Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Uncertain response of ocean biological carbon export in a changing world

Nature Geoscience volume 15, pages 248–254 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The transfer of organic carbon from the upper to the deep ocean by particulate export flux is the starting point for the long-term storage of photosynthetically fixed carbon. This ‘biological carbon pump’ is a critical component of the global carbon cycle, reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by ~200 ppm relative to a world without export flux. This carbon flux also fuels the productivity of the mesopelagic zone, including important fisheries. Here we show that, despite its importance for understanding future ocean carbon cycling, Earth system models disagree on the projected response of the global export flux to climate change, with estimates ranging from −41% to +1.8%. Fundamental constraints to understanding export flux arise because a myriad of interconnected processes make the biological carbon pump challenging to both observe and model. Our synthesis prioritizes the processes likely to be most important to include in modern-day estimates (particle fragmentation and zooplankton vertical migration) and future projections (phytoplankton and particle size spectra and temperature-dependent remineralization) of export. We also identify the observations required to achieve more robust characterization, and hence improved model parameterization, of export flux and thus reduce uncertainties in current and future estimates in the overall cycling of carbon in the ocean.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Uncertain response of export flux to climate change.
Fig. 2: Potential response of export processes to climate change.
Fig. 3: Feedbacks between changing export flux mechanisms and climate.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All CMIP6 model output used in our analysis is freely available from https://esgf-data.dkrz.de/projects/cmip6-dkrz/.Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. De La Rocha, C. L. in Treatise on Geochemistry 2nd edn (ed. Elderfield, H.) 83–111 (Pergamon, 2006).

  2. Kwon, E. Y., Primeau, F. & Sarmiento, J. L. The impact of remineralization depth on the air–sea carbon balance. Nat. Geosci. 2, 630–635 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Henson, S. A., Sanders, R. & Madsen, E. Global patterns in efficiency of particulate organic carbon export and transfer to the deep ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 26, GB1028 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Marsay, C. M. et al. Attenuation of sinking particulate organic carbon flux through the mesopelagic ocean. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1089–1094 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Laufkötter, C. et al. Projected decreases in future marine export production: the role of the carbon flux through the upper ocean ecosystem. Biogeosciences 13, 4023–4047 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Séférian, R. et al. Tracking improvement in simulated marine biogeochemistry between CMIP5 and CMIP6. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 6, 95–119 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kwiatkowski, L. et al. Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections. Biogeosciences 17, 3439–3470 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boyd, P. W., Claustre, H., Levy, M., Siegel, D. A. & Weber, T. Multi-faceted particle pumps drive carbon sequestration in the ocean. Nature 568, 327–335 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Waite, A., Fisher, A., Thompson, P. & Harrison, P. Sinking rate versus cell volume relationships illuminate sinking rate control mechanisms in marine diatoms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 157, 97–108 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Iversen, M. H. & Lampitt, R. S. Size does not matter after all: no evidence for a size–sinking relationship for marine snow. Prog. Oceanogr. 189, 102445 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McDonnell, A. M. P. & Buesseler, K. O. Variability in the average sinking velocity of marine particles. Limnol. Oceanogr. 55, 2085–2096 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Francois, R., Honjo, S., Krishfield, R. & Manganini, S. Factors controlling the flux of organic carbon to the bathypelagic zone of the ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 16, 1087 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Le Moigne, F. A. C., Pabortsava, K., Marcinko, C. L. J., Martin, P. & Sanders, R. J. Where is mineral ballast important for surface export of particulate organic carbon in the ocean? Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 8460–8468 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Maerz, J., Six, K. D., Stemmler, I., Ahmerkamp, S. & Ilyina, T. Microstructure and composition of marine aggregates as co-determinants for vertical particulate organic carbon transfer in the global ocean. Biogeosciences 17, 1765–1803 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Seebah, S., Fairfield, C., Ullrich, M. S. & Passow, U. Aggregation and sedimentation of Thalassiosira weissflogii (diatom) in a warmer and more acidified future ocean. PLoS ONE 9, e112379 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mari, X., Passow, U., Migon, C., Burd, A. B. & Legendre, L. Transparent exopolymer particles: effects on carbon cycling in the ocean. Prog. Oceanogr. 151, 13–37 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bach, L. T. et al. An approach for particle sinking velocity measurements in the 3–400 μm size range and considerations on the effect of temperature on sinking rates. Mar. Biol. 159, 1853–1864 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Taucher, J., Bach, L. T., Riebesell, U. & Oschlies, A. The viscosity effect on marine particle flux: a climate relevant feedback mechanism. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 28, 415–422 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Devol, A. H. & Hartnett, H. E. Role of the oxygen-deficient zone in transfer of organic carbon to the deep ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46, 1684–1690 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Laufkötter, C., John, J. G., Stock, C. A. & Dunne, J. P. Temperature and oxygen dependence of the remineralization of organic matter. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 1038–1050 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. López-Urrutia, Á. & Morán, X. A. G. Resource limitation of bacterial production distorts the temperature dependence of oceanic carbon cycling. Ecology 88, 817–822 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cavan, E. L., Henson, S. A., Belcher, A. & Sanders, R. Role of zooplankton in determining the efficiency of the biological carbon pump. Biogeosciences 14, 177–186 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Briggs, N., Dall’Olmo, G. & Claustre, H. Major role of particle fragmentation in regulating biological sequestration of CO2 by the oceans. Science 367, 791–793 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Belcher, A. et al. The role of particle associated microbes in remineralization of fecal pellets in the upper mesopelagic of the Scotia Sea, Antarctica. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 1049–1064 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Herndl, G. J. & Reinthaler, T. Microbial control of the dark end of the biological pump. Nat. Geosci. 6, 718–724 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Burd, A. B. & Jackson, G. A. Particle aggregation. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 65–90 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Steinberg, D. K. & Landry, M. R. Zooplankton and the ocean carbon cycle. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 413–444 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jónasdóttir, S. H., Visser, A. W., Richardson, K. & Heath, M. R. Seasonal copepod lipid pump promotes carbon sequestration in the deep North Atlantic. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 12122–12126 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Archibald, K. M., Siegel, D. A. & Doney, S. C. Modeling the impact of zooplankton diel vertical migration on the carbon export flux of the biological pump. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 181–199 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gorgues, T., Aumont, O. & Memery, L. Simulated changes in the particulate carbon export efficiency due to diel vertical migration of zooplankton in the North Atlantic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 5387–5395 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Aumont, O., Maury, O., Lefort, S. & Bopp, L. Evaluating the potential impacts of the diurnal vertical migration by marine organisms on marine biogeochemistry. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 32, 1622–1643 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stukel, M., Ohman, M., Benitez-Nelson, C. & Landry, M. Contributions of mesozooplankton to vertical carbon export in a coastal upwelling system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 491, 47–65 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Saba, G. K. et al. Toward a better understanding of fish‐based contribution to ocean carbon flux. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 1639–1664 (2021).

  34. Luo, J. Y. et al. Gelatinous zooplankton‐mediated carbon flows in the global oceans: a data‐driven modeling study. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 34, e2020GB006704 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ward, B. A. & Follows, M. J. Marine mixotrophy increases trophic transfer efficiency, mean organism size, and vertical carbon flux. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2958–2963 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dutkiewicz, S. et al. Dimensions of marine phytoplankton diversity. Biogeosciences 17, 609–634 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dever, M., Nicholson, D., Omand, M. M. & Mahadevan, A. Size‐differentiated export flux in different dynamical regimes in the ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 35, e2020GB006764 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Harrison, C. S., Long, M. C., Lovenduski, N. S. & Moore, J. K. Mesoscale effects on carbon export: a global perspective. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 32, 680–703 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Krumhardt, K. M. et al. Coccolithophore growth and calcification in an acidified ocean: insights from community Earth system model simulations. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 1418–1437 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bopp, L., Aumont, O., Cadule, P., Alvain, S. & Gehlen, M. Response of diatoms distribution to global warming and potential implications: a global model study. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L19606 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Leung, S. W., Weber, T., Cram, J. A. & Deutsch, C. Variable particle size distributions reduce the sensitivity of global export flux to climate change. Biogeosciences 18, 229–250 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cavan, E. & Boyd, P. Effect of anthropogenic warming on microbial respiration and particulate organic carbon export rates in the sub-Antarctic Southern Ocean. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 82, 111–127 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cavan, E. L., Henson, S. A. & Boyd, P. W. The sensitivity of subsurface microbes to ocean warming accentuates future declines in particulate carbon export. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 230 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hofmann, M. & Schellnhuber, H.-J. Oceanic acidification affects marine carbon pump and triggers extended marine oxygen holes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 3017–3022 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tanioka, T. & Matsumoto, K. Buffering of ocean export production by flexible elemental stoichiometry of particulate organic matter. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 1528–1542 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wohlers, J. et al. Changes in biogenic carbon flow in response to sea surface warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 7067–7072 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Iversen, M. H. & Ploug, H. Temperature effects on carbon-specific respiration rate and sinking velocity of diatom aggregates—potential implications for deep ocean export processes. Biogeosciences 10, 4073–4085 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Briggs, N. et al. High-resolution observations of aggregate flux during a sub-polar North Atlantic spring bloom. Deep Sea Res. Part I 58, 1031–1039 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Estapa, M. L., Feen, M. L. & Breves, E. Direct observations of biological carbon export from profiling floats in the subtropical North Atlantic. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 282–300 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gordon, C., Fennel, K., Richards, C., Shay, L. K. & Brewster, J. K. Can ocean community production and respiration be determined by measuring high-frequency oxygen profiles from autonomous floats? Biogeosciences 17, 4119–4134 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yang, B. et al. In situ estimates of net primary production in the western North Atlantic with Argo profiling floats. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 126, e2020JG006116 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Claustre, H., Johnson, K. S. & Takeshita, Y. Observing the global ocean with biogeochemical-Argo. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 23–48 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Meinig, C. et al. Public–private partnerships to advance regional ocean-observing capabilities: a saildrone and NOAA-PMEL case study and future considerations to expand to global scale observing. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 448 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Trowbridge, J. et al. The ocean observatories initiative. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 74 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lombard, F. et al. Globally consistent quantitative observations of planktonic ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 196 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Giering, S. L. C. et al. Sinking organic particles in the ocean—flux estimates from in situ optical devices. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 834 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Cram, J. A. et al. Slow particle remineralization, rather than suppressed disaggregation, drives efficient flux transfer through the Eastern Tropical North Pacific Oxygen Deficient Zone. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 36, e2021GB007080 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Palevsky, H. I. & Doney, S. C. Sensitivity of 21st century ocean carbon export flux projections to the choice of export depth horizon. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 35, e2020GB006790 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Buesseler, K. O., Boyd, P. W., Black, E. E. & Siegel, D. A. Metrics that matter for assessing the ocean biological carbon pump. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9679–9687 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mayor, D. J., Gentleman, W. C. & Anderson, T. R. Ocean carbon sequestration: particle fragmentation by copepods as a significant unrecognised factor? BioEssays 42, e2000149 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tanioka, T., Matsumoto, K. & Lomas, M. W. Drawdown of atmospheric \(p_{\mathrm{{CO}_{2}}}\) via variable particle flux stoichiometry in the ocean twilight zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL094924 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Martin, A. et al. The oceans’ twilight zone must be studied now, before it is too late. Nature 580, 26–28 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Giering, S. L. C. et al. Reconciliation of the carbon budget in the ocean’s twilight zone. Nature 507, 480–483 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Boyd, P. W. Toward quantifying the response of the oceans’ biological pump to climate change. Front. Mar. Sci. 2, 77 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kriest, I. & Oschlies, A. On the treatment of particulate organic matter sinking in large-scale models of marine biogeochemical cycles. Biogeosciences 5, 55–72 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Weber, T. & Bianchi, D. Efficient particle transfer to depth in oxygen minimum zones of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 376 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wilson, J. D., Barker, S. & Ridgwell, A. Assessment of the spatial variability in particulate organic matter and mineral sinking fluxes in the ocean interior: implications for the ballast hypothesis. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 26, GB4011 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Iversen, M. H. & Robert, M. L. Ballasting effects of smectite on aggregate formation and export from a natural plankton community. Mar. Chem. 175, 18–27 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Resplandy, L., Lévy, M. & McGillicuddy, D. J. Effects of eddy‐driven subduction on ocean biological carbon pump. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 1071–1084 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Riebesell, U. et al. Enhanced biological carbon consumption in a high CO2 ocean. Nature 450, 545–548 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Taucher, J. et al. Enhanced carbon overconsumption in response to increasing temperatures during a mesocosm experiment. Biogeosciences 9, 3531–3545 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. WCRP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 6) (Earth System Grid Federation, accessed 30 March 2022); https://esgf-data.dkrz.de/projects/cmip6-dkrz/

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a European Research Council Consolidator grant (GOCART, agreement number 724416) to S.A.H. S.A.H. and S.L.C.G. received funding from the Natural Environment Research Council through the COMICS project (Controls over Ocean Mesopelagic Interior Carbon Storage; NE/M020835/1). C.L. acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant 174124. H.I.P. acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation (award #1946072). E.L.C. was supported by an Imperial College Research Fellowship, funded by Imperial College London.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton, UK

    Stephanie A. Henson & Sarah L. C. Giering

  2. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Charlotte Laufkötter

  3. Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Charlotte Laufkötter

  4. School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Shirley Leung

  5. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

    Hilary I. Palevsky

  6. Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, Berkshire, UK

    Emma L. Cavan

Authors
  1. Stephanie A. Henson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte Laufkötter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shirley Leung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah L. C. Giering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hilary I. Palevsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emma L. Cavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.A.H. conceived the manuscript, and all authors contributed extensively to the work presented in this paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie A. Henson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Ken Buesseler, Judith Hauck and Jessica Luo for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Xujia Jiang, Kyle Frischkorn and James Super in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4 and Fig. 1.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Globally averaged annual mean export flux (GtC yr–1) and percentage change in export flux from 1850 to 2100 from 19 coupled climate models in the CMIP6 archive run under the SSP5–8.5 scenario. Percentage change is calculated with respect to the mean of years 1850–1900 for each model.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henson, S.A., Laufkötter, C., Leung, S. et al. Uncertain response of ocean biological carbon export in a changing world. Nat. Geosci. 15, 248–254 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00927-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00927-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing