The case against renewed ocean iron fertilization field trials
Abstract
Buesseler et al. call for larger and longer ocean iron fertilization (OIF) trials to assess climate-relevant carbon dioxide removal potential. We argue that such trials may document local ecosystem responses but cannot resolve the two central uncertainties for climate policy: removal potential and downstream consequences. Net atmospheric CO 2 removal depends on carbon export, air-sea re-equilibration, circulation, downstream nutrient redistribution, and ecosystem responses occurring beyond trial boundaries. Global models representing these processes consistently find removal potential to be low, and field trials cannot overturn that evidence. The same models identify delayed and far-field impacts on oxygen and ecosystems under basin-scale OIF, which trials can neither evaluate nor prevent, deferring judgment to the models they are intended to improve. Progressively larger OIF trials are therefore unwarranted. Research should instead prioritize observations of naturally fertilized systems and better models, which could test the controls on OIF carbon yield without deliberate perturbation.
Related
- Inferring the perennial biomass and phytoremediation potential of thirty-one woody species from large phytomanagement field trials
- Evaluation of HNO3, SO2, and NH3 in the Surface Tiled Aerosol and Gaseous Exchange (STAGE) option in the Community Multiscale Air Quality Model version 5.3.2 against field-scale, in situ and satellite observations
- Process-based upgrades to the WRF multi-layer green-roof scheme (WRF-MLGR v2.0) and evaluation against field observations
- Evaluation of HNO ₃ , SO ₂ , and NH ₃ in the Surface Tiled Aerosol and Gaseous Exchange (STAGE) option in the Community Multiscale Air Quality Model version 5.3.2 against field-scale, in situ and satellite observations
- Effects of Rhizobium inoculation and integrated fertilization on the nutritional composition of maize (Zea mays L.) in northwest Ethiopia
BibTeX
@article{poupon2026case,
title = {{The case against renewed ocean iron fertilization field trials}},
author = {Mathieu A Poupon and Patrick C Gray and Alessandro Tagliabue and John J Cullen and Yeala Shaked and Guillaume Bourdin and Lee Karp-Boss and Oscar Schofield and Katja Fennel and Laurent Bopp and Marina Lévy and Emmanuel Boss},
journal = {Dialogues on Climate Change},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1177/29768659261498319},
url = {https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-05849625v1},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - The case against renewed ocean iron fertilization field trials
AU - Mathieu A Poupon
AU - Patrick C Gray
AU - Alessandro Tagliabue
AU - John J Cullen
AU - Yeala Shaked
AU - Guillaume Bourdin
AU - Lee Karp-Boss
AU - Oscar Schofield
AU - Katja Fennel
AU - Laurent Bopp
AU - Marina Lévy
AU - Emmanuel Boss
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
JO - Dialogues on Climate Change
DO - 10.1177/29768659261498319
UR - https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-05849625v1
AB - Buesseler et al. call for larger and longer ocean iron fertilization (OIF) trials to assess climate-relevant carbon dioxide removal potential. We argue that such trials may document local ecosystem responses but cannot resolve the two central uncertainties for climate policy: removal potential and downstream consequences. Net atmospheric CO 2 removal depends on carbon export, air-sea re-equilibration, circulation, downstream nutrient redistribution, and ecosystem responses occurring beyond trial boundaries. Global models representing these processes consistently find removal potential to be low, and field trials cannot overturn that evidence. The same models identify delayed and far-field impacts on oxygen and ecosystems under basin-scale OIF, which trials can neither evaluate nor prevent, deferring judgment to the models they are intended to improve. Progressively larger OIF trials are therefore unwarranted. Research should instead prioritize observations of naturally fertilized systems and better models, which could test the controls on OIF carbon yield without deliberate perturbation.
SN - 2976-8659
SN - 2976-8659
ER -