Based on facts from class, is fertilizing oceans is a good way of reducing atmospheric CO2 produced by human-related activities?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks whether fertilizing oceans is a good strategy to reduce atmospheric CO2 from human activities, based on class facts.

Option 1: 'No, with acidification and loss of biodiversity, opportunistic species could grow exponentially causing imbalance of the food web.' This answer captures the core concern: nutrient fertilization in oceans can trigger eutrophication-like effects, fuel algal blooms, acidify surface waters, and disrupt community structure by favoring fast-growing or invasive species. Such shifts threaten biodiversity and can destabilize food webs, which is why this option identifies real ecological risks.

Option 2: 'Yes, because that means higher biodiversity.' This is misleading. Adding nutrients to the ocean does not guarantee higher biodiversity; it often reduces it by promoting blooms of a few species that outcompete others, leading to monocultures or harmful algal blooms and a net loss of species diversity.

Option 3: 'Yes, because more living things means more ecological balance.' While on the surface more life might seem beneficial, nutrient fertilization tends to disrupt balance rather than create it. It can cause oxygen depletion when blooms die and decompose, create dead zones, and alter nutrient cycles in ways that destabilize ecosystems, not improve balance.

Option 4: 'No, carbon doesn't move out of the atmosphere into aquatic systems.' This statement is factually inaccurate. Carbon does move between the atmosphere and oceans via gas exchange; CO2 dissolves in seawater, and biological processes can transfer carbon into marine ecosystems. While this transfer is real, fertilizing oceans is not a proven or safe method to meaningfully reduce atmospheric CO2 and carries ecological risks highlighted in Option 1.

In summary, the statement in Option 1 correctly reflects the environmental risks associated with ocean fertilization, whereas Options 2 and 3 misstate potential outcomes by assuming universally positive effects on biodiversity and balance, and Option 4 incorrectly claims the atmospheric-ocean carbon exchange is not a factor at all.

Biol 1106 Rosenzweig Sp2025 CRN's11552 & 11553 Final Exam Lessons 1-24 - Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

Based on facts from class, is fertilizing oceans is a good way of reducing atmospheric CO2 produced by human-related activities?

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Imagine for a moment that you will be the person that makes the final decision to fund fertilizing the world's oceans with Iron. Would you decide to implement or not implement this practice. (Yes it is worth 0 points).

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单