|
The philosophy of 'nuisance' algae and how treat it
#
# This file is a thread of discussions from the ALGAE-L listserv (whose archive
is searchable at
http://www.seaweed.ie/algae-l/)
# If you have anything to add, please send it to me at jcz@wzrd.com.
# Posted: 2001-12-23, by John Zastrow
###################################################################################
[ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE]
on behalf of Wayne Tyson [landrest@UTM.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:05 PM
To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Subject: Re: comments on "how do I kill it?"
> I have also been reading up on Barley straw application and have been
> disappointed by the amount of information from scientific sources that I
> have been able to obtain.
> I did however locate a series of information at The centre for Aquatic Plant
> Management
> http://saps1.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/articles/barley.html
It appears more like something that removes/binds nitrate and that removes
the alga's nutrients.
I have tried this in planted aquariums by a number of different products and
the raw straw itself. Snake oil if you ask me. I do know it does NOT work in
aquariums. Unless there's an issue like too much NO3 and other out of
balance nutrients involved. In every single success there has been missing
something in all cases I have looked at to date. High NO3's etc.
But I agree that it does seem odd that they like rotting straw to algae.
>
> I have passed this information along to people in my department who are
> receiving complaints about wet ponds "infested" with rotten smelling algae.
> However, I also believe the problem is largely public perception. For some
> reason, decomposing straw is more acceptable in one of these ponds than a
> natural algal community (mostly filamentous greens and desmids).
It's easy to add something, but hard to remove. Folks seem to like to add a
single one shot "pill" or "silver bullet" for any cure. But a green looking
pool/pond/lake etc is not what the public likes to see, they want a mountain
brook with a few diatoms at most. They think we are plain weird:) But often
there are not simple solutions. Consumers and public "wants" are like that.
Often they don't like options A, B, C, D or E. So I try to give them as many
options as I can and wear them down into doing the more natural approaches.
Often these are the more cost effective anyway. The chemical methods are a
band aid and don't address the the long term cure(s). This is not good IMO.
They will also ask around trying to get other opinions and if you mention 1
or two options others have mentioned to them and a few on top of that, they
will come back and seek your advice and hopefully take you up on your
suggestion(s). They need choices basically. If given only one choice they
will often go looking elsewhere. Even if the other choices are bad, like
adding chemicals, CuSO4 etc, telling why they are bad and going into the
natural approaches is good politically and is politically/environmentally
correct. And it cost less(long term-short term etc) is something they all
like to hear about.
> The public
> does not follow the logic that these wet ponds are constructed to retain
> nutrients, and by construction almost guarantee uptake and utilization by
> aquatic plants and algae.
Bravo!
Please come out and tell this to CA's irrigation projects. They are "Q"
rating almost every aquatic plant kept. Anything that threatens the water
supply is in the cross hairs.
> We have also talked about trying to spur
> macrophyte growth, hoping that competition will cut down on the algae
> blooms.
It will cut down on it but it seems to simply wait temporally till the
nutrients are available again for the alga. Hornwort and a few others are
quite good at submersed competitions but the emmersed/floating or marginal
macrophytes are very good not needing HCO3 as a source of C. But aquatic
plants are like algae, they are considered "weeds". So your back to square
one. They do a good job at keeping the levels low, unpreceptible to the
public's eyes, but if you go and take a sample you'll certainly find plenty
of algae. But macrophtyes have different nutrient needs(need more) and
adaptations(roots etc). They can be stunted and held back allowing for algae
to bloom with nutrient cycling alone. Many suspended alga can do quite well
after an aquatic plant die back even if the nutrients are quite low. I
recently went and saw a nice lake full of Chara and this was very nice
looking and the owner liked it as well but did not like the Cyano or the
desmids. It cycled throughout the years as temps went up and down and the
lake was used for irrigation lowering about 6 inches and refilling daily.
Still had algae "problems" but only seasonal.
>
> I have been struggling with the balance of this predicament, as I am quite
> fond of studying natural algae communities and the majority of the public
> views them as nuisances to be eliminated.
The Cladophora balls from Japan are interesting and the public likes them:)
Chara too as long as they don't get a whiff of it. Burnt rubber bands, "I
think a skunk went by here not long ago" and other smells are used to
describe it. Very tough stuff.
> I am interested to hear how other
> people deal with this issue, and if they have found other natural methods of
> abatement of algal biomass (aside from prohibiting people from fertilizing
> their golf courses and lawns).
Aquatic plants .....but these are weeds too. Some will feel that the aquatic
plants are much better than the algae is some cases. But "Ducks Unlimited"
is for promoting of wetlands(habitat for algae/plants!) Folks are much more
likely to accept a nice "natural scene" or nature reserve or "working with
the environment".
But natural methods such as herbivore additions, nutrient controls if
possible favoring one species or the higher plants/algae etc, low
maintenance plant filters are one of the best methods for small to large
scale controls, awareness programs and informing the public on seasonal
natures of algae, awareness that it is "natural" and we are helping it by
adding more nutrients, showing off some interesting kelp forest pic's(or
whatever looks neat to spur interest, Diatoms, microphotographs). There more
but this is off the top of my head.
Regards,
Tom Barr
[ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE] on behalf of David Menne [menne@IINET.NET.AU]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:47 AM
To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Subject: Re: comments on "how do I kill it?"
> I have been struggling with the balance of this predicament, as I am quite
> fond of studying natural algae communities and the majority of the public
> views them as nuisances to be eliminated. I am interested to hear how other
> people deal with this issue, and if they have found other natural methods of
abatement of algal biomass (aside from prohibiting people from fertilizing their
golf courses and lawns).
>
>
>I am interested to hear how other people deal with this issue, and if they have
found other natural methods of
> abatement of algal biomass (aside from prohibiting people from fertilizing
their golf courses and lawns).
>
>
> Cara M. Muscio
> Watershed Protection and Development Review
> City of Austin
> cara.muscio@ci.austin.tx.us
>
South-West of Johannesburg, Anglo American installed a series of ponds to
take their cattle feedlot wastes. The first pond was anaerobic to make
nutrients more available if I recall; the next one grew algae; and the next,
contained fish which fed on the algae [the Moggel, and indigenous Orange
Free State Species]. The larger fish were supplied to their migrant workers
and the smaller ones dried and hammer-milled and returned to cattle feed.
I recall that a similar philosophy of "CSTR" bioreactors were implemented
[in the 70's ?] using chemical engineering techniques to restore the Thames
sufficiently so a salmon was seen in the vicinity of Tower Bridge [if I
recall correctly], for the first time in 150 years.
When I ran a small wholesale nursery in Benoni Agricultural Holdings [E of
Johannesburg] in the early 80's I created a balanced ecology in my main
water feed dam : stocked it with attractive koi (gaining in value faster
than money in the bank), with 200 litre (essentially submerged) drums full
of hardy indigenous plants collected from local wetlands (still growing &
green in the iced mud/sludge) at dead of winter [6" deep dogbowl of water
could freeze through in a few hours]. The plants just mopped up all
potential algae-forming nutrients and gave the fish shelter from predatory
birds. Some (of the aquatic) plants could be sold on.
On the West Rand, a municipality [Randburg I think, or Roodepoort]
fertilises the grasslands for their Game Reserve [lions, rhino etc] with
excessively nutrient-laden water.
[Artificial] Wetlands for mopping up just about anything from (out of) water
are commonly considered for treating mine wastes and I believe I still have
a Rotary Bioreactor Design Manual in my files - but have moved to more
"natural" technology.
Basically if a systems approach with a integrated management plan is
implemented from the start, golf courses, residential developments etc can
end up utilizing the excess nutrients as a resource rather than the source
of a problem.
You may also be aware that foliar and trickle fertigation can reduce
nutrient application rates by 3 to 10-fold; and of course the excess to be
dealt with, by far greater factors.
[ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE] on behalf of David Menne [menne@IINET.NET.AU]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 8:54 AM
To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Subject: Re: ALGAE-L: dealing with "How do I kill it?"
I was told the hay [a] provided celulosic food [carbon] which could "react" with
0.16 N and 0.016 P units for each unit of C; and by microbes immobilized on the
straw substrate.
----- Original Message -----
From: Julian Sprung
To: David Menne
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: ALGAE-L: dealing with "How do I kill it?"
This is an interesting comment. Traditional means of controlling algae employ
strong herbicides, which was the point of the original question. If hay works,
it sure seems like a more environmentally friendly alternative. The use of
"barley grass" or hay has been promoted in the pond industry recently. I was
wondering if anyone on the list could explain the process by which this "method"
works. Is it enzymes or the promotion of the development of microorganisms (infusoria)
that subsequently consume the algae, or something else?
Sincerely,
Julian Sprung
From: David Menne <menne@IINET.NET.AU>
To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Subject: Re: ALGAE-L: dealing with "How do I kill it?"
Date: Fri, Aug 10, 2001, 6:32 PM
Some years ago I investigated the chance to make money out of solving a problem
of unsightly/smelly algal blooms at the water hazards of some very international
standard local golf courses where this problem was affecting international image
etc [The Vines http://www.vines.com.au/; Araluen http://www.araluencc.com.au/home.html;
Lake Joondalup http://www.joondalupresort.com.au/general/general2.htm].
Then a farmer delivered a whole lot of bales of hay which were dumped into the
water; and solved the problem in a few days.
----- Original Message -----
From: William J Henley <mailto:henley@OKSTATE.EDU>
To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE <mailto:ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 12:49 AM
Subject: ALGAE-L: dealing with "How do I kill it?"
I'd like to see some discussion of a scientifically-informed yet practical
response to the question many of us routinely receive from the public,
agriculture extension agents, etc. That question is: "I have this algae in my
pond/lake/river - how do I kill it? My response is always in the form of some
questions, such as:
1. Why is it there in the first place? A: Too much nutrients, usually from
lawn/golf course fertilizers and/or livestock.
2. How long do you expect to get rid of it, because a poison is only effective
for a limited time, but the root cause remains (see #1). Also, have you
considered (or do you care about) the larger consequences of putting poisons
into natural bodies of water?
3. Why do you want or expect your pond/lake/river to resemble a swimming pool?
Do/would you let your animals do their business in your swimming pool, or do you
fertilize your pool?
The usual response after all that is "Yeah, but how do I kill it?" Then they
probably go out and throw in some poison (approved/legal or not) anyway. This
just happened (again) in my neighborhood ponds, and in a local reservoir (in the
latter case to kill Nelumbo lutea). An Ag-extension agent came by yesterday and
asked about advising a farmer to add CuSO4 to a farm pond to kill floating mats
of what appear to be harmless (but unsightly) Oscillatoria and filamentous
chlorophytes.
Some questions for discussion:
1. Has anyone else had this situation, and is it hopeless to fight the public
desire to kill what are often just unsightly algal blooms that are likely to
return time and again?
2. Would I/we better serve the public and the environment by researching the
"best" (effective yet relatively benign environmentally) algal poison on the
expectation that they'll take drastic measures in the absence of such advice?
3. Is there a generally appropriate algicide that has the ideal properties of
specificity with minimal "collateral damage" and persistence in the environment?
4. Is it practical to advise time-limited farmers/ranchers/cities/homeowners
more labor-intensive methods such as removing the biomass periodically?
Looking forward to a lively debate.
Bill Henley
Oklahoma State University
henley@okstate.edu
[ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE] on behalf of David Menne [menne@IINET.NET.AU]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:22 PM
To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Subject: Re: ALGAE-L: dealing with "How do I kill it?"
I suppose the "last" part of my "last visit" to our popular Rotnest Island
[http://www.rottnest.wa.gov.au/about/ria.htm] is somehow related to a trip to
picnic on the beach at Geordie Bay where the smell of seeping sewage through the
sand had us gasping for my childhood memories of unpolluted beaches on the Natal
coast.
Yes I think that pollution needs serious attention, ideally preventing it
seeping in, in the first place rather than trying to deal with it afterwards.
In Natal, I recall a law not allowing agricultural or any other development
within 100 yards [90 metres] of a river (creating too, wildlife refuges and
corridors(*); how well this is now policed I do not know but I can imagine
significant financial power being mobilized to get exeptions. When I last went
to Nature's Valley, a pristine Eastern Cape cool [rain ?] forest location,
similar laws seem to have protected the coastal region.
A national Trust [maybe similar to our Swan River Tust [http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/srt/publications/GuideToServices/html/manage.htm],
to buy back such buffer land and put it under public management is probably what
we should all strive for.
(*)As a keen young student of our farm and surrounding ecology especially before
commencing school and up to leaving on completion; I found that most wildlife
communities had regions falling well within 100 metres (and not too far from
water); can name half a dozen species of birds, water goanna, otter, vervet
monkeys which stayed within a few hectare; even rhinos generally have a
territory under 40 hectares. The most extreme of all African animals Iknow is
the cheeta which needs around 35000 Ha per pair, & it must be predominantly open
savannah.
----- Original Message -----
From: irene novaczek
To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: ALGAE-L: dealing with "How do I kill it?"
In response to William Henley
We have a similar scenario playing out here on Prince Edward Island where our
estuaries are polluted with nitrogen from agriculture, sewage and food
processing effluent. Of course, Ulva and Enteromorpha love the shallow bays fed
by the enriched rivers and a stinking mess is common come August. In Summerside
, residents have complained of the odor from the harbour shallows for year and
now, after engineering and environmental impact studies, the "solution" has been
decided upon: Fill in the shallow intertidal and turn it into real estate for
tourism!
I have intervened to point
out that the algae are not the problem but a symptom. Dealing with nutrient
pollution in groundwater and surface water on an island where the economy is
heavily dependent on industrial agriculture seems to be just too big and
unpopular an exercise, even though the nitrates in drinking water in some areas
are a hazard to children and pregnant women. Besides, there is possibly a buck
to be made from tourism if the proposed "solution" works.
My pick is that the algal bloom will simply be moved along to a different part
of the harbour and the new real estate will be just as stinky as the former
waterfront. Unfortunately, in the case of any environmental problem, politicians
seem to need to discover the truth the hard way.
The positive side of the issue is the trend to citizen direct action in defense
of waterways. Volunteer groups are busy planting riparian buffer zones, helping
farmers fence cattle out of streams, installing silt traps etc. It's not enough
but it's a start.
If more scientists would climb out of their ivory towers and apply their
expertise to the real world in a public way, by getting involved as advisors to
citizen action groups, and by writing letters to the editor on local issues as a
form of public education (a very effective one in rural communities where
everyone reads the local paper) that would help a lot.
cheers,
Irene Novaczek
PEI Canada
|