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."
Irony! (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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, Funny)
I'm guessing that's British for "Pwnage", correct?
Re:Irony! (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I believe the British spelling is 'aenage'.
Re:Irony! (Score:5, Funny)
One dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is about the size of the city of New Jersey and growing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is about the size of the city of New Jersey and growing.
How many football fields worth of VW Bugs is that?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the developing world has other problems, like eating.
Re: (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: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.
What?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
It took 37 years to figure out that fertilizer helps plants grow?
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was my initial response but from the article it seems the real discovery wasn't phosphorous induces plant growth.
The real discovery was that nitrogen removal methods in already damaged waters actually exacerbates the problem. Somewhat profound since it appears the common method to fight blooms is to try and reduce nitrogen.
Belthize
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention algae blooms (and resulting fish kills) caused by waste spills from hog farms [findarticles.com] [findarticle.com].
Re:Irony! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In a lot of fertilizers for gardern and lawn use it
This combination of words really makes my head freak out every time I try to read it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Does that help at all? ;)
Re:Irony! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Irony! (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
So why do we still have huge algae blooms? Are farmers still using it widely, does it come from animal poop, or are industrial or residential sources more prominent? Presumably this and similar discoveries mean that the dead zone of Louisiana comes from phosphorus brought down the Mississippi.
Harvesting algae (Score:2)
But algae can be harvested and turned into something useful — such as natural food for cows, or fuel. All it does, is turning Sun's energy into plant (itself) and — with the help of only a little bit of phosphorus — rather efficiently...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Something which is weird is that I know it was recently banned here in Sweden in laundrary detergents, but then I read a test of cleaning power in multiple ones and the store "Willys" own brand was supposed to be the best one, so I bought a box.
The packaging says "new formula" and I noticed the ingredient list said "fosfor." I wonder if the ingredient list is wrong or if they actually made a kind of illegal detergent or whatever have happened. I did so back then aswell but I didn't knew how much of a deal i
City of... what? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Satire (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm taking it as a very clever form of satire: confusing New Jersey as a state versus a city; confusing Canada with England.
Um yes, yes, YES.
Clever satire. Exactly what I meant.
(at least that's what I told myself after I pushed the "submit" button...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm taking that as very clever satire. It's pretty obvious you confused a country with something that can speak!
Re:Satire (Score:5, Funny)
That proves nothing! It could have been spoofed by those New Mexicans! They are always invading America. They are worse than the old Mexicans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a New Mexican, you insensitive clod.
Re:City of... what? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
She said, "Kiss me where it smells . . ." (Score:3, Funny)
Re:City of... what? (Score:5, Funny)
'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:City of... what? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm from california. Where are Texas, Alaska, and Canada? Are they in the valley?
Re:City of... what? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You may well be right, but as an Angelino, born and bred, I'm sure that Florida is a hoax made up by people to attack our orange industry. I've never understood why anybody would want to drink orange juice from some imaginary place like Florida when the best eating oranges in the world come from Southern California.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank You! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm from Alaska - If we made Alaska into two states, Texas would be the third largest state in the union.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
which one would have people in it?
Re:City of... what? (Score:5, Funny)
Both. Michael would stay in the bigger new state, and Billy would be in the other.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Um, the article is from the Victoria Times-Colonist, in British Columbia, Canada. The fact that the domain name is "canada.com" might have been a tip-off. While Victoria is more British than most Canadian cities, it's still run by us colonials.
I'm assuming it was the extra vowels in "phosphorous" which made you think it was British. We Canadians are remarkably inconsiste
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I'm from Alaska, where we joke that someday we'll cut Alaska in half and make Texas the third largest state in the union.
--AC
Who knew (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re: (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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Almost every Marine Aquarium enthusiast with half a brain.
It's always in big print in all the materials if you want anything prettier than nemo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew that pumping phosphorous and toxic waste into the rivers and ocean would have negative consequences.
It's not "negative consequences", it's Localised Phosphorus Content Change.
Common knowledge? (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the fact that phosphorus stimulates algae growth, which suffocates other lifeforms, common knowledge? I seem to recall being taught this in school...
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just in fertilizer, but in soaps and industrial products. From what I hear, the algae blooms from the industrial runoff was choking the Chicago River at one point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Common knowledge? (Score:5, Funny)
phosphorus leads to flora growth? They ought to look into using that stuff in fertilizers.
suffocates? (Score:2)
which suffocates other lifeforms
The article says this as well, and I don't doubt it, I just don't understand. Bluegreen Algae are what gave us an oxygen atmosphere to begin with. [wikipedia.org] How is it that they suffocate life, when they're giving off oxygen?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So yes, it was already known th
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.
Why is this a plague?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Harvest the stuff. Make fuel out of it. It's way better than using corn. You're throwing away free gas...ok diesel.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this a plague??
because it kills stuff, lots of stuff to be specific
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but there's lots of it and it's causing problems with its existence. If it could be harvested and put to use it'd be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
To what gain? The cost in labor and fuel to harvest it would likely significantly out weigh any benefit the algae could offer as a raw material.
Nah, it's best to fight the cause, and expend minimal resources on the symptoms in this case. Limit the spread, attempt harvests in the places where recovery is more likely, and promote native growth.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Try to take off your algae=fuel blinders for a second and see the situation for what it really is...
Re: (Score:2)
So do we. Doesn't mean we should kill ourselves off though
but maybe we should stop feeding it
Algae is a big solution to our fuel problems
you may be right, but I don't think you are referring to the "plague" variety. I think what you want is to collect the phosphorus pollution and sell/give it to people who grow fuel-producing algae?
And it's pretty and green.
and smells delicious
And it absorbs CO2, no?
Just long enough to get it into your gas tank so you car can liberate the CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the algae in question are suitable for such usage.
Funny you should say that.... (Score:3, Informative)
Harvesting is one of the principle limitations to the commercial adoption of algal biodiesel.
Re:Funny you should say that.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel is toxic - what's it matter if the algae it comes from is too?
Grandparent's post is wacky FUD, but diesel's toxicity would be of greater relevance if you had to fish your dinner out of it.
As for the original post, harvesting the stuff would be making the best of a bad situation, but the better answer is to keep it from happening in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, let's not get confused here -- not all algae is toxic. A fairly good rule of thumb is that if it's green it's safe, but if it's some other colour (notably red) it's not good for you.
As to phosphorus (ie. a major component of fertilizer) being the problem, we've known that for decades -- it's why phosphates were phased out of laundry detergents. Not that there isn't plenty of phosphate in nature already, but detergents in wastewater provided an oversupply which promoted atypical algae growth.
Algae grow
Interesting life cycle (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
As one of those appalled by the proliferation of McMansions in the most inappropriate places, I heartily applaud your sentiment :D
well duh (Score:2)
Why anyone thought nitrogen was the problem I don't know. Nitrosomonas are a natural part of the aquatic process transforming fish waist into nitrogen.
Re:well duh (Score:5, Funny)
Fish don't have waists. That's why they seldom wear pants.
Huh? (Score:2)
I thought it was widely known that the phosphorous in fertilizer was a root cause for eutrophication [wikipedia.org]?
Is there something I'm missing here?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A shot at enough money to fund an experiment for 37 years, apparently.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yea, jesus, that's a whole career with only one deliverable.
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: (Score:2)
According to TFA, getting rid of phosphorus is the only way to eliminate algae blooms. Getting rid of carbon and nitrogen is useless. The guy happens to have 37 years of data backing him up.
The less money spent on getting nitrogen out of the water, the more money spent on getting phosphorus out of the water. Assuming that's even economical... it's probably far easier eliminating it from the source(s).
Re: (Score:2)
Carpenter predicts that a single-minded focus on nitrogen control would have disastrous consequences for aquatic resources around the world.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
"Life's Bottleneck" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Oh great, another Schindler with another list. (Score:2)
Agriculture... (Score:2)
Here in NZ, agriculture caused the same thing. (these blooms were in very low population, farming areas)
At first I thought that it was obvious in that everybody here knows that fertilisers dumped in the water were the obvious cause of algae blooms and other related water poisonings, but I guess those that do not come from a non-farming community would not.
There are many more poisons being dumped in the water than just this. Mercury for example. Fortunately in our country we are pretty strict about this. (al
Reef-aquariums - we've had proof in another form.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Check out some of the results of a Google for "reef+phosphates" [google.com] and see the problems even a tiny increase in the ppm of phophate can cause in a salt-water reef aquarium. Even just one additional ppm above "normal" can be pretty extreme.
Multiply those effects by the size of our collective phosphate-largesse and the size of the oceans and I guess you get full-on dead zones instead of just a tank of nasty algae and bacteria.
Hope this helps.
-Matt
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
the type of algae involved with most toxic blooms in freshwater systems (and is the cause of many marine and estruary blooms as well) is mostly cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, which is certainly not a plant.
Phosphorous from fertilizer is the really big problem from farm run-off as a lot of the rest of the run-off elements/chemicals are naturally at higher concentrations in the water to begin than is the case with P. Normally there is almost no dissolved P left floating around free in an aquatic system.
Re: (Score:2)
> So that terrible M. Night Shyamalan garbage won't become a reality.
I checked, and unfortunately the movie still exists. (Man, that's 91 minutes I'll never see again.)
Re:We can't kill... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That President Bush is, in fact, algae?
Well, duh!