2013/06/22 by Michael W. Courtney, Courtney, Michael W., Joshua Courtney +1
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Environmental Science · #FOS: Biological sciences #Marine and coastal ecosystems #Oceanographic and Atmospheric Processes #Oil Spill Detection and Mitigation #Populations and Evolution (q-bio.PE)
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1306.5366
openalex publication_date 2013/06/22 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Mississippi River nutrient loads and water stratification on the\nLouisiana-Texas shelf contribute to an annually recurring, short-lived hypoxic\nbottom layer in areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico comprising less than 2% of\nthe total Gulf of Mexico bottom area. Many publications demonstrate increases\nin biomass and fisheries production attributed to nutrient loading from river\nplumes. Decreases in fisheries production when nutrient loads are decreased are\nalso well documented. However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric\nAdministration (NOAA) persists in describing the area adjacent to the\nMississippi River discharge as a "dead zone" and predicting dire consequences\nif nutrient loads are not reduced. In reality, these areas teem with aquatic\nlife and provide 70-80% of the Gulf of Mexico fishery production. On June 18,\n2013, NOAA published a misleading figure purporting to show the "dead zone" in\nan article predicting a possible record dead zone area for 2013\n(http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130618deadzone.html). This area is\nnot a region of hypoxic bottom water at all nor is it related directly to 2013\npredicted hypoxia. This figure appeared as early as 2004 in a National\nAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) article\n(http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/deadzone.html) as a satellite\nimage where the red area represents turbidity and is much larger than the\nshort-lived areas of hypoxic bottom water documented in actual NOAA\nmeasurements. Thus, it is misleading for NOAA to characterize the red area in\nthat image as a "dead zone." The NOAA has also published other misleading and\nexaggerated descriptions of the consequences of nutrient loading.\n