Oceans May Absorb More Carbon Dioxide

Plankton may absorb more of the CO2 causing climate change than previously thought, according to new research

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For a while, Adam Martiny and some of his fellow scientists had suspected something was not right in how researchers understand the oceans. The object of their suspicion was something called the Redfield ratio, a principle stating that, when nutrients are not limiting, ocean microorganisms always have the same ratio of three elements: carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.

This matters now because the Redfield ratio is used to help modelers and biogeochemists understand how important elements like nitrogen and carbon cycle in the oceans. If the Redfield ratio does not hold true, climate researchers might have to adjust how that process is represented in their climate models.

So Martiny, an associate professor of Earth system science at the University of California, Irvine, and a few of his colleagues set out to sample the ocean and test the ratios. What they learned, detailed in a paper published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, was that the ratios of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus varied in different parts of the ocean. They also discovered the patterns of variation corresponded to different latitudes.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"How much carbon is attached to each molecule of nitrogen or phosphorus just used to be [considered] a constant," said Francois Primeau, a co-author on the paper and an associate professor of Earth system science at UC Irvine.

But that's not the case. For example, in warm zones near the equator that are low on nutrients, the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus measured was 195:28:1; in cold, high-latitude regions with plenty of nutrients, the ratio changed to 78:13:1. Redfield's ratio is 106:16:1 oceanwide.

Many models have predicted that a warming ocean will take up less carbon because higher temperatures lead to smaller phytoplankton, which take less carbon to the bottom of the ocean when they die. The amount of carbon these plankton take with them is typically calculated based on the Redfield ratio.

What happens in science when a 'constant' isn't?
This change from a constant ratio to one that varies depending on latitude will likely shake up climate models, because it demonstrates regional variability, said Jasper Vrugt, another co-author.

"Likely we will see regional differences in the ocean. That will also have an effect on the climate change patterns that you simulate," he said.

Because the ratios vary by latitude, the plankton may actually take more or less carbon with them as they sink down to the ocean floor, depending on where they are.

The way the data played out with the variations correlated with latitudes is actually good news for modelers, even though they will need to do some revisions, Martiny said.

"I think most modelers, they get sort of a tired look when they hear the biologists come out with yet another mechanism, saying this is real important, you have to incorporate that," he said, laughing a little.

"But when I can also tell the modelers, here are what the ratios are in different ocean regions, and we can describe why it is different," he added, "I think that way it can pretty easily now be incorporated into a model."

Mick Follows, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a modeler who works on ocean circulation and biogeochemical cycles, said that while he was not surprised the Redfield ratios were "flexible," it was useful that the study mapped out latitudinal patterns in the variations.

As the ocean continues to warm, Martiny says he plans to track how these ratios change, which could also alter how carbon moves through the ocean.

Follows agreed.

"When considering a changing climate, this introduces another dimension for change for which we have not yet fully explored the implications," he said.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe