Researchers publish results of iron ocean fertilization experiment

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

Diatom Chaetoceros atlanticus, Photo: Marina Montresor, SZN / Alfred Wegener Institute

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gail Combs
July 19, 2012 8:23 am

Bob says:
July 18, 2012 at 7:39 pm
DD More says:
July 18, 2012 at 2:08 pm
I see they put in 7 tons of iron, but nowhere do they show how much extra CO2 absorption took place.
Yep: How much iron is required to get how much CO2?
___________________________
Reverse that. How much CO2 is used to mine, smelt and transport that iron vs how much CO2 was sequestered at the bottom of the ocean and not gobbled up by the local fish.
I do not think the economics are there unless you are also harvesting and eating the fish.

Gail Combs
July 19, 2012 8:33 am

Henry Clark says: July 19, 2012 at 6:43 am
…Ah, so if one wanted to produce extra biomass not sequestered to expand the basis of the marine food chain and thus fish populations in an area (if carried out on a large enough sustained scale), one could select the type eaten more by zooplankton…..
With the partial exception of expanding aquaculture, we tend to be locked in a mindset towards the oceans which is like what pre-agriculture stone age tribesmen had towards land: acting as hunters and gatherers of pre-existing food rather than thinking of how to increase the food supply.
The idea of a nation deliberately increasing the primary productivity of an area of the oceans on large scale may seem alien and unlikely now….
___________________________
Don’t tell that to the Japanese.

whimzy
July 19, 2012 10:09 am

Weren’t the abiotic oil experiments done with calcium carbonate and iron?

CRS, Dr.P.H.
July 19, 2012 10:26 am

There were actually two companies formed to take advantage of the “carbon credits” generated during ocean fertilization, Phytos and Climos. Of the two, I think Climos is the only survivor: http://www.climos.com/
It is an interesting concept, but there are so many variables involved (does the carbon that sinks truly become geologically sequestered, or simply re-released through anaerobic bacterial metabolism?) that I think the technique is fairly useless.
If they want to grow algae, drag the stuff onto land, extract the lipids, proteins & phytochemicals and make some money off the biomass.

July 19, 2012 10:47 am

noaaprogrammer says:
Can we get core samples from the ocean floor to verify conjectures about iron sources and carbon sequestration over geologic time?

I’m sure you could get that quite easily from one of the Evil Big Oil Companies, because petroleum is what all those plant lipids turn into after they’ve stewed for a million years or so under buried seabeds at high pressure and temperature.

George E. Smith;
July 19, 2012 11:13 am

So how much carbon is sequestered as a result of the dissolving of iron sands off Muriwai Beach abd other West coast iron sand beaches in New Zealand.
And does it register in anyone’s mind just how low the solubility of silica is in water. Well I know that they do grow single crystal SiO2 from hot water solutions in high pressure vessels; but I never really considered silica to be among the most soluble materials. Well you ought to see what DI water can do to glass surfaces; but then it doesn’t remain as DI water for very long. Iron powder typically will rust before it ever hits the bottom of the flask, if you drop some ionto pure water.

Silver Ralph
July 19, 2012 12:02 pm

.
More important than the carbon, is can we fertilise the oceans in this manner and increase the production of fish? What feeds of these diatoms, and can we increase food production??

Lia's acomin'
July 19, 2012 3:32 pm

Agreeing with further checkingout the fishfarm angle.
I’ll be doing my part in bulldozing some old wrecks off the wharf./

Caleb
July 19, 2012 6:12 pm

One problem with the fishfarm angle: During the first week of their life codfish are so tiny they can be eaten by the very plankton they later feast upon. Therefore you have to be very sensitive to which population is getting the boost, and when.

Jeff Alberts
July 19, 2012 6:55 pm

Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. says:
July 18, 2012 at 1:46 pm
… 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.

You should see a doctor about that. 😉
[The moderators consider it bad form to comment critically on another writer’s spelling and grammar…..Unless you are yourself perfect in all ways at all times. 8<) Robt]

Khwarizmi
July 19, 2012 9:16 pm

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.

1)
“We’re going to take a journey to the very bottom of the sea…
The water [here – at around 4000 meters] is crystal clear, because there is so little organic matter. Only 3 percent of the potential food in the surface waters reaches the continental slope. At first sight it appears a lifeless dessert. But take a closer look, and yuo’ll see tracks and trails: there is life, even down here. […]
The deep sea floor is dominated by echinoderms, sea-cucumbers, brittle-stars and sea urchins.
There are literally millions of them marching across the seabed, hoovering up any edible particle there might be in the sediment. […]
Although they are very thinly spread, the deep ocean floor is so vast, that these are amongst the most numerous animals on the planet.
— BBC, The Blue Planet, Seas of Life
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.)
“This video shows a series of time-lapse still images of animals on the deep seafloor. The images were taken at one-hour intervals over a period of about three months in spring 2007. These images were taken at “Station M,” a long-term research site about 4,000 meters below the surface and 220 kilometers west of Point Conception, on the Central California Coast.
–MBARIvideo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steamboat Jack, re: whale poo and algae:
And dead algae, for that matter. As said here, it falls to the bottom of the ocean. Then, bacteria turn it into Methane clathrate
Actually the sediments are oxygenated (see oxygen profile map in my previous post), and oxygen is poison to methanogens. Perhaps that is why we’ve never actually discovered those vast hordes of theoretical microbes:
Below the seafloor, an unknown but potentially vast biosphere of microbes may be making the methane that percolates upward.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12764&tid=282&cid=2441
When it comes to the sea, why must we have models all the way down, considering we have such an abundance of actual knowledge?

Crispin in Waterloo
July 19, 2012 9:26 pm

Re the tons of iron and the ‘payback’. I seem to recall the first experiment done many years ago no this said it was a factor of more than 4000. As there is some hint that the local chemical environment plays a large role in this, perhaps one can say >1000 with confidence.
It seems to be a good use of scrap iron and rusty stuff. Lots of laterite soils are full of iron and it is already powdered…

Khwarizmi
July 19, 2012 11:01 pm

It takes a lot of hydrocarbons to make elemental iron, Crispin.
There isn’t much of it around on Earth. Here’s why:
===============
“Starting materials are often in thermodynamic states of low fee energy, simply because compounds of high free energy tend to react spontaneously to give products of lower free energy. Over the long history of the earth, compounds of high free energy have mostly disappeared. Thus, aluminum is very abundant in the earth’s crust but is never found in elemental form.”
-Principles of Modern Chemistry, 4th Ed. Ch. 20 (Chemical Processes for the Recovery of Pure Substances), Oxtoby, Gillis Nachtrieb.
===============
Glucose – – – 16 kJ per gram
Fat – – – 38 kJ per gram
Methane – – – 50.1 kJ per gram <— that's upgraded, not degraded.
The physical evidence, but not the models that go all the way down, show that sedimentary sequestration is a fantasy.

klem
July 20, 2012 8:23 am

Wow, now dumping huge quantities of iron sulphite into the ocean is considered environmentally friendly? So I guess we’ll have to open new iron mines to provide the iron necessary to save the planet. I suppose iron mining might even be considered green jobs, mountaintop removal is now considered green.
What has happened to my beloved environmenal movement? This is the movement that I was a proud member of since about 1970. This could be the stupidest idea the movement has ever invented. Thank god I’m not an environmentalist anymore.
I’m not wearing this one, modern greenies can wear it if they want. Good luck to them.

Verified by MonsterInsights