Climate Change Could Cause Deep Water Die-Off

By 2100, climate change could be responsible for a massive die-off on the ocean floor, due to a paucity of nutrients floating down from the surface. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Warmer, more acidic oceans are bad news for tropical coral reefs: the coral becomes stunted and bleached. But climate change's oceanic effects could go, literally, much deeper than that—killing off creatures that live four miles down, in permanent darkness. So says a study in the journal Global Change Biology. [Daniel O. B. Jones et al., Global reductions in seafloor biomass in response to climate change]

Researchers modeled nutrient flow in the oceans under several greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. And they found that, by the year 2100, nutrients at the ocean's surface may dwindle, leaving fewer leftovers to float down to organisms below. The result could be a massive die-off of life on the seafloor, like sea cucumbers, starfish, urchins and worms. Under a severe emissions scenario, the loss of marine life globally would equal the biomass of the entire human race.

One bright spot in the deep darkness: the exotic tube worms and giant clams that thrive at hydrothermal vents don't need surface nutrients to survive. But plenty of other species do, the researchers say—and we don't even know much of what's down there. This study makes one thing clear: when it comes to climate change and the oceans, we're already in deep.


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.


—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

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