A science blog with Eric Berger













Eric Berger

27 Responses

  1. Matt Simpson says: already holds the record for the largest “dead zone”.

  2. M4 says:

    Given the wide confidence interval, “between 7,286 and 8,561 square miles” for this year’s forecast, might not every year be a “possible record-setting year?” Also, how small would the estimated dead-zone areahave to be to set a record for lowest in, say, the last decade?

  3. craig says:

    From the map it looks like Lousiana and Mississippi are the big losers in the dead zone sweekstakes.

    As a nation we need to take a hard look at the enthanol mandate. It seems there are more downside that upside ramifications from us continuing to implement it.

    If I was a crab or oyster living in one of the danger zones I’d think I be packing my bags.

  4. justbob says:

    of course the “dead zone” has been there since the beginning of the mississippi river.
    what other opinion would you expect from the NOAA.

  5. Bill Wilson says:


    Why the double negative? A large storm can stir these waters enough to increase oxygen levels capable of sustaining marine life.

  6. Neo says:

    Dang, I was hoping this was about Gulf-dwelling zombies…

  7. w00t says:

    The Vegans should be very ashamed of the death they’ve brought to the sea…they also have proven that they don’t control nature…save a pig kill a dolphin…

    • Vagabond says:

      No, most corn is used for ethanol, the waste is used then for livestock.
      Most farmers growing corn would also lose money if the government did not subsidize Monsanto NO.5 mainly. Which is unfit for consumption.

    • DanGringo says:

      Actually, most vegans and vegetarians I know (I am vegetarian, not vegan, but know a few) are very conscious about the source of their food and insist on sourcing as much local, small farm, organic products and would not spend their money to support mass-production farms like what’s referred to here knowingly. This is just personal hearsay but the whole vegetarian/vegan discipline is based on awareness of what you eat and where it comes from and is counter to big-market industrial farming.

      But having said that, I seem to remember reading (here?) about a study several months ago that the majority of the dead-zone fertilizer run-off comes from Mom-and-Pop operations, and household gardens and lawns, where the “if a little is good then a little more must be better” theory of fertilization reigns, as opposed to the big farms who have very good controls in place to ensure exact dosages for each field.

      I would also wonder if the GMO crops might be the least to blame for this, as they require less fertilizer to begin with?


    • Glenn Beak says:

      80% of US corn is used domestically and 20% exported. Predictions from the USDA for 2013 corn domestic corn consumption estimates 4.9 billion bushels will go for alcohol production, 5.2 billion bushels for livestock feed, and 1.5 billion bushels for food, seed, and industrial use.

  8. CryptKeeper says:

    So, as long as the MS River flows, this dead zone will continue to grow?

    • Eric Berger says:

      No. It has more to do with the amount of nutrients, primarily from fertilizer, in the water. However, more of these nutrients are carried into the Gulf when the Mississippi’s flow is greater.

  9. Chris C. says:

    Not to bring the climate change firestorm in, but I’ve heard that the melting of the arctic ice has been reducing the strength of the gulf stream currents. Does that play enough of an impact on stirring up the waters and bringing in fresh water that the loss of the gulf stream will make these dead zones worse?

  10. saved says:

    They need to install large Aeration pumps to cut down on the problem.

  11. Ben says:

    Once again Obama is to blame

    • Glenn Beak says:

      US use of nitrogen fertilizer peaked in 2007 at 13.2 million tons. In 2010 it was down to 12.3 million tons. Phosphate use in fertilizer went from 4.5 million tons in 2007 to 4.0 million in 2010. (I’m assuming the comment wasn’t sarcasm.)

  12. Ryan in Texas says:

    Too bad the editors could never politically accept the headline “Dead Zone Kills more Marine Life than BP Spill”.
    But from what I have read, it has a much larger impact.
    There have been many mass kills with the Dead Zone over the years.
    If we include the all the associated algae blooms – and the impacts – it’s a huge hidden story.
    But the US media never mentioned Ixtoc during the BP spill – so you can’t rely on the truth coming out.
    You would think the comparison of Ixtoc vs BP would be all over the news.
    Same type of oil, same quantity of oil, same body of water – even same dispersant (Corexit) used on both.
    So why didn’t they mention 1979′s Ixtoc Gulf oil spill?
    Think about it – you ever heard of any major impacts from Ixtoc?
    If they compared them, they would bring attention to the fact that Ixtoc did minor damage to marine life – and then you might think the same about BP’s spill.
    And it turned out the BP spill had the same impacts as Ixtoc.
    I guess the hype sells ads a lot better than the truth.

  13. Jim says:

    I don’t really see this year’s fertilizer being that much of a deal.
    But with all the rain this spring flushing the fields of last year’s
    fertilizer that was unused because of the drought, it could provide
    a serious whack to the Gulf.
    They planted corn late this year because of wet fields. While the
    Ohio River drainage is going well, some of the Missouri drainage
    has been late enough to switch to soybeans.
    In something of a paradox, the corn supply may have a “hole” develop
    –according to some commodities traders–at the same time that the
    Gulf develops its dead zone. No corn and no shrimp at the same time.
    Biological systems can just naturally become quite complex.

  14. slimpickins says:

    I’m hoping that one day our “government” will miraculously wake up and realize we’re screwed if we don’t do something NOW!. The Arctic Polar cap is at or very near the tipping point, we’ve lost 1/2 of the world’s corral reefs, CO2 just keeps rising along with the heat, extreme storms are occurring far too frequently, increased CO2 adsorbed in the oceans is creating an acidic uninhabitable marine environment and small islands are being evacuated due to sea water rise. But the House and Senate are having study panels to think about the “problem”.

    Ever heard of miners taking canaries down with them into the mine? If the canary keels over, get the hell out! We have lost 50% of our bees, frogs, bats and salamanders. All of those creatures are our canaries in the mine, but our government sits there and discusses it, none of them will make a stand for fear of losing votes and their lucrative “public servant” (yeah, right, what happened to 90% of the public in favor of stronger background checks?) job.

    My comment about nitrogen and phosphorus is it’s a lost cause to curb the use. There are eco-friendly alternatives to those chemicals but the farmers believe in Monsanto (Supreme Court ok’d any frankenstein-organisms they want to try). Scientists know those chemicals are bad news for bodies of water, common sense says try an alternative method in an area large enough to register some positive results. Try something, don’t let the mega-corporations dictate with their bad , well thought out agenda.

  15. The name “dead zone” is a misleading characterization of areas of seasonal (summer) short lived (2-3 weeks) oxygen depletion at the bottom layer of water.

    The peak area of hypoxia depends on numerous factors including how much N and P are applied by farmers, N and P loads from point sources, volume of flow through the watershed, degree of stratification of water layers, mixing by tides, winds, and storm systems, etc.

    Years which have high N and P loads and relatively strong stratification with minimal mixing can have above average hypoxic areas. Focusing on any one causal factor (N and P load) to the exclusion of others (mixing) is bad science. There seems to be an environmentalist theme to move toward a scheme of limiting how much N and P farmers can apply (analogous to carbon credits).

    My preferred mitigation plan would be to get the US government out of US agriculture by ending subsidies for farming and ending the ethanol and biodiesel related mandates. Ending the false price supports and subsidies would inevitably lead to fewer acres in corn and soybeans and less pressure to apply as much N and P to acres farmed, because demand and price per bushel would not justify the extra fertilizer costs. It’s the ethanol and biodiesel mandates that are putting the extra N and P in the Gulf of Mexico.

    It is well known (but little publicized of late) that up to a point, increases in N and P can significantly benefit both biomass and harvest numbers in most fisheries, and that fishery production in the Gulf increased greatly along with the increases in agricultural fertilizer use in the US from the 1950s to the 1990s. See:


    Biomass production decreases with increasing distance from the Mississippi river because the amount of nutrients also decreases. Those farmers are not just fertilizing their corn and beans, they are fertilizing our fish!


    A large, annually recurring region of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico has been attributed to water stratification and nutrient loading of nitrogen and phosphorus delivered by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers. This nutrient loading increased nearly 300% since 1950, primarily due to increased use of agricultural fertilizers. Over this same time period, the red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) population in the Gulf of Mexico has shifted strongly from being dominated by the eastern Gulf of Mexico to being dominated by the northern and western Gulf of Mexico, with the bulk of the current population in the same regions with significant nutrient loading from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers and in or near areas with development of mid-summer hypoxic zones. The population decline of red snapper in the eastern Gulf is almost certainly attributable to overfishing, but the cause of the population increase in the northern and western Gulf is subject to broad debate, with the impact of artificial reefs (primarily oil platforms which have increased greatly since the 1960s) being the most contentious point. Nutrient loading has been shown to positively impact secondary production of fish in many marine systems. The present paper offers the hypothesis that increased nutrient loading has contributed significantly to increased red snapper population in the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Nutrient loading may be working in synergy with the abundant oil platforms both increasing primary production and providing structure encouraging red snapper to feed throughout the water column.