Talk:Ocean fertilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge to Iron fertilisation[edit]

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

Merge proposal[edit]

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

Google hits
  • "Iron fertilization" = 56,800
  • "Ocean Nourishment" = 876 . Lumos3 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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

Yes, both ocean nourishment and iron hypothesis should be merged to iron fertilization. Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
  • OpposeWTE (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ocean nourishmentOcean fertilization – standard/correct term. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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.  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)

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)

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

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. .--NHSavage (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)


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)