Regional evidence atlas

Ocean iron fertilisation: Three regions. Three carbon pathways.

Each ocean system changes the biological response, export pathway, atmospheric accounting and observation design. Comparison does not rank locations.

Broad scientific context

HNLC describes a regional oceanographic condition, not an individual project area.

Macronutrients can remain abundant while iron often constrains phytoplankton growth. Boundaries, mechanisms and seasonal expression vary.

Broad scientific context only: not HNLC boundaries, maritime boundaries, project sites or permission areas.
Coastline and shaded-relief base: Natural Earth ↗. HNLC context: Lin & Letscher (2024) ↗. The three curves are schematic; boundaries and seasonal expression vary.

Side-by-side evidence

Different questions control each pathway.

Field studies differ by region, season, experiment design, initial conditions and observation period.

Regional evidence comparison
QuestionEquatorial PacificSubarctic North PacificSouthern Ocean
Evidence baseIronEx field experiments plus Galápagos natural iron-plume observations; response and rapid transport are directly observedSEEDS/SEEDS-II and SERIES field experiments plus Line P/OSP observations; repeat outcomes divergeSOIREE, EisenEx, SOFeX North/South, EIFEX, SAGE and LOHAFEX deliberate experiments; natural analogues at Kerguelen, Crozet and South Georgia
Central MRV questionCan biological and carbonate signals be separated from advection, ENSO, upwelling and an evolving matched reference?What fraction crosses the permanent thermocline or winter ventilation depth rather than being grazed, respired or diluted?How do deep export, winter ventilation, air–sea equilibration and non-local nutrient effects combine in a net atmospheric account?
Ecological uncertaintyCommunity succession, grazing, silica, toxin pathways, oxygen-minimum-zone and downstream nutrient effectsSeed stock, grazing, Pseudo-nitzschia/toxin pathways, silica and food-web redistributionLight and silica limitation, grazing, trace gases, protected food webs, benthic effects and displaced productivity
Operational realityFast moving-patch and downstream-corridor sampling across ENSO and seasonal statesOpen-ocean ship time, comparable seasonal repeats, taxonomy/toxin laboratories and long export follow-upLong transit, narrow weather windows, deep instruments, recovery cruises and winter or multi-season observation
Governance sensitivityHigh-seas IronEx evidence and Ecuador’s protected Galápagos context have distinct geographic and legal contextsOSP and SEEDS sites are high seas; Canadian and Japanese scientific leadership does not create site jurisdictionNew Zealand, French/TAAF and SGSSI protected regimes, the South Georgia dispute, and Antarctic/CCAMLR geography have distinct contexts

Primary evidence: Coale et al. (1996) ↗ · Tsuda et al. (2003) ↗ · Boyd et al. (2004) ↗ · Boyd et al. (2000) ↗ · Gervais et al. (2002) ↗ · Coale et al. (2004) ↗ · Bishop et al. (2004) ↗ · Buesseler et al. (2005) ↗ · Smetacek et al. (2012) ↗ · Peloquin et al. (2011) ↗ · Martin et al. (2013) ↗.

Source: linked regional studies and scientific guidance. Experiment-specific observations and research design implications. Studies differ in place, season, dose, duration, method and follow-up; comparison cannot rank regions

Evidence classes

Evidence scale and measurement window.

Observed

Field observation

A measurement tied to a stated method, place, period and intervention or natural analogue.

Modelled

Model output

A result conditional on model structure, forcing, parameterisation and scenario assumptions.

Open question

Unresolved evidence

Evidence may be sparse, conflicting or not comparable across places, seasons and observation windows.