Seabird ammonia emissions contribute to atmospheric acidity
September 23, 2008Ammonia emissions from seabirds have been shown to be a significant source of nitrogen in remote coastal ecosystems, contributing to nutrient enrichment (eutrophication) and acidification in ecosystems. While most ammonia emissions originate from domesticated animals such as poultry and pigs, seabirds are the most significant emitters of ammonia to the atmosphere in remote regions.
A recent study, "Temporal variation in atmospheric ammonia concentrations above seabird colonies", published in Atmospheric Environment, has shown how emissions may vary between seabird species, with a higher proportion of ammonia volatilized from bare ground nesting birds compared to burrow nesters. Seabird populations are fluctuating, with some species increasing as others undergo dramatic declines. This has a significant effect on seabird-mediated marine to terrestrial nutrient flow—and atmospheric acidification.
Lead author, Dr.Trevor Blackall believes that the "results presented in this paper will help scientists to predict the likely changing contributions of seabirds to atmospheric emissions of ammonia." According to Dr Blackall, "the findings will help further understanding of the effects of biodiversity loss and climate change on ecosystem function."
According to Chief Editor Peter Brimblecombe, this study is "fascinating in the context that birds excrete uric acid unlike mammals, where excreted urea is readily converted to ammonia. Ammonia is the only major alkaline gas in the atmosphere and has a major effect on atmospheric acidity. This work uncovers a potentially large biological source of ammonia."
"The results should be of interest not only to scientists, but to the wider public, in particular people with ornithological interests," emphasized Elsevier publisher Friso Veenstra, "And climate change is of concern to us all."
Source: Elsevier
Oct 07, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
What a bunch of drivel. You slobbering morons need to shut up about climate change and go scrape the bullshit out of your two front teeth.
Read The Frakkin Article, and anyone will see that you have completely missed the following:
According to Chief Editor Peter Brimblecombe, this study is "fascinating in the context that birds excrete uric acid unlike mammals, where excreted urea is readily converted to ammonia. Ammonia is the only major alkaline gas in the atmosphere and has a major effect on atmospheric acidity. This work uncovers a potentially large biological source of ammonia.
Does this make you see that you were not correct and does this makes you less sure about other "facts"?
Dont worry ill keep pointing them out until you get better at it.
And you'll keep looking like a fool. All mammals excrete urea which quickly turns to amonia gas, hence why most cat (another mammal) litters have ammonia reduction agents.
IS it because the authors want seabirds to be replaced by mammals so that excreted urea will decompose to ammonia and CO2 thus reducing the acidity of the atmosphere?? or
Seabirds are bad because they excrete uric ACID??? ooooh..... acid is bad!...??? (uric acid is a mildly acidic purine that has virtually no vapor pressure so it can't "acidify" the atmosphere and it slowly decomposes to ammonia, CO2, and organic carbon compounds in solution, though it's solubility is very low.)
There is no point to this review because the reviewer apparently didn't understand what the authors were talking about. Although maybe the authors didn't either.
http://www.scienc...4535.htm
the supposed problem is due to eutrification from the "ammonia" form the uric acid
That's the way food chains work. The birds create food for the plants, the plants are eaten by bacteria and small fish, which are eaten by larger fish, which are eaten by bird and other predators that take a crap which feeds the plants....
How they correlated this with atmospheric acidity boggles the mind. After reading that suppliment I can see where the relevance for the biodiversity study comes into play, but why would you ever title the article anything involving atmospheric acidity rather than biodiversity, or food chain interruption?
Do i win The Prize?
Maybe the journalist who recycled the paper into this article is, but the paper itself is a rather clear cut study in the effects of biodiversity and bird species ratios affecting sea going plant life.
The whole point is the article never implied anything else: "birds excrete uric acid *unlike* mammals".
If that was the case it would be called food circle! Plants use solar energy and CO2 as "food". They do need certain elements and will absorb them from soil and detritus but it is not their food (just as elements are not food for humans although they are required).
Birds certainly DO NOT create food for plants!
Get your facts straight before posting, almost every your comment contains factual errors.
Look up "plant food" and tell me what's in it.
Look up food chain, and tell me what it is, even if you feed on "plant food" you are an exception.
You know, when a base television show like South Park is more accurate than your commentary you should seriously consider a rethink of where your info is comming from SH.
There is a reason why farmers spread manure on their fields. I wonder what it is.
So Urea is manufactured to boost crop yields, amazing.
And all animals produce it. Even more fascinating.
Read your comment again:
Food chain definition:
http://en.wikiped...od_chain
See the word *ENERGY* in there, take a good look at it. This is what I mean, the concept of food chain is based on *ENERGY*, this is also why it cannot be a circle, 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids such circles.
Plants can't get *any* energy from manure or fertilizer, or urea, plants get energy from the Sun. Fertilizer provides plants with needed elements, just as humans need mineral salts and microelements but that doesn't make it *food*.
This makes your whole comment about food chain *blatantly wrong*, yet you keep arguing, yes I know it confused you that its called "plant food" but thats your problem and I already pointed out your error *twice*! So think for a moment before you type in another useless comment.
And by the way, the second law of thermodynamics does not make cyclical energy transfer impossible. The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. At no point in time would a cyclical system violate that law unless it created a state of lower entropy. So a cyclical food chain would not violate the second law especially since predator prey relationships ensure equilibrium or extinction.
Seeing as without those "needed elements" plants aren't able to construct the structures necessary for photosynthesis I'd say the plants pretty much NEED them to absorb energy, wouldn't you?
Required nutrients are, by definition, food. The plants require other materials than CO2 and sunlight. Sunlight provides energy during the day time (and the plants burn sugars at night) but any analysis of the ash left over from burning plant material will have all sorts of other goodies in it.