Posted on 07/07/2004 2:55:54 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
WASHINGTON — Like a desert bursting into flower after a rare rainstorm, seemingly barren stretches of the ocean bloom with plankton after hurricanes pass by. The bursts of life were measured by satellite studies following 13 hurricanes from 1998 to 2001.
"I was pleasantly surprised," said Steven Babin of Johns Hopkins University, who led the research.
Babin said sudden blooms of phytoplankton — tiny plants that float in the ocean — have been reported in areas of ocean upwelling where rising water brings nutrients to the surface. He said similar effects from hurricanes had not been widely studied.
"Some parts of the ocean are like deserts because there isn't enough food for many plants to grow. A hurricane's high winds stir up the ocean waters and help bring nutrients and phytoplankton to the surface, where they get more sunlight, allowing the plants to bloom," he said.
Russell L. Cuhel of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said similar effects have been found after storms cross the Great Lakes. A plankton bloom following one severe Lake Michigan storm lasted a "couple of weeks" and led to a big improvement in the growth of larval perch, which fed on the algae, said Cuhel, who was not part of Babin's research team.
"It doesn't surprise me one whit," Cuhel said of the hurricane report, noting there are two big inputs to the growth of plankton, rain and rising nutrients stirred by the wind.
He said one hurricane he studied showed mixed water more than 175 yards deep after a storm.
The hurricane season in the Atlantic began June 1.
Babin's team studied satellite data collected by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The images showed changes in color of the sea surface, lasting days to weeks, as plankton grew in areas where a hurricane had passed through.
Babin said he focused on a section of the Atlantic Ocean known as the Sargasso Sea, which is away from the coasts and generally has little plankton because of a lack of nutrients near the surface.
The stronger the storm, the larger and longer the bloom of plankton, he said.
These tiny plants grow in great numbers when they bloom, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When they die they sink to the bottom, trapping the excess carbon for thousands of years.
"The physical response of the ocean to hurricanes is complex," Jerry Wiggert, of the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography at Old Dominion University, said. "No one has considered the biological contribution to the altered carbon flux balance that takes place when hurricanes pass over oceans," said Wiggert, who was part of Babin's research team.
Whether the amount of carbon dioxide removed by plankton blooms after a hurricane is significant remains to be determined, Babin said. And, he added, there is a competing effect, because when the storms toss the sea around the water can release dissolved carbon dioxide, somewhat like a shaken can of soda loses its fizz.
It's not known whether the two effects balance out or if the plankton helps reduce gasses in the air, Babin said.
Such studies help improve understanding of the global carbon cycle, Babin said. "The more we understand, the easier it will be to try to live with the changes we can't control" or figure out how to control what we can, he said.
Scientists concerned about global warming, which has been tied to excess gasses such as carbon dioxide, have debated whether such plankton growth could be encouraged as a way of reducing the carbon dioxide.
That has even led to experiments in which seemingly empty areas of the ocean were seeded with nutrients such as iron in hopes of encouraging such growth. In some cases the bloom of plant plankton was quickly followed by a growth of zooplankton — tiny animals that eat the plants, Cuhel said.
"They came in and grazed down all the new food. From the food web point of view, what a great thing," said Cuhel. "There is a pretty well developed food chain that's always hungry."
Babin's research was funded by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise.
So, the earth warms, there are more storms, which cause the growth of plankton which caputures the carbon which cools the planet, which brings us back to where we are.
That much said, it may take a long time (in human terms) to get back to equilibrium and may not be worth taking the risk.
Still, kinda makes you feel small.
Since man is warming the earth with burning fossil fuels, and thus increasing the severity and frequency of hurricanes, and thus increasing the ubiquitness of plankton, it clearly follows: Global Warming Will Wipe Out Mankind With Plankton!
Bush's fault.
I live on the Potomac , we have had 3 years of bad crabbing seasons, this year we have crabs again and last year we had Isabel pay us a visit. Maybe the Hurricanes help with the crabs too. I dont think we will ever see the oysters come back though.
At any rate, I would like to see the oceans restored to 1650 levels of sealife. During the middle of the 17th century, one could dip a bucket anywhere in the Atlantic and come up with dinner. The oceans back then were teeming with fish and shellfish. Lobsters washed up on the beaches of New England so regularly that the Pilgrims used them as fertilizer.
I would also like to see the price of porterhouse and T-bone steaks come down to reasonable levels. $7.99 a pound is a lot to pay for these cuts of beef.
Actually the 1650's level of sea life would not be the most productive.
Fish reproduction capacities are fairly well documented and although not all species are exactly the same, the general trend holds true for all.
Unfortunately, I do not know how to draw this graph on the webbrowser, so I will have to describe it:
Basically if you should imagine an x axis which is density and the y axis which is fish born. At zero density (fish per cubic meter), there are zero fish born. The curve increases at a rate slightly more than 1 to 1 (i.e. for a +1 in density there is a +1.2 in fish born) up to a certain density. Then, the density gets too great for there to be enough food for maximum reproduction.
Thus, to get the cost of fish down, we need to achieve an ideal density. Scientists can give good rough estimates to maximize the catch over the long term.
But, it only works if there are quotas and agreements that are recognized and enforced.
The reverse is why fisheries collapse. Unfortunately with modern technology we can actually catch "the last fish". Plus, market signals say that as fish become more scarce, their price goes up and the incentive to catch more is increased, which depletes the fisheries even more.
The other alternative (and my preference) is to privatise the fisheries. A company using its own property would have every reason to manage it in a way to maximize its production. This would require significant regulation, but would be much preferrable to a quota system.
The tragedy of the commons is an issue we are going to have solve pretty soon - well that is if you like fish.
I think I saw that movie in 1956...
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.