas. “We expect similarly detailed insights on the transportation of carbon between atmosphere, ocean and sea bottom from the further scientific analysis of the LOHAFEX data”, adds Prof. Dr. Wolf-Gladrow, Head of Biosciences at the Alfred Wegener Institute, who is also involved in the Nature study.
Iron plays an important role in the climate system. It is involved in many biochemical processes such as photosynthesis and is hence an essential element for biological production in the oceans and, therefore, for CO2 absorption from the atmosphere. During past ice ages the air was cooler and drier than it is today and more iron-containing dust was transported from the continents to the ocean by the wind. The iron supply to marine phytoplankton was hence higher during the ice ages. This natural process is simulated in iron fertilisation experiments under controlled conditions.
“Such controlled iron fertilization experiments in the ocean enable us to test hypotheses and quantify processes that cannot be studied in laboratory experiments. The results improve our understanding of processes in the ocean relevant to climate change”, says Smetacek. “The controversy surrounding iron fertilization experiments has led to a thorough evaluation of our results before publication”, comments the marine scientist as an explanation for the long delay between the experiment to the current publication in Nature.
Original publication: Victor Smetacek, Christine Klaas et al. (2012): Deep carbon export from a Southern Ocean iron-fertilized diatom bloom. Nature doi:10.1038/nature11229
Summary of the experiment: A patch of 150 square kilometres (circle with a diameter of 14 kilometres) within an marine eddy of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current was fertilized with seven tonnes of iron sulphate on 13/14 February 2004. This corresponds to an iron addition of one hundredth of a gramme per square metre. The resultant iron concentration of 2 nanomole per litre is similar to values measured in the wake of melting icebergs; the iron concentrations in coastal regions tend to be much higher.
The input of iron in regions with high nutrient concentrations (nitrate, phosphate, silicate) and low chlorophyll content (the so-called high-nutrient / low-chlorophyll regions) stimulates the growth of plankton algae (phytoplankton). After fertilization, the development of the plankton bloom was investigated using standard oceanographic methods over a period of five weeks. From the surface water down to a depth of over 3,000 metres, chlorophyll, organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphate and other parameters were measured to follow the development, demise and sinking of the bloom and the associated export of carbon. In addition, the phytoplankton and zooplankton species and bacterial numbers and abundance were determined. The chlorophyll content rose over a period of 24 days after fertilization. Thereafter, phytoplankton aggregates formed and sank within a few days to depths of 3,700 metres. Long spines of these diatoms and mucous substances led to aggregate formation and export of the fixed carbon from the surface to the sea floor. This process was monitored for five weeks after the start of fertilisation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They can’t possibly be suggesting that dust-borne iron from the continents is a significant factor in carbon sequestration leading to ice ages… can they?
I sometimes wonder if somebody slipped some LSD into my beer.
I can help you with that. No. There, that was easy.
rgb
Eight-and-a-half years to publish results? Eight-and-a-half YEARS? Wow – that is some ‘thorough evaluation’. Or did someone fall asleep at the wheel?
But, why are they researching carbon sequestration anyway? Prolly something to do with funding….
I would also expect during a glacial period for the glacial ice on land to accumulate iron dust. When those glaciers melt, I would expect there to be a rather large pulse of iron enriched water and sediment into the oceans. This would tend, I would imagine, to suppress the initial increase in CO2 from such things as reactivation of bogs until such time as the iron content of the oceans is depleted and the atmospheric CO2 then begins to rise. 100,000 years worth of ice would surely accumulate a lot of iron, to my mind.
This is all very interesting and appears to be good empirical science for a change. I was intergued by the diatoms and wounder what the conditions were in the Pre Cambrian what most of the world iron ore resources were form.
“Carbon sequestration via calcium carbonate – just add iron.”
I presume you didn’t read the paper. The carbon was exported as organic carbon not as carbonate. Diatoms are siliceous algae.
———————-
Robert Brown says:
July 18, 2012 at 1:35 pm
They can’t possibly be suggesting that dust-borne iron from the continents is a significant factor in carbon sequestration leading to ice ages… can they?
—————-
There are several papers exploring the potential for increase dust deposition during the glaciations to fertilize the ocean and draw down CO2 (eg http://rem.sfu.ca/COPElab/Boppetal2003_paleoceanography.pdf). The effect is real, but probably not large enough to account for more than a portion of the decease in CO2 concentration during the glaciations.
REPLY: Richard Telford make a good point, not about me reading the paper, but about diatoms. I was was thinking of the CaCO3 of Forminafera, used a lot in climate studies and covered here many times. Forminafera shells are made up of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) while diatom shells are composed of silicon dioxide (SiO2). The carbon sequestration is this instance are mostly in the “goo” of the Algal blooms. I’ve edited the post to be more accurate. – Anthony
O/T ?
“Iron meteorites – largest meteorites but no craters”
Iron meteorites are the largest meteorites found on earth. Strangely the largest meteorites discovered on earth have never been found with a crater.
The standard answers and theories for why there are no craters around these iron meteorites involve them all having landed on ice sheets during ice ages or having been washed into place………
==============
Lots of pictures, and the source of above excerpt, here:
http://www.geulogy.com/iron_meteorites-hoba-west-no-craters-glacial-erratics.html
Heinrich events raft armadas of icebergs into the North Atlantic. Iron & other nutrient transport in this manner could also help explain sudden climatic shifts during glacial phases.
Did they happen to mention the ideal mean level of C02, I must have missed it.
How much C02 was captured by the 8 tons of Iron? I don’t see that in the link, offhand.
I see they put in 7 tons of iron, but nowhere do they show how much extra CO2 absorption took place. As and engineer I would like to see the cost / materials required to gain this offset. Let’s just float that big orange hunk of iron in San Fran out and save us from the China power plants.
Mike Jowsey says:
July 18, 2012 at 1:36 pm
> Eight-and-a-half years to publish results? Eight-and-a-half YEARS? Wow – that is some ‘thorough evaluation’. Or did someone fall asleep at the wheel?
Maybe they had a hostile peer review.
What else goes down with the diatoms to the bottom of the ocean? Silicates, Carbonates, phosphates… hummm, I guess not only carbon dioxide will get requested… could it possible to deplete the oceans enough to affect other species that need those chemicals to grow?
Okay they used seven tonnes of iron sulphate. How much carbon did it help to capture? How much more carbon was captured than would be captured anyway if no iron was added? That’s what I’m missing…
Considering all the other nutrients required for these things to grow, have they experimented with just dumping a few hundred thousand gallons of beer into the sea? Seems that should work, too.
And…this is why droughts are important. Where else do you think the iron comes from? Drought produces dry dusty soil that when subjected to strong winds and thunderstorm deluges, rides the wind and rivers to the oceans. Several years of drought driven fertilization is necessary to produce the oceanic abundance that in turn feeds the world. Long live the drought. Let’s hope it works as well as it did in the 30’s when the dust bowl worked its iron magic.
The idea of some idiot Greenies running with this idea and actually altering the oceans/atmosphere at least in some locals does not give me the warm fussies.
I can just see Greenpeace organizing a bunch of useful idiots to salt lots of the ocean with iron and the resulting mess. This Image comes to mind.
Can we get core samples from the ocean floor to verify conjectures about iron sources and carbon sequestration over geologic time?
Can we have Chaetoceros atlanticus in Italics or failing that underlined.
Massive algae blooms already do horrible things to the immediate ecosystem, and I still don’t understand why anyone would actually want to induce them. I have never seen any results or indication that these sorts of things do more good than harm (at least, for anyone besides the organisms blooming).
Feel free to enlighten me.
“The diatom Pseudonitzchia, present in Antarctic waters, is well known for producing toxins.” http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/diatoms-can-be-toxic/
I think the results of this study highlight how little we know about the effects of phytoplankton in the global carbon cycle. Environmental extremists have always talked about how deforestation was going to contribute to global warming while ignoring the importance of the lowly phytoplankton that live in the oceans and waters of our planet.
“Phytoplankton account for possibly 90% of the world’s oxygen production because water covers about 70% of the Earth and phytoplankton are abundant in the photic zone of the surface layers. Some of the oxygen produced by phytoplankton is absorbed by the ocean, but most flows into the atmosphere where it becomes available for oxygen dependent life forms.” (http://marinebio.org/Oceans/ocean-resources.asp)
An interesting observation from this study is that the photic layer where phytoplankton live extends down to 100 meters – this may increase the importance of phytoplankton because of the increased volume of phytoplankton.
Sixtus Beckmesser says:
July 18, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Can we have Chaetoceros atlanticus in Italics or failing that underlined.
Diatom Chaetoceros atlanticus, Photo: Marina Montresor, SZN / Alfred Wegener Institute
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/chaetoceros_atlanticus_mmontresor_w1.jpg
Hmmm; Iron is also the active ingredient for certain broadleaved herbicides. So obviously it is extremely toxic for certain plants. Funny how the most innocent looking intervention into bio-engineering can turn into a long nightmare. Isn’t there a doomsday belief about the oceans turning red? Sounds like we should refrain from such self -fulfilling actions. GK
Big D in TX says (July 18, 2012 at 3:03 pm): “Massive algae blooms already do horrible things to the immediate ecosystem, and I still don’t understand why anyone would actually want to induce them.”
The death and decay of proliferating algae tend to deplete oxygen in relatively shallow coastal waters e.g. bays, estuaries, the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mobile critters such as fish can eat and run, but less mobile bottom dwellers suffer. Algae, however, are the basis for the entire oceanic food chain, and increasing their production would increase marine productivity. The Grand Banks, for example, are prime fishing grounds because nutrients are lifted from the relatively shallow bottom to fertilize the upper waters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Banks_of_Newfoundland
In his novel The Deep Range, Arthur C. Clarke described a future in which much of humanity was fed by farmed marine algae/plankton fertilized, as I recall, by artificial upwellings from the sea floor.
http://arthur-clarke-fansite.blogspot.com/2007/04/novel-deep-range.html
Silicon is very common in the crust, so iron-bearing dust is likely to include silicates.