Scientists Solve Riddle of Toxic Algae Blooms 237
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."
Re:City of... what? (Score:4, Informative)
Alternate punchline: nitrogen (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Common knowledge? (Score:3, Informative)
Right -- Phosphate free soaps have been on the market for environmentally minded people for years: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/ask_treehugger_whats_the_dirt_on_phosphate-free_soaps.php [treehugger.com]
The City of Chicago even banned (but can't enforce) phosphates in soap since the 70's: http://whoshomewithyourkids.blogspot.com/2007/07/dish-washing-detergents.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Irony! (Score:5, Informative)
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:Common knowledge? (Score:1, Informative)
I'm guessing that this is a case of a scientist finally nailing down the exact biological process for something we've already known--we knew that phosphorous caused algae to grow, but we didn't know why exactly.
Actually, the news-worthy part of this is... that it's JUST phosphorous.
Many areas have phosphorous and nitrogen removal strategies, assuming both contribute to blooms.
This guys research shows that removing nitrogen from the effluent may actually worsen the situation.
When you've got people building $60M processing plants to control algae blooms... and the plant will actually end up creating them when you're done... that's news :D
Re:Why is this a plague?? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Irony! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Who knew (Score:2, Informative)
Not really a new name; the article indicates that this is a re-examination by the same folks who published the study in the 70s to combat the concept that nitrogen was a significant culprity. They wanted to re-emphasize that it's phosphorous that's the real issue and that nitrogen control usually just exacerbates the problem.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Who knew (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 experiment, he gets to publish the paper with his name on it.
Re:So is there fertilizer without Phosphorus? (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Why is this a plague?? (Score:1, Informative)
It depends on the algae. Some are indeed harmless. Some of them produce some of the most potent toxins known. I mean, we're talking biological weapon kind of potent if they were produced in significant quantities. Nasty neurotoxins. Some are so bad that if there is an algal bloom [wikipedia.org] in the area, just visiting the beach and exposing yourself to the low concentration of aerosols generated by the waves can be harmful (though not deadly). Maybe you've heard of ciguatera toxins [wikipedia.org] and paralytic shellfish poisoning [wikipedia.org]? These are caused by eating fish and shellfish contaminated with toxins that were originally produced by algae.
Oh, and many algae aren't green, but orange, reddish-brown, pinkish-purple, yellow, yellow-green, etc. It depends upon the pigments present.
Re:Common knowledge? (Score:2, Informative)
So yes, it was already known that phosphorous causes the problems, and it was known well before you went to high school 8 years ago. In fact, it was known before you were born, and it was discovered by this very scientist. His latest studies are showing however that it is the phosphorous and phosphorous alone that causes it. Nitrogen doesn't cause it or even contribute to the problem like people previously thought. Quite the contrary, nitrogen control worsens the problem.
Re:Alternate punchline: nitrogen (Score:1, Informative)
The title of the summary and the summary itself are still misleading. The study has not found the chemical triggers for what makes a normally harmless harmless bloom turn on toxin production. We just have even more confirmation that algae like P. Nothing new there. As for the control of N: Several varieties of toxic cyanobacteria (toxic reshwater blooms are primarily cyanobacteria) have nitrifying bacteria living symbiotically. You can't effectively limit their N as a result and they flourish in N starved conditions. Being a researcher in the field I am pretty surprised that this study is getting any sort of mainstream press. The questions are truly still unanswered. We still look for the chemical cues for toxin production...
Re:Irony! (Score:2, Informative)
The discovery that phosphorus caused the algae (in 1974)helped to get it removed from detergents.
The punchline really should be: It's not nitrogen. (Still. Also; it's still phosphorus.)
That is what was proved after 37 years. We've known it was phosphorus since 1974!
Funny you should say that.... (Score:3, Informative)
Harvesting is one of the principle limitations to the commercial adoption of algal biodiesel.
Re:Irony! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.assabetriver.org/nutrient/DishwashingDetergentBillS.536.htm [assabetriver.org]
It hasn't all been banned though it should soon be. This looks like a state to state deal which can be a good thing since those companies have thousands of polytics to bribe rather than a handful.
Re:Irony! (Score:2, Informative)
I can't quite remember from school (16 yrs ago) what the negative impact of the nitrogen was but I think it was to do with oxygen and fish.
Detergents were loved by my lawn. As a kid, I would pull out the slip 'n slide [wikipedia.org] in summer. For some extra fun (read 'danger' for the current generation of children), I used copious amounts of dishwashing detergent for some extra slip and a lot more slide.
The next day was always an interesting sight when the grass for a few inches longer.
--
If you believe everything you read, better not read.