Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Shrinks

The Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium reports that the dead zone in the Gulf is much smaller this year than expected. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[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.


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.


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

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