Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Scientists Solve Riddle of Toxic Algae Blooms

Posted by timothy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:10 AM
from the bet-that-lake's-no-longer-pristine dept.
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the Victoria Times Colonist: "After a remarkable 37-year experiment, University of Alberta scientist David Schindler and his colleagues have finally nailed down the chemical triggers for a problem that plagues thousands of freshwater and coastal ecosystems around the world." Punchline: "Phosphorus."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Irony! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Redfeather (1033680) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:17AM (#24290495) Homepage

    This week's lesson: this discovery comes not long after phosphorus was eliminated from most household laundry detergents by federal law.

    According to a chemistry major I know, adding one gram or so of phosphorus can cause more devastating algae ownage than adding two or three kilograms of carbon.

    • Re:Irony! (Score:5, Funny)

      by 4D6963 (933028) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:19AM (#24290529)

      According to a chemistry major I know, adding one gram or so of phosphorus can cause more devastating algae ownage

      Algae ownage? I'd love to read that guy's thesis!

    • Re:Irony! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:37AM (#24290809) Homepage

      This week's lesson: this discovery comes not long after phosphorus was eliminated from most household laundry detergents by federal law.

      Federal law in America and in most of Europe, apparently. I wonder how much of the developing world still uses phosphorus-based detergents?

    • Re:Irony! (Score:5, Informative)

      by QuantumRiff (120817) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:52AM (#24291065)

      Unfortunately, it is one of the major ingredients in fertilizer. In rural farming comunities, the problems with algea can get very severe from farmers over-fertilizing their fields. The algea bloom might be many, many miles down a river, from the combination of many different farms.

      • What?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PRMan (959735) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @01:00PM (#24292261) Homepage

        It took 37 years to figure out that fertilizer helps plants grow?

        The plants, they won't grow...

        I'm no scientist...but have you tried, water?

      • Re:Irony! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AlvinTheNerd (1174143) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @02:17PM (#24293443)
        In a lot of fertilizers for gardern and lawn use it, but not farms. Farms are not allowed, at least in Iowa, to use industrial phosphorus. They use ammonia, manure, and limestone (antacid). There is no way farmers could get away will the amount or type of fertilizer that is allowed on lawns and gardens in suburbia. But its never suburbia's problem, they have too much voting power.
    • Re:Irony! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Atari400 (1174925) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @12:41PM (#24291943)
      It's not irony, it's phosphorousy!
    • Re:Irony! (Score:4, Funny)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @01:15PM (#24292523) Journal

      This week's lesson: this discovery comes not long after phosphorus was eliminated from most household laundry detergents by federal law.

      FTFA, this discovery "comes not long after" experiments done in the 1960's and 1970's.

      • Re:Irony! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld AT newsguy DOT com> on Tuesday July 22 2008, @03:47PM (#24294997)

        Also the true discovery, according to the article, is that nitrogen actually works against the process (in that controlling the amount of nitrogen that went into the lake actually caused more damage). This goes against the current trend of thinking that the two (phosphorus and nitrogen) were working in conjunction.

    • Does this mean I can still proceed with my "Lake Detergent Water Slide: Your kids have fun and get clean at the same time!" amusement park?
  • by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:19AM (#24290523) Homepage Journal

    From TFA:
    There are now 146 coastal regions in the world in which fish and bottom-feeding life forms have been entirely eliminated because of a lack of oxygen. One dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is about the size of the city of New Jersey and growing.

    I can understand dumbing-down the units of measure to Volkswagens or Libraries of Congress, but the last time I looked at Wikipedia, New Jersey was still the 3rd state admitted to the Union [wikipedia.org]. I mean, come on... it's already the brunt of every New York comedian's jokes, and now you Brits are trying to demote it to a mere "city"?

    (Of course, I'm from Texas, where an "area the size of the STATE of New Jersey" would barely be counted as a moderate-sized ranch.)

    • Re:City of... what? (Score:4, Informative)

      by xpuppykickerx (1290760) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:22AM (#24290575)
      New Jersey, Northumberland, New Brunswick, Canada This is an article from Canada after all.
      • Satire (Score:5, Funny)

        by BitterOldGUy (1330491) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:32AM (#24290721)

        New Jersey, Northumberland, New Brunswick, Canada This is an article from Canada after all.

        I'm taking it as a very clever form of satire: confusing New Jersey as a state versus a city; confusing Canada with England.

        I mean, it's pretty obvious that it's a Canadian article because it's in English and Canada is the only state in the Union that speaks English.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:51AM (#24291049)

      From TFA:
      There are now 146 coastal regions in the world in which fish and bottom-feeding life forms have been entirely eliminated because of a lack of oxygen. One dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is about the size of the city of New Jersey and growing.

      I can understand dumbing-down the units of measure to Volkswagens or Libraries of Congress, but the last time I looked at Wikipedia, New Jersey was still the 3rd state admitted to the Union [wikipedia.org]. I mean, come on... it's already the brunt of every New York comedian's jokes, and now you Brits are trying to demote it to a mere "city"?

      (Of course, I'm from Texas, where an "area the size of the STATE of New Jersey" would barely be counted as a moderate-sized ranch.)

      In defense of New Jersey vs Texas, while you have the size advantage on us, we have waaaaaay more toxic Super-Fund sites here, thus ensuring our mutated progeny a leg-up (or tentacle/webbed appendage)on you soon-to-be extinct bipeds from the Lone Star State.

    • 'Course, I'm from Alaska, where an area the size of Texas would be a moderate-sized park.

      Oh, SNAP!

      Although we like Canada over here next door. They're like the sassy ol' widow that bakes fresh pie and leaves it on the windowsill for us.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm from Alaska - If we made Alaska into two states, Texas would be the third largest state in the union.

    • Good morning Canada, how are you?
      Don't you know me, I'm your neighbor below
      I'm the state you called the city of New Jersey
      and I've got 500 miles of phosphorus glow
  • Who knew (Score:5, Funny)

    by Narpak (961733) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:20AM (#24290539)

    Not only does the government have to pull out all stops to control phosphorous, he says, it needs to protect wetlands that remove these nutrients from runoff before they reach lakes and streams. It also needs to set up rules that create natural buffer zones that protect lakes and rivers from agricultural, municipal and cottage developments.

    Who knew that pumping phosphorous and toxic waste into the rivers and ocean would have negative consequences.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      What's interesting is that I was taught this over eight years ago, and I'm certain the information was available before that. The only thing new about this is the name on the research paper.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Common sense would tell you that if a lake was pristine before someone started using fertilizers on farm fields, and that there were algae blooms after that time, that it was something to do with the fertilizers. Most articles in the past have talked about fertilizers and nitrates.

        What the scientist guy has done, is proved scientifically through trial and error, that it is the phosphorous alone, and not anything else that controls how large the algae blooms get. If other scientists can reproduce his experim

  • Common knowledge? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:25AM (#24290611) Homepage Journal

    Isn't the fact that phosphorus stimulates algae growth, which suffocates other lifeforms, common knowledge? I seem to recall being taught this in school...

  • by OglinTatas (710589) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:25AM (#24290613)

    I was wondering what was so important about this study because the effects of phosphorous on aquatic life have been known for decades (hence the phosphate ban on detergents) but then I RTFA (which also mentioned the ban) and what the experiment really showed was that efforts to control nitrogen runoff are useless because it turns out nitrogen is not the problem (the implication being we are wasting money^Weffort controlling it).

    Bottom line: nitrogen is not the problem, phosphorous is _still_ the problem and needs more effective pollution control measures.

  • Harvest the stuff. Make fuel out of it. It's way better than using corn. You're throwing away free gas...ok diesel.

    • Harvesting is one of the principle limitations to the commercial adoption of algal biodiesel.

        • by Hillgiant (916436) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @07:31PM (#24297503)

          First you have to separate the bloom from the water, then you have to separate the algae from all the other gunk skimmed with it, then you have to separate the triglyceride bits from the non triglyceride bits. Then you hope that the oil fractions of the particular species are high enough to make it worth your while.

          All of these things can be done, but often they require more energy than is in the oil.

        • by thelexx (237096) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @11:48AM (#24290993)

          Words fail. From the Red Tide wiki page:

          "Marine and fresh waters teem with life, much of it microscopic, and most of it harmless; in fact, it is this microscopic life on which all aquatic life ultimately depends for food. While most of these species of phytoplankton and cyanobacteria are harmless, there are a few dozen that create potent toxins given the right conditions. Harmful algal blooms may cause harm through the production of toxins or by their accumulated biomass, which can affect co-occurring organisms and alter food-web dynamics. Impacts include human illness and mortality following consumption of or indirect exposure to HAB toxins, substantial economic losses to coastal communities and commercial fisheries, and HAB-associated fish, bird and mammal mortalities. To the human eye, blooms can appear greenish, brown, and even reddish- orange depending upon the algal species, the aquatic ecosystem, and the concentration of the organisms."

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Yes, but we can grow more efficient hydrocarbon eating algae in isolated raceway ponds in the desert where they will have no effect on other organisms. The type of algae being produced in these dead zones is no where near as efficient in the bio diesel production loop.

          In addition, using these highly specialized algae as an emissions filter for coal fed power plants can have a huge effect on existing power production emissions with out running the risks or costs associated with converting to a different sou

            • by PPH (736903) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @01:42PM (#24292977)

              Algae growth can literally FILL a lake in just a few years, in fact this is part of the natural cycle for small lakes, which as they silt up and the water warms up, will fill first to algae beds, then to marsh, and finally to meadow; once started, the entire process can take as little as ten years

              Rich snots find pleasant lake and build waterfront mansions around it. Being rich, they insist upon maintaining a couple of acres of putting green quality lawn around them. [This I know, since I live on such a lake, but my 'yard' is basically wild. Whatever grows there unfertilized naturally. The rich snots hate me for not having a nice green lawn.] Eventually, their fertilizer will plug up the lake, turning it into a marsh. Their property values will plummet and they'll all move out.

  • "Life's Bottleneck" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Svartormr (692822) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @12:00PM (#24291221)
    ...is an essay by Isaac Asimov, first published in the April 1959 edition of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, then latter in his collections Fact and Fancy (1962) and Asimov on Chemistry (1974).

    In it the Gentle Doctor argued that phosphorous has the greatest relative concentration increase going from its abundance in the natural environment to that in life of all sorts. It thus was often the limit to growth of life as it was scavenged up and held in the biomass.

    It's always important to confirm by testing in specific cases, as with this one, as there are other limits, such as dissolved iron. I can't remember where, but I recently read that low blood iron may be a defensive mechanism to make it hard for bacteria to grow during some infections--and that treating the low iron may be the wrong treatment here.
  • by syrinx (106469) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @12:25PM (#24291655) Homepage

    The worst part of the algae blooms are the damn mindworms.

    Also, I'm not sure what phosphorus has to do with it; I thought algae blooms were caused by drilling too many thermal boreholes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Is there something I'm missing here?

      A shot at enough money to fund an experiment for 37 years, apparently.
      • Yea, jesus, that's a whole career with only one deliverable.

        • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

          by FlyingOrca (747207) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @12:34PM (#24291785) Journal

          Ahem. I happen to know Dave Schindler--he and my father were colleagues--and his contribution to our knowledge of aquatic ecosystems has been quite important. Among other seminal research out of ELA were definitive papers on phosphorus and nitrogen loading (per TFA) and a little thing called acid rain. Not long ago Schindler was given a $1M award for lifetime contributions to science, and I'm not aware of anyone who would say it wasn't richly deserved.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @02:16PM (#24293429)
      Is there something I'm missing here?

      Read your own link, then your post. You mention phosphorus and only phosphorus. Your link mentions phosphorus and nitrogen. That's what the issue is. The common thought was that it was all fertalizer (expecially phosphorus) that caused the blooms. He showed it was phosphorus and only phosphorus and that attempts to remove nitrogen as well only exacerbated the problem. It isn't anything "new" in that phosphorus causes blooms. It is "new" in that people thought other chemicals contributed as well, and they have been found to be inconsequential.
    • by demachina (71715) on Tuesday July 22 2008, @01:14PM (#24292491)

      "Is/does fertilizer always contain phosphorus?"

      It does if you order it that way. The three numbers on fertilizer bags are:

        Nitrogen-Phosphorous-Potash(Potassium).

      If the middle number is zero it doesn't have any Phosphorous. You can get a number of trace elements like Sulfur, Calcium, Magenesium, Iron and other assorted trace elements.

      Properly educated farmers, gardner and landscapers certainly can reduce the problem by:

      A. Getting their soil tested before they apply fertilizer and apply only what is indicated by the test. Using a lab is best if you are fertilizer some acreage, or you can make an educated guess using a home test kit.

      B. Be careful when irrigating after applying fertilizer to avoid washing it off, sprinklers being much preferred over flood irrigation

      Another factor that is probably reducing the Phosphorous pollution problem is its so expensive lately, along with Nitrogen and Potash, that farmers either can't afford it or are very careful when they do splurge on it.