Phytoplankton include diatoms and other algae which inhabit 3 quarters of the earth's surface, but account for

less than 1% of the 600 billion metric tons of carbon contained within photosynthetic biomass. Phytoplankton can draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the sea, influencing climate. Injecting surface waters with amounts of iron stimulates help phytoplankton growth, but if humans alter phytoplankton's impact on the carbon cycle is crucial for predicting long term ecological side effects. Phytoplankton and land dwelling plants use sunlight energy to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Oxygen is liberated as waste product and makes pretty much all animal life on earth and humans. Plant's cycle of carbon and climate depend on photosynthetic organisms using hydrogen to convert inorganic carbon into organic matter (sugars, amino acids and other biological molecules that make up their cells) Primary production conversion of CO2 into organic matter If all phytoplankton were to die the CO2 in the atmosphere would rise by 200 parts per million or 35% in a matter of centuries Phytoplankton incorporate about 45 to 50 billion metric tons of inorganic carbon into their cells Land plants take in 52 billion metric tons a year of inorganic carbon a year so phytoplankton draw nearly as much CO2 out the atmosphere through photosynthesis to the ocean as much as trees, grasses, and other land plants. Through the process of biological pump phytoplankton removes CO2 from the surface waters and atmosphere and stores it in the ocean which is about 15% of the carbon accumulate each year where it's released as CO2 as the dead cells decay. Phytoplankton incorporates 50 billion metric tons of carbon which often is simulated by iron via windblown dust. of 1% of dead phytoplankton cells and fecal matter settles into sea floor sediments before it can be recycled in the upper ocean Some carbon incorporates into sedimentary rocks like black shales (largest area of organic matter) a smaller fraction deposits petroleum and natural gas.

Phytoplankton need nitrogen and phosphorus. Phosphorus come from phosphate minerals within continental rocks which enter oceans only via freshwater runoff. Nitrogen is most abundant gas in the atmosphere and dissolves in saltwater Phytoplankton growth is limited dew to the availability of nitrogen During ice ages amounts of iron was much higher and dust particles were larger than during warmer times When dust is high CO2 levels are low and vis versa Enhancing primary productivity can lead to local problems of serve oxygen depletion. Oxygen depletion and other problems having to do with nutrient runoff have already degraded more than the coastal waters in the U.S.

Taking up about three quarters of the Earth's surface and only accounting for 1% of the 600 billion metric tons of carbon are single celled organisms called phytoplankton, diatoms, and other algae. Phytoplankton is the most common and the one that has the greatest effect on sea life and human life. One of the most talked about topics is how marine phytoplankton influence climate change. With new satellite observations and extensive oceanographic research projects are revealing how sensitive these organisms are to changes in global temperatures, ocean circulation and nutrient availability. Many researchers, entrepreneurs and policymakers want to manipulate phytoplankton population in order to lessen one contributor to global warming. To do this they want to add nutrients to the oceans. Southern Oceans confirmed that with injecting iron into the oceans there will be a population increase of phytoplankton, but the interference by human activity can alter phytoplankton's impact on the plant's carbon cycle. Phytoplankton and all land dwelling plants use energy from the sunlight through photosynthesis to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, which is what creates practically all animal life along with our own. As for hydrogen, that is relied on to help convert the inorganic carbon in CO2 into organic matter which is known as primary production. Now with the knowledge that phytoplankton draws as much CO2 out of the ocean and atmosphere as plants do another discovery was made that the rapid life cycle of phytoplankton is the key to their ability to influence climate. Which is why scientists want to help with the reproduction cycle of phytoplankton, but what they don't know is the effect it might have on sea life if they do interfere. One big one is they can inject too much iron into an area of the ocean and thereby create a dead zone which means losing life forms in the area that was overly injected, and no one really knows how long it will take for life to recover, or if the various species will ever come back. Another is when injecting you can't really predict what type of phytoplankton will react to the fertilizer so for all we know we may be growing the toxic type of phytoplankton which would be contrary to the purpose of the experiment. The idea I concentrated on most is the fertilization of phytoplankton. The plan seems to be a good idea since phytoplankton is important for life in the sea and human life, but the fact that there is a possibility that things can go wrong makes me wonder if it's really worth risking. A few of the negative things involve what I stated above, dead zones can occur, toxic phytoplankton can grow and one more thing to add is that this process is fairly expensive. What's the point of spending a ton of money to fund this project and end up having it cause more trouble then what there already is? Again trying it is the best way to make a final decision on whether or not it's a good idea, but there's always the possibility that something can go wrong.

So What? The effect of humans trying to take over nature's process can be a very dangerous thing to test. Any little thing can mess up natures cycle. Since phytoplankton is important to the environment it's important to keep it safe and find ways to help this species to continue to grow, but it's also important to not hurt them and make them extinct, which is the down side of injecting them with iron. In every experiment there are always one or two things that can go wrong, but their effects aren't that serious. In this case though we could wipe out a whole species or enhance the growth of the wrong species. What if..? The process goes all wrong and phytoplankton begin to die. What will we do? I would assume we would either back off or try to find a way to save phytoplankton. But really it's important to not even get to a state like that. Phytoplankton supply nearly 80% of our oxygen and like many animals if they die they alter the functioning of the ecosystem, making sea life a lot harder than it already is.

Says Who? Some groups from both private and public sectors offered to have their companies' commercial ships release small amounts of fertilizer for the growth of phytoplankton. Knowing about the scientists' discovery that when iron is added in a dead zone, that the phytoplankton population would grow, caused interest in the prospect.

What Does This Remind Me Of? This reminds me of the coyote lab we did in class. How the other species in the coyote ecosystem depended on coyotes to have their little group to continue living at a healthy state. Like the coyotes in the lab the phytoplankton are a key species. The rest of the ecosystem depends on them, along with us and we need to take precaution on what we do to try to make life better for them. We need to really look at the negative side of what plan to use and see if it's really worth it.