Coale KH, et al. 2004. Southern
ocean iron enrichment experiment: carbon cycling in high- and low-Si waters. Science. 304:408-414
Nasa Earth Observatory. 2008.
Aquatic dead zones. Available at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44677
(accessed Mar. 20, 2013)
Half the information and no direction
Word Count: 478
The iron fertilization hypothesis
was the basis behind a decision made by a small village on Haida Gwaii to dump
120 tons of iron sulfate dust into international waters off Canada’s west coast
(FNEHIN 2012) in October 2012. Though the small village did not act alone, it
was guided by Russ George, who is the CEO of a company which also attempted to
dump iron into the waters off the Galapagos Islands (ETC Group 2012). The
village was worried about the declining salmon stocks and took it upon
themselves to solve the problem. The iron fertilization hypothesis suggests
that iron enriched sea water can produce a boom of zooplankton productivity, or
an algae bloom as most know it (Coale 2004). This increase in zooplankton, a
common food source for fish, was thought would encourage the return of salmon
to the area. It is also believed that the increase in algae will decrease CO2
in the atmosphere; however, this is not the whole truth (Coale 2004). There
could be many very negative effects of adding such large amounts of iron
without the proper information or procedure.
This increase of iron does indeed
cause an algae bloom, but eventually that normally limited resource runs out
and the algae die. The detritus then falls to the bottom of the ocean and can
form a dead zone (NASA 2008). This reduces the biodiversity and biomass in the
area, which will only decrease the likelihood that the salmon will return.
So, not only was this a stupid
idea, but I’m not convinced it was totally legal. Who has the right to drop
that much of anything into international waters? Especially off of some of the
most pristine and bio diverse areas along our coast. I
feel it is unfair to fully blame this small village, as there should be a
governing body that regulates and deals with these type of issues. The village
was only trying to maintain their livelihood through increasing the salmon
return, and the CEO...well maybe he is to blame. Who knows if he fully
understood the consequences of his actions. This example brings to the
forefront of my mind two major problems, the first is a lack of information and
guidance, and the second is a lack of direction or governing. There are many
news articles on this event and it is interesting to see all the varying
opinions, if you want to read a couple I have added some links below.
News stories:
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/full-press-coverage-2012-ocean-fertilization-scheme-near-haida-gwaii
Brian talked about this in our Icthyology class. It seemed like a "brilliant" idea at the time and it worked...but only for a short amount of time. Sure, productivity increased a lot for a few days, but then it crashed again (and possibly caused some negative effects like you mentioned). This just comes to show that you have to look at the bigger picture. You can't "fix" the underlying problem and expect everything else to miraculously get better. Great post Rolena!
ReplyDeleteI remember hearing about this on the news when that happened... A parallel to plants is research MoF did a few decades ago, fertilizing the grasslands near here with N. It didn't work, either!
ReplyDeleteSeems like a strange idea
ReplyDeleteThis seems like it was a hasty decision with little scientific support. Interesting read!
ReplyDeleteThat seems like the wrong people were acting with the wrong information. Maybe instead of starting with 120 TONS of this stuff in our oceans, they should have done a simple aquarium experiment first to see the effects.It definitely sounds like there needs to be a governing body on this. Interesting topic, though!
ReplyDeleteWow, what a thing to be done without the correct research and guidelines followed. That baffles me! I had heard of this before but I don't think I heard much about the negative effects. Thanks for posting. I'm going to pass this blog around to a first year bio student who is presenting this idea in her lab.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem like the CEO just jumped on this idea too quickly. You would think there would be a specific procedure for something like this...
ReplyDeleteI forget what class I heard about this in, but I seem to remember whichever prof was talking about it was, championing it as a good idea. It seems to me that something as simple as adding iron to the water may produce algal blooms which may decrease co2 and increase salmon for a short time, but is probably not sustainable. I feel as though a quick fix like this is completely insufficient and inadequate at dealing with the complexity of ecosystems. Is anyone else remembering futuramas approach to global warming? -> the giant ice cube being dropped into the ocean. haha
ReplyDeletehahaha yes, I sincerely believe that futurama has shown us how to effectively deal with global warming.
DeleteIve heard about this too. It seemed like a win win the way I heard - decrease CO2 while increasing biodiversity. I hadn't heard of the negatives, and I guess that was the issue these guys had to. Such a shame.
ReplyDeletehalf the info and no direction... exactly what it looks like
ReplyDeleteI agree, it is definitely unsustainable. I feel like adding all that iron would upset the natural stable state of the ecosystem, perhaps even creating a new stable state which could ultimately eliminate a bunch of organisms, while promoting others(but we don't know anything about this because as mentioned before: experimentation needs to be done)
ReplyDelete