>>It seems to be that Roth was employing some sleight of hand with his calculations. He's trying to make out that 100 organisms per litre is very little and that this can be scaled up in a bloom situation. In actual fact the 100 per litre already refers to a massive bloom (of foraminifera). I don't know how accurate his reference is but my search for foraminifera bloom densities states a typical maximum of >1000/m3 which equates to just >1 individual per litre. The bloom of 10 million organisms per litre figure he uses to extrapolate is not foraminifera but dinoflagellates. Why is he mixing up taxa like this, is it because he didn't have the figures he wanted ?>>
I think it is pretty unfair...and a bit loathsome...that you want to besmirch Roth, as if he's pulling some switcheroo to deceive his audience. So what if he used dinoflagellates (which he simply called "a microscopic bioluminescent protozoa") as an example of how reproduction rates can jump dramatically under ideal conditions for such microscopic marine life? Notice in the following, how he even suggests caution about a conclusion that such rates could be sustained. (Emphasis mine).
Roth: "The pollution from large duck ranches on the borders of Moriches Bay, New York is thought to contribute to a peak concentration of phytoplankton of more than 10 billion organisms per liter. On the other hand, if the Ca ion input was limited, the expected increase in CO2 in the water resulting from decaying organic matter would favor the dissolution of carbonate shells reducing the rate of accumulation. The total picture appears much more complicated than the few comments this note will allow."
Why would a deceiving trickster trying to pull off "sleight of hand" include that cautionary statement which results in reducing the amount of accumulation? He also wrote:
Roth: "It must be emphasized that the high rates given above are optimum and do not appear at all to represent average present-day rates. The figures given represent the biological potential of these organisms."
He is trying to show the POTENTIAL these organisms have, not what is normally seen or even seen PRESENTLY under less than optimum conditions. Why would a deceiver include that statement, Wibble?
Also, he SAID that the 100/ liter amount WAS a "HIGH concentration". How exactly do you figure he was "trying to make out that 100 organisms per litre is very little" when he TELLS us it is NOT little but "HIGH CONCENTRATION." AND he never attempted to "scale up in a bloom situation" as you accuse. Show us where he did that, supposedly. Readers can find his article here: http://www.grisda.or...igins/12048.htm and see for themselves. He merely used that HIGH number to show how long was the MINIMUM for accumulation of the actual measurement of 100 m of foram sediment in the ocean...i.e. 1000 years. Half the ocean ooze that is formed from organisms is forams and the other half are coccoliths. He simply began talking about the forams. There was no intent to deceive. Did YOU (Wibble) intend to deceive US about that? I HOPE it was simply due to your not being careful reading rather than your looking to find some evil motive and/or intending to mislead us about Roth's honesty.
>>Also, I think its a mistake to think that adding excessively more nutrients is going to constantly increase productivity >>
Nobody SAID it WOULD "constantly increase." There would be other limiting factors too.
>>because other limiting factors come into play such as lack of oxygen in such an enriched environment.Going back to coccolithophores it seems they often actually bloom in nutrient depleted situations where they have a competitive advantage, at high nutrients other plankton such as diatoms do better.>>
This conflicts with this statement from wiki:
"It has also been proposed that the added weight of multiple layers of coccoliths allows the organism to sink to lower, more nutrient rich layers of the water". It implies they want to be in higher nutrients, not lesser.
"This structure, which is unique to haptophytes, coils and uncoils in response to environmental stimuli. Although poorly understood, it has been proposed to be involved in prey capture." So if they are trying to capture organic prey, I would assume that they might also like organic dead stuff to feed on. I believe you may have gotten your idea from this:
"When they are haploid they are K- selected and are often more competitive in stable low nutrient environments. Most coccolithophores are K strategist and are usually found on nutrient-poor surface waters."
This just seems to me to be saying they can compete better against other life forms when both are struggling in a low nutrient environment. I don't think that means (as you seem to imply) that if there were high levels of nutrients they would reproduce less. It may just mean other competitors would do better.
"The increase in agricultural processes lead to eutrophication of waters and thus, coccolithophore blooms in these high nitrogen and phosphorus, low silicate environment." High nitrogen and phosphorus content would be in waters where dead things were rotting.
Also: "Eutrophication (Greek: eutrophia—healthy, adequate nutrition, development; German: Eutrophie) or more precisely hypertrophication, is the ecosystem response to the addition of artificial or natural substances, mainly phosphates, through detergents, fertilizers, or sewage, to an aquatic system. One example is the "bloom" or great increase of phytoplankton in a water body as a response to increased levels of nutrients. Negative environmental effects include hypoxia, the depletion of oxygen in the water, which may cause death to aquatic animals."
I don't think anyone (me OR Roth or Snelling) would say there are no limiting growth factors if you keep adding more nutrients. Surely other things affect their growth. One is ocean acidity. Another might be oxygen (however they thrive well when oxygen is LOW, when other creatures cannot live). And another is temperature. It is very possible that the extreme blooms were due to warmer temperature or alkalinity during or after the Flood as much or moreso as nutrient level.
The source you asked for in an earlier post regarding heterotrophy of coccolithophores is here:
(look at pdf file)>>
The search I did of the .pdf showed NO RESULTS for the word "heterotrophy." What is the right source for what you said? I also (in a brief scan) could find no discussion at all of what they "eat." As you said, the word means "able to ingest organics" and what I've read seems to suggest that they can. Or perhaps bacteria must first break down the organics into the chemicals the coccolithophores like and THEN they eat them. However, there is some sort of "prey" that they are said to eat also.