Reply to: No evidence for equatorial Pacific dust fertilization

replying to A. W. Jacobel et al. Nature Geoscience https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0304-z (2019)

We disagree with the arguments put forth by Jacobel et al.1 and stand by our original interpretations2. Jacobel et al.1 assert that no evidence of Fe fertilization by dust is provided by Loveley et al.2 and claim the same for their dataset from nearby Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 1240. However, we interpret their dataset differently: there is a moderate, statistically strong positive correlation between the excess Ba (xsBa) and 232Th fluxes (coefficient of correlation, r = + 0.49, P < 0.01; fig. 1a in ref. 1). The relationship between their 232Th and Fe fluxes is even stronger (r = + 0.62, P < 0.01; Fig. 1b in ref. 1), indicating a significant influence of dust on Fe availability.

Fluxes of xsBa scale nonlinearly with dust flux at site MV1014-02-17JC. We stated that, and noted a clear relationship between xsBa and dust “during or near Heinrich Stadials (HS) 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7”2. For HS6 and 7 there are statistically significant positive correlations between xsBa and dust fluxes (r = + 0.47, P < 0.05 and r = + 0.96, P < 0.01, respectively). For HS1, 2 and 5, xsBa is likely affected by bottom-water hypoxia, defined by authigenic U values that are the highest in the entire record (>10 ppm)2. The low-O2 bottom waters probably released Ba3, which diffused downwards slightly and re-precipitated, causing the xsBa flux to lead the dust flux signal by only ~1 kyr.

We see no evidence in Jacobel et al.1 in support of their claim that upwelling of equatorial undercurrent waters provides all of the Fe and is the sole cause of fertilization in the easternmost eastern equatorial Pacific (EEP). During past cold events, similar to boreal winter conditions today, a southward-shifted intertropical convergence zone probably reduced equatorial upwelling4. Regardless, Fe concentrations in the eastward-flowing equatorial undercurrent, sourced from continental inputs in the western Pacific, are nearly zero by 110° W due to scavenging and the short residence time of Fe (0.8–1.0 nM at 140° W to ≤0.09 nM at 110° W)5. Even farther east, the Galapagos Islands obstruct, deflect and weaken the equatorial undercurrent6, making the role it plays in supplying Fe to our site at 86° W even less likely. It is apparent that our site would be more sensitive to dust fertilization due to continental proximity, which leads to dust fluxes that are about 5–10 times greater than those at all 11 locations considered by Jacobel and colleagues1. In fact, east of the Galapagos Islands2,7,8,9,10,11,12, changes in aeolian delivery and its role in export production and the global CO2 cycle cannot be ruled out. We therefore find the assertions1 that there is unquestionably no dust fertilization at our site or theirs to be unwarranted.

The EEP is the greatest oceanic source of CO2 to the atmosphere today13, yet an abundance of data show that the easternmost EEP may have been a net sink of CO2 at times during the last deglacial and glacial periods7,9,10,11,12. The argument1 against net changes in biological pump efficiency and atmospheric \(p_{{\mathrm {CO}}_2}\) drawdown relies on nutrients sourced from equatorial upwelling, resulting in surface waters with elevated CO2 concentrations. This assumption fails to consider that Fe fertilization from dust can increase the efficiency of the biological pump and carbon sequestration in a high nutrient–low chlorophyll region, even with no net changes in upwelling.

References

  1. 1.

    Jacobel, A. W. et al. No evidence for equatorial Pacific dust fertilization. Nat. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0304-z (2018).

  2. 2.

    Loveley, M. R. et al. Millennial-scale iron fertilization of the eastern equatorial Pacific over the past 100,000 years. Nat. Geosci. 10, 760–764 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    McManus, J. et al. Geochemistry of barium in marine sediments: implications for its use as a paleoproxy. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 62, 3453–3473 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Fiedler, P. C. & Talley, L. D. Hydrography in the eastern tropical Pacific: a review. Progr. Oceanogr. 69, 143–180 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kaupp, L. J. et al. The distribution of dissolved Fe and Al in the upper waters of the eastern equatorial Pacific. Deep Sea Res. Part II 58, 296–310 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lukas, R. The termination of the equatorial undercurrent in the eastern Pacific. Progr. Oceanogr. 16, 63–90 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    de la Fuente, M. et al. The evolution of deep ocean chemistry and respired carbon in the eastern equatorial Pacific over the last deglaciation. Paleoceanography 32, 1371–1385 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Costa, K. M. et al. Productivity patterns in the equatorial Pacific over the last 30,000 years. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 850–865 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Martínez-Botí, M. A. et al. Boron isotope evidence for oceanic carbon dioxide leakage during the last deglaciation. Nature 518, 219–222 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Doss, W. & Marchitto, T. M. Glacial deep ocean sequestration of CO2 driven by the eastern equatorial Pacific biologic pump. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 377–378, 43–54 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Robinson, R. S., Martinez, P., Pena, L. D. & Cacho, I. Nitrogen isotopic evidence for deglacial changes in nutrient supply in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Paleoceanography 24, PA4213 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Pichevin, L. E. et al. Enhanced carbon pump inferred from relaxation of nutrient limitation in the glacial ocean. Nature 459, 1114–1117 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Takahashi, T. et al. Global sea-air CO2 flux based on climatological surface ocean pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effects. Deep Sea Res. Part II 49, 1601–1622 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

F.M., M.R.L., M.W.S. and J.E.H. each contributed to the discussion, writing and editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Marcantonio.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marcantonio, F., Loveley, M.R., Schmidt, M.W. et al. Reply to: No evidence for equatorial Pacific dust fertilization. Nat. Geosci. 12, 156 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0305-y

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing