Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
At first glance it seems like good news: This summer the size of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone is less than half its forecasted size, measuring about 3,000 square miles, according to the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium.
Well, it might be smaller—but unfortunately it’s more severe.
Typically dead zones affect waters near the ocean floor but this year the zone extends up closer to the surface.
Dead zones are waters that have become so choked of oxygen that they’re unable to support ocean life. Massive amounts of fertilizer runoffs from agricultural fields are what create such hypoxic waters. The fertilizer runoff nourishes algae which then feed microbes that consume oxygen.
Scientists say the current shrinkage of this year’s dead zone is due to short-term weather changes, not to any change in an underlying cause.
Unusual weather patterns this year brought high winds and waves in the Atchafalaya River delta and may have infused more oxygen in the shallow waters.
The Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River Watershed Nutrient Task Force has a goal to reduce the dead zone (which on a five-year average measures 6,000 square miles) to 2,000 square miles by 2015.
And this is an important area because the Gulf of Mexico loses 212,000 metric tons of food due to hypoxia, and this threatens the fishing industry which generates about $2.8 billion annually.
—Christie Nicholson
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentWhy does nobody seem to suggest that the simple solution would be to use less fertilisers? farmers are literally just pouring money down the drain. And why not fine farmers to compensate fishermen for their lost ressource? Why do farmers continue to listen to the same erroneous advice concerning dosages of petrochemical products they disseminate indiscriminately in the environment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust increase the price of fertilizer with a tax, that is used to aerate the affected waters? Price increase by itself will limit the use of fertilizer and aerating will help the affected waters. Then of course educate the farmers how they can manage with less fertilizer for example by creating buffer zones between fields and water bodies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if aeration is the answer... if the nutrients are there, and algae will bloom with available oxygen... seems like we would just be creating more algae.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solution must be to work towards replacment of fertilizing techniques. Less, different, etc.
WHY, 200 years after the creation of the metric system, used by scientists of ALL countries in order to facilitate communication and increase understanding, does a publication that aims surely to be read beyond your national boundaries persist in publishing articles that use the system that even the English abandoned . How can you expect to be seen as leading the 21st century world with your minds still in the EIGHTEENTH century. Surely it is now time to join the world. There can be no room for chauvinism and ignorance in science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery informative
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnd the ethanol mandates that cause farmers to put more acreage in production and use more fertilizer to grow the corn to make the ethanol !!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContiued use of chemical fertilizers will only add to this problem. Natural farming practices, such as compost, need to be implemented on a large scale basis in order to turn the tide of this far reaching problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this