Jump to content

Talk:Ocean fertilization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CatherineKailua, Rdaugherty347.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

Support Make Iron fertilization the main page and Ocean Nourishment a redirect.

Google hits
Should be moved to Ocean fertilization. Also it should discuss phosphorous as a limiting factor, not just nitrogen and iron for example. "Lowest plant biomass is found where sunlight is abundantly available. Such regions are referred to as oligotrophic. The oligotrophic subtropical gyres are low-nutrient low-chlorophyll (LNLC) regions and may respond to additions of Fe and P. (N would come from stimulation of nitrogen fixing blue-green algae or added along with Fe and P). " [1] Tympanum (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According this this paper "ocean nourishment" is actually the name of a specific technique for fertilization with ammonia. Tympanum (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Hypothesis should probably be merged with this article as well. --69.108.119.45 (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both ocean nourishment and iron hypothesis should be merged to iron fertilization. Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No the whole thing belongs at Ocean fertilization, despite some people's single-minded refusal to accept that any other form of ocean fertilization might be worthy of discussion. Tympanum (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify a bit. I don't have strong feelings regarding the article name - just that Iron fertilization was the name most familiar to me. I'd suggest merging content of the other articles there and then consider renaming/moving per Tympanum's comments above. Merge to existing article rather than a merge to a redirect -- then discuss further after the merge. Vsmith (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems like an evil plot to deny discussion of other methods. If you have to merge first please get on with it. Tympanum (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Iron Fertilization involves the application of iron to stimulate productivity. Ocean Nourishment specifically refers to the application of macronutrients like nitrates and phosphates. Ocean Fertilization is a catchall term which refers to both. There is no evil plot. Both techniques are worthy of consideration and have their own, separate merits. They deserve separate treatment, but clearly have much in common. User:dano5050 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose – the article seems to have merit in its own right, as a concept which is much wider than just adding iron. The concept seems to be growing in importance. As mentioned above, 18 months ago "ocean nourishment" received 876 google hit – today 3,060 hits. But a better name, as per Tympanum's comments above, would be "ocean fertilization". "Ocean fertilization" receives 12,600 hits and "ocean fertilisation" another 7,200 hits. A casual inspection show that the use of these terms is not restricted to iron alone, for example, "ocean fertilization" AND NOT iron returns 5,520 hits. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The fundamental limiting micro-nutrient as hypothesized by John Martin is iron. Though not a constituent of chlorophyll, iron is essential for its formation and for effective photosynthesis. Subsequent experiments (IronEx, IronExII, SOIREE) specifically tested the fundamental veracity of this iron-deficiency hypothesis, and successfully stimulated remarkable plankton blooms by fertilizing with iron alone. Agreed, once the iron deficiency is satisfied, other micronutrients become limiting factors. But iron is fundamental, and its primacy shouldn't be obfuscated by mixing-in everything else that may afterward be beneficial for promoting the growth of marine microflora. --Bwnichols (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There should be one page called ocean fertilization which is a summary of the various fertilization techniques (e.g. iron, macro-nutrients (aka ocean nourishment), and artificial upwelling). Iron fertilization should keep a separate page, because it is by far the most well-research ocean fertilization technique with the longest history (e.g. 20+ years of research with over 400 peer-reviewed scientific papers). The Iron Fert page should incorporate iron hypothesis, as well as the various ongoing research projects, including the currently active LOHAFEX. -kwhilden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhilden (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rmv tag

[edit]

This tag has been up too long and needs to come down. There is no consensus for a merge. I remvd it once and got reverted. Pls will anyone opposing say why below. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urea fertilization may not benefit fisheries

[edit]

This section of the article mentions that urea is produced chiefly by burning of fossil fuels which makes it not very viable in use as a method of drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Urea is also found in urine at roughly 2.5% concentrations by weight. Should we be adding mention that urea could be extracted from human waste (which is abundant) for use in ocean nourishment, or would this process be technically infeasible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.185.84 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of speculation could only be included in this article if there are appropriate source which state it has been considered. Adding anything along these lines without references would effectively count as original research.--NHSavage (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. In the future please support your move requests with evidence. In its absence, the only proper outcomes are: denial based on an unsupported request, hoping secondary supporters will provide the evidence you did not, or hoping the closer will do the research missing from the nomination, probably in an area they are less familiar with than the proposer. Searches here of Google Books and New Archive do indicate support for the move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean nourishment → Ocean fertilization – standard/correct term. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Useful references

[edit]

While looking for something else I came across this reference: Wallace, DWR; Law, CS; Boyd, PW; Collos, Y; Croot, P; Denman, K; Lam, PJ; Riebesell, U; Takeda, S; Williamson, P. "Ocean Fertilization. A scientific summary for policy makers" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-08-27. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) which wasn't what I was after, but could be useful so I am dumping it here.--NHSavage (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that on nitrogen fertilization, the relevant reference for the intial proposal by Jones may be: Jones, I.S.F., 2004: The enhancement of marine productivity for climate stabilisation and food security. In Handbook of Microalgal Culture. Blackwell, Oxford. However, I have not yet read it so again, I am not addding it to the article.--NHSavage (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBD COP 9 Cautions against Ocean Fertilization, Adopts Climate Change Related Decisions. --NHSavage (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text which this reference was attached to was not related to the article so I have removed it but it is another potentially useful one.T. S. Bates, B. K. Lamb, A. Guenther, J. Dignon,R. E. Stoiber (1992). "Sulfur Emissions to the Atmosphere from Natural Sources". Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. 14 (1–4): 315–337. doi:10.1007/BF00115242.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).--NHSavage (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on article

[edit]

I hope that my recent edits on this article have improved it. There are some excellent sources in this article already, but they are not fully exploited, and often seem to be used as references for statements that they have no relation to. I hope that by adding URLs for many of the references, I have made them more accessible and this will encourage people to add further referenced information to this article. I am not going to do much more now on this article for a while so it would be great if someone else picked it up now.--NHSavage (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more references

[edit]

As I have done some scientific work in this area in the past I saw a couple of references that were missing that could assist readers with assessing potential impacts/benefits of ocean fertilisation on fisheries productivity. The refs included:

Parsons TR, Whitney FA (2012). Did volcanic ash from Mt. Kasatoshi in 2008 contribute to a phenomenal increase in Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 2010? Fisheries Oceanography 21(5), 374-377. and Olgun, N et al. (2013). Geochemical evidence of oceanic iron fertilization by the Kasatochi volcanic eruption in 2008 and the potential impacts on Pacific sockeye salmon. Marine Ecology Progress Series 488: 81–88.

I have included them in the relevant sections. Professor Pelagic (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EisenEx?

[edit]

The EisenEx section is incomplete and unreferenced. Where did it happen and when? "Comparable amounts" is never explained - comparable to what? Seems like an unfinished edit or bad cut & paste happened here. Nerfer (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iron fertilisation

[edit]

Mergeto |Iron fertilization| Talk:Ocean nourishment#Merge proposal |date=July 2008

Closing; no case made and no support. Klbrain (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ocean fertilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC report

[edit]

I think the corresponding section of the latest IPCC report is worth quoting in full here:

Nutrients can be added to the ocean resulting in increased biologic production, leading to carbon fixation in the sunlit ocean and subsequent sequestration in the deep ocean or sea floor sediments. The added nutrients can be either micronutrients (such as iron) or macronutrients (such as nitrogen and/or phosphorous) (Harrison 2017). There is limited evidence and low agreement on the readiness of this technology to contribute to rapid decarbonisation (Williamson et al. 2012). Only small-scale field experiments and theoretical modelling have been conducted (e.g., McLaren (2012)). The full range of CDR potential estimates is 15.2 ktCO2 yr–1 (Bakker et al. 2001) for a spatially constrained field experiment to 4.4 GtCO2 yr– 1 (Sarmiento and Orr 1991) following a modelling approach, but Fuss et al. (2018b) consider the potential to be extremely limited given the evidence and existing barriers. Due to scavenging of iron, the iron addition only leads to inefficient use of the nitrogen in exporting carbon (Aumont and Bopp 2006; Zahariev et al. 2008; Zeebe 2005).

Cost estimates range from 2 USD tCO2–1 (for iron fertilization) (Boyd and Denman 2008) to 457 USD tCO2–1 (Harrison 2013). Jones (2014) proposed values greater than 20 USD tCO2-1 for nitrogen fertilisation. Fertilisation is expected to impact food webs by stimulating its base organisms (Matear 2004), and extensive algal blooms may cause anoxia (Matear 2004; Russell et al. 2012; Sarmiento and Orr 1991) and deep water oxygen decline (Matear 2004), with negative impacts on biodiversity. Nutrient inputs can shift ecosystem production from an iron-limited system to a P, N-, or Si-limited system depending on the location (Bertram 2010; Matear 2004) and non-CO2 GHGs may increase (Bertram 2010; Sarmiento and Orr 1991; Matear 2004). The greatest theoretical potential for this practice is the Southern Ocean, posing challenges for monitoring and governance (Robinson et al. 2014). The London Protocol of the International Maritime Organization has asserted authority for regulation of ocean fertilisation (Strong et al. 2009), which is widely viewed as a‚ de facto moratorium‘ on commercial ocean fertilisation activities.

There is low agreement in the technical literature on the permanence of CO2 in the ocean, with estimated residence times of 1,600 years to millennia, especially if injected or buried in or below the sea floor (Williams and Druffel, 1987; Jones, 2014). Storage at the surface would mean that the carbon would be rapidly released after cessation (Aumont and Bopp 2006; Zeebe 2005).

Let's make sure we give due weight to all those sources. --Nemo 12:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Release on the bottom of the ocean

[edit]

Someone pointed out that worms in the bottom of the ocean have been found to be extremely efficient releasers of greenhouse gas. For instance https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2013/aug/study-finds-novel-worm-community-affecting-methane-release-ocean Nemo 09:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section under "history" seems wrong to me

[edit]

That whole section under "history" seems wrong to me. Overly detailed. Not encyclopedic. Maybe better off in a sub-article. It needs reworking. Someone already commented on this previously (see further up on this talk page, under EisenEx). EMsmile (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the title now to "development" but it's still not great. EMsmile (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments for improvement

[edit]

Here are some comments for improvement (I don't have time to implement them myself at present):

  • The content that is currently under History seems ill fitting, perhaps overly detailed (now called "development").
  • The article needs to show how this topic is different from eutrophication.
  • Article needs more illustrations that are directly relevant.
  • Lead needs to be longer.
  • Ocean fertilization peaked has no major future in its role to sequester carbon (this needs to come out more clearly in the lead and also in the article itself). EMsmile (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ocean_fertilization&oldid=1205566287"