<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>marine carbon sequestration &#8211; Science</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scienmag.com/tag/marine-carbon-sequestration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scienmag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1</generator>

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">73899611</site>	<item>
		<title>Ocean iron fertilization removes CO2—but what does nature pay?</title>
		<link>https://scienmag.com/ocean-iron-fertilization-removes-co2-but-what-does-nature-pay/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Violet Maxwell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:08:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Marine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial ocean fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biological carbon pump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon sink enhancement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deep-ocean carbon storage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ecological risks of iron fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental consequences of geoengineering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impact of iron on marine ecosystems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marine carbon sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocean iron fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocean-based climate mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oceanic iron limitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phytoplankton and climate regulation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://scienmag.com/ocean-iron-fertilization-removes-co2-but-what-does-nature-pay/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Phytoplankton may be microscopic, but their influence reaches from the surface of the ocean to the global climate system. These drifting, plant-like organisms absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, converting it into organic matter. When plankton die or are consumed, a portion of that carbon sinks into deeper water, where it can remain isolated from [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Phytoplankton may be microscopic, but their influence reaches from the surface of the ocean to the global climate system. These drifting, plant-like organisms absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, converting it into organic matter. When plankton die or are consumed, a portion of that carbon sinks into deeper water, where it can remain isolated from the atmosphere for years, decades or, in some cases, much longer. This natural process, known as the biological carbon pump, has made the ocean one of Earth’s most important carbon reservoirs. Now, a new study suggests that deliberately adding iron to selected ocean regions could increase carbon removal—but the potential climate benefit comes with ecological costs that may spread far beyond the original intervention site.</p>
<p>In vast areas of the open ocean, phytoplankton growth is constrained not by a lack of sunlight or carbon dioxide, but by the scarcity of iron. This trace element is required for photosynthetic machinery, electron transport and nitrogen metabolism, meaning that even tiny concentrations can determine how much biological production an ecosystem supports. The idea behind ocean iron fertilization is straightforward: add dissolved iron to iron-deficient waters, stimulate a plankton bloom and encourage more carbon to sink into the deep ocean. For decades, scientists have tested this concept through field experiments and computer models. The central question, however, has never been simply whether iron can stimulate growth. It is whether the additional carbon removal is large, durable and environmentally acceptable.</p>
<p>A study led by Professor Adam Martiny of the Technical University of Denmark addresses that question using an advanced ocean model that links carbon, nutrients, oxygen and plankton communities. The researchers simulated 60 years of iron addition in ten different ocean regions, allowing them to examine both the immediate response and the consequences that emerge as currents transport water across the planet. Their analysis, published in Nature, reveals a pronounced geographical trade-off. Some regions deliver greater carbon dioxide removal but trigger extensive ecological disruption, while others produce a more moderate climate benefit with fewer and shorter-lived effects on marine life. The results provide one of the broadest comparisons yet of where iron fertilization might be most effective—and where it could create serious unintended consequences.</p>
<p>The Southern Ocean, encircling Antarctica, emerged as the region offering the most favorable balance between climate benefit and ecological risk. Its powerful circulation connects distant parts of the ocean and can carry iron and unused nutrients into areas where they support additional biological production. In the model, this circulation helped extend carbon storage beyond the initial fertilization zone rather than concentrating all the effects in one location. The Southern Ocean ecosystem also appeared comparatively resilient. When iron addition stopped, biological conditions moved back toward their original state relatively quickly, suggesting that the intervention’s ecological footprint was less persistent than in several other regions. That resilience does not make the approach risk-free, but it distinguishes the Southern Ocean from areas where nutrient disturbances can remain embedded in the wider circulation system.</p>
<p>The equatorial Pacific presented a very different picture. Iron addition there also produced substantial increases in carbon dioxide uptake, but the resulting plankton blooms consumed large quantities of other nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus. Once these nutrients were depleted, ocean currents transported nutrient-poor water into distant regions, potentially suppressing plankton growth far from the fertilization site. This effect illustrates why ocean iron fertilization cannot be assessed only by measuring the size of a local bloom. The ocean is a connected, moving system in which a chemical change in one region can alter the resources available to organisms thousands of kilometers away. By changing nutrient ratios, iron fertilization could therefore reshape food webs and productivity patterns on a basin-wide scale.</p>
<p>The model indicated that the ecological consequences were not limited to microscopic organisms. In the equatorial Pacific simulations, the biomass of larger zooplankton declined. These animals are an important link between phytoplankton and fish, so a reduction could affect organisms higher in the food chain. The study also found an expansion of low-oxygen areas, a result of increased biological activity and the decomposition of organic matter. As microbes break down sinking material, they consume oxygen in deeper waters. Persistent or widespread oxygen loss can place stress on fish, invertebrates and other marine organisms, while creating conditions that favor some species over others. In this scenario, the area affected by the intervention became many times larger than the region where iron was originally introduced.</p>
<p>The researchers estimate that, depending on the location and scale of fertilization, 60 years of iron addition could remove between 0.14 and 0.70 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year. That is a significant quantity in absolute terms, but it remains small compared with current global emissions of roughly 40 billion metric tons annually. Ocean iron fertilization could therefore function only as a supplement to deep emissions cuts, not as a substitute for them. More importantly, the carbon removal would not necessarily be permanent. The simulations show that more than half of the carbon dioxide removed during fertilization could return to the atmosphere within the following decades if the program were stopped. This limited durability complicates claims that iron fertilization could provide a long-term solution to climate change.</p>
<p>The study’s authors compared their simulations with previous field experiments in which scientists added iron to real ocean waters and tracked plankton growth, carbon uptake and ecological change over several weeks. According to Martiny, the model reproduced the broad patterns observed in those experiments, strengthening confidence that it captures key biological processes. Nevertheless, predicting the climate effect of a large-scale intervention remains difficult. Carbon may be absorbed by plankton at the surface but later return to the atmosphere if it is respired before reaching the deep ocean. Even when carbon sinks, researchers must determine how long it remains isolated and whether the process changes oxygen levels or nutrient availability elsewhere. These uncertainties make precise measurement, verification and the creation of reliable carbon credits particularly challenging.</p>
<p>The findings also raise questions that extend beyond biology and climate modeling. Ocean currents ignore national borders, so an action authorized in one country could influence marine ecosystems in international waters or affect biodiversity in distant coastal regions. Monitoring such consequences would require sustained observations across enormous areas, including measurements of plankton communities, nutrient concentrations, carbon export and oxygen levels. Regulation is equally complex because existing international frameworks were not designed to govern interventions whose effects can travel across entire ocean basins. As the United States invests more heavily in technologies intended to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, ocean-based approaches are receiving increasing attention. Martiny argues that Europe should follow these developments closely and participate actively in research, oversight and international rule-making.</p>
<p>Ocean iron fertilization remains a controversial tool precisely because it combines a potentially measurable climate benefit with ecological consequences that are difficult to predict and even harder to contain. The new study does not present iron addition as a cure for global warming. Instead, it shows that location determines nearly everything: the amount of carbon removed, the distance over which effects spread, the pressure placed on food webs and the speed at which ecosystems recover after fertilization ends. The Southern Ocean may offer the least damaging balance among the regions examined, but even there, uncertainties remain. Any future consideration of the technology will require transparent experiments, long-term monitoring and international governance. The ocean may be able to absorb more carbon with human assistance, but the study makes clear that it cannot do so without changing—and potentially disrupting—the living systems that make that carbon sink possible.</p>
<p><strong>Subject of Research</strong>: Ocean iron fertilization, carbon dioxide removal and ecological impacts on marine ecosystems</p>
<p><strong>Article Title</strong>: Climate benefit and ecological cost trade-offs for ocean iron fertilization</p>
<p><strong>Web References</strong>: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10795-y</p>
<p><strong>References</strong>: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-026-10795-y</p>
<p><strong>Image Credits</strong>: Adam Martiny; photo of Adam Martiny and postdoctoral researcher Pedro Flombaum taking water samples near California aboard M/V Nerissa</p>
<p><strong>Keywords</strong>: ocean iron fertilization, phytoplankton, carbon dioxide removal, climate change, Southern Ocean, equatorial Pacific, marine ecosystems, carbon cycle, ocean deoxygenation, zooplankton, Nature, ocean science</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">179015</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Diatom surprise could rewrite the global carbon cycle</title>
		<link>https://scienmag.com/diatom-surprise-could-rewrite-the-global-carbon-cycle/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Violet Maxwell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Marine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon cycle and climate models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon cycle revision research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon cycling in marine ecosystems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon dioxide absorption by diatoms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon dioxide absorption by ocean plankton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change and carbon cycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change and ocean carbon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change and oceanic carbon cycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diatom carbon accumulation methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diatom feeding strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diatoms carbon accumulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global carbon cycle revision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impact of diatoms on global carbon cycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marine biomass carbon sources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marine carbon sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marine carbon sequestration mechanisms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marine carbon sequestration processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new findings in marine biology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oceanic carbon cycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oceanic carbon flux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oceanic diatom feeding behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oceanic single-celled plankton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organic carbon consumption by diatoms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organic carbon consumption by plankton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organic carbon uptake in oceans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photosynthesis and organic carbon feeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photosynthesis in diatoms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photosynthesis vs heterotrophy in diatoms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plankton biomass formation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plankton feeding strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plankton role in carbon cycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[single-celled plankton biomass]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[single-celled plankton carbon uptake]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://scienmag.com/diatom-surprise-could-rewrite-the-global-carbon-cycle/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[When it comes to diatoms that live in the ocean, new research suggests that photosynthesis is not the only strategy for accumulating carbon. Instead, these single-celled plankton are also building biomass by feeding directly on organic carbon in wide swaths of the ocean. These new findings could lead researchers to reduce their estimate of how [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to diatoms that live in the ocean, new research suggests that photosynthesis is not the only strategy for accumulating carbon. Instead, these single-celled plankton are also building biomass by feeding directly on organic carbon in wide swaths of the ocean. These new findings could lead researchers to reduce their estimate of how much carbon dioxide diatoms pull out of the air via photosynthesis, which in turn, could alter our understanding of the global carbon cycle, which is especially relevant given the changing climate.  </p>
<p></p>
<div class="entry">
<p>When it comes to diatoms that live in the ocean, new research suggests that photosynthesis is not the only strategy for accumulating carbon. Instead, these single-celled plankton are also building biomass by feeding directly on organic carbon in wide swaths of the ocean. These new findings could lead researchers to reduce their estimate of how much carbon dioxide diatoms pull out of the air via photosynthesis, which in turn, could alter our understanding of the global carbon cycle, which is especially relevant given the changing climate.  </p>
<p>This research is led by bioengineers, bioinformatics experts and other genomics researchers at the University of California San Diego. The new findings are published in <em>Science Advances</em> on July 17, 2024. </p>
<p>The team showed that the diatom <em>Cylindrotheca closterium, </em>which is found in oceans around the world, regularly performs a simultaneous mix of both photosynthesis and direct eating of carbon from organic sources such as plankton. In more than 70% of the water samples the researchers analyzed from oceans around the world, the team found signs of simultaneous photosynthesis and direct organic carbon consumption from <em>Cylindrotheca closterium.</em> </p>
<p>The team also showed that this diatom species can grow much faster when consuming organic carbon in addition to photosynthesis.  </p>
<p>Furthermore, the new research hints at the tantalizing possibility that specific species of bacteria are feeding organic carbon directly to a large percentage of these diatoms living all across the global ocean.</p>
<p>This work is based on a genome-scale metabolic modeling approach that the team used to unravel the metabolism of the diatom <em>Cylindrotheca closterium</em>. The researchers constrained their genome-scale metabolic model with global gene expression data obtained from the TARA ocean expedition. The researchers believe this is the first time genome-scale models have been used at a global scale. </p>
<p>The team’s new metabolic modeling data support recent lab experiments suggesting that some diatoms may rely on strategies other than photosynthesis to intake the carbon they need to survive, thrive and build biomass.</p>
<p>The UC San Diego led team is in the process of expanding the scope of the project to determine how widespread this non-photosynthetic activity is among other diatom species.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Are ocean bacteria feeding diatoms?</strong></p>
<p>When the team looked at the physical and chemical parameters measured in their ocean water samples – including temperature, pH, salinity, light, nitrogen and carbon availability – they did not find any correlation between those parameters and a tendency by the diatoms to steer away from photosynthesis-only strategies. </p>
<p>However, the team found a clear signal when exploring specific bacterial populations co-existing with the diatom <em>Cylindrotheca closterium</em> in the ocean water samples. This finding hints at bacteria-diatom interactions that drive the simultaneous mix of photosynthesis and direct consumption of organic carbon – a phenomenon known as “mixotrophy.” </p>
<p>The team believes that specific bacteria may be feeding the diatoms directly, helping these diatoms to be one of the most successful and important microbes on the planet, in terms of oxygen production, carbon sequestration, and as a foundation of food webs that support nearly all life in the ocean. </p>
<p>“Diatoms are major contributors to marine food chains and key drivers of the global carbon cycle. Previously, we have estimated all carbon cycling models on the assumption that the only role that diatoms play is in carbon dioxide fixation. Our findings demonstrate that this is not the case, but that diatoms simultaneously also eat organic carbon. In other words, we have shown that diatoms do not rely exclusively on carbon dioxide fixation for their growth and biomass production. We believe these results will have major implications for our understanding of global carbon cycling,” said UC San Diego Professor <u>Karsten Zengler</u>, professor in the Departments of Pediatrics and Bioengineering and researcher in the Center for Microbiome Innovation at the Jacobs School of Engineering.</p>
<p>“While there have been curious observations in the laboratory regarding diatoms deviating from photosynthesis, it has been impossible to test what kind of metabolism these diatoms perform in the ocean – until now. This is because there are many, many genes involved in this process, and it&#8217;s very difficult to delineate what process is active from gene expression data alone. Our approach gets around this challenge.”</p>
<p>The research team hopes this work will stimulate interest in taking a much closer look at our understanding of the global carbon cycle, taking into consideration this new broader understanding of how ocean diatoms get their carbon. </p>
<p>What the bacteria feeding the diatoms may be getting out of the relationship is another question for further research. </p>
<p>The paper &#8220;<em>Mixotrophic growth of a ubiquitous marine diatom</em>&#8221; by Kumar <em>et al</em> appears in <em>Science Advances</em>. </p>
<p>Complete author and funding information are listed in the paper. </p>
<p>The corresponding author is UC San Diego Professor Karsten Zengler. He holds faculty appointments in the Department of Pediatrics at the UC San Diego School of Medicine; and the Shu Chien-Gene Lay Department of Bioengineering at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering. He is a faculty member of the Center for Microbiome Innovation at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering and Affiliate Faculty in the Program in Materials Science and Engineering. </p>
<p> </p>
<hr class="hidden-xs hidden-sm">
<hr class="major visible-sm">
<div class="featured_image">
<div class="details">
<div class="well">
<h4>Journal</h4>
<p>                            Science Advances
                        </p></div>
<div class="well">
<h4>Method of Research</h4>
<p>                            Data/statistical analysis
                        </p></div>
<div class="well">
<h4>Subject of Research</h4>
<p>                            Animals
                        </p></div>
<div class="well">
<h4>Article Title</h4>
<p>                            Mixotrophic growth of a ubiquitous marine diatom
                        </p></div>
<div class="well">
<h4>Article Publication Date</h4>
<p>                            17-Jul-2024
                        </p></div>
<div class="well">
<h4>COI Statement</h4>
<p>                            The authors declare no competing interests.
                        </p></div></div></div></div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">14627</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
