Tatters and colleagues varied the amount of dissolved CO2 and the availability of the silicate the diatoms use to make their shells. In a presentation at a recent ocean acidification conference, Tatters reported that the more CO2 and the less silicate, the higher the diatom’s toxin production–more than doubling at the level of dissolved CO2 scientists expect the oceans to reach by 2100. Earlier research by the Hutchins lab found a fourfold increase in toxicity under limited phosphorus and increased CO2 in a related species.
However, Cochlan cautions, what exactly triggers toxic blooms is “the million-dollar question” that hasn’t been answered. Sometimes algae produce more toxins “when they are growing very well,” he says.
Water temperature may also be a factor. Anke Kremp, a researcher at the Finnish Environment Institute, reported in a January 2012 study that eight strains of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium ostenfeldii grew at very different rates under increased acidity and higher temperatures. The amount of toxin in each cell didn’t always increase, but the composition of the toxic compounds consistently changed as temperature and acidity increased.
A. ostenfeldii can make several nasty chemicals, and the overall trend in Kremp’s study was toward more saxitoxin—the most potent compound in its arsenal. Although this may be bad news for the Baltic Sea and other areas plagued by this dinoflagellate, Kremp also noted that the short duration of most lab studies limits what we can know about how toxic algae may evolve over the next century.
Further, NOAA researcher Vera Trainer says that although some species may become more toxic, there may not be a net increase in risk to humans and other consumers of seafood. If the more harmful species become less numerous, she says, “It’s sort of a moot point.” But if they become more toxic and more numerous, she adds, “you’ve got a double whammy.”
These conundrums illustrate how little we know. The different genetic heritages of diatoms, dinoflagellates and cyanobacteria will affect their survival. And in addition to temperature, other physical factors like available light and even large-scale ocean–atmosphere interactions like the El Niño–La Niña oscillation can affect plankton behavior.
“The work is really at an early stage,” says Ulf Riebesell, a professor of biological oceanography at the Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany. But it is fair to say that as algae and other tiny ocean species solve new survival problems, they may force us to do the same.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentShoshin. The article is about ocean acidification, not global warming. You could at least bother to read the article before spreading your knee-jerk disinformation. The article is also about toxicity so it at least has that in common with your post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"More Alarmist garbage...."
Agreed. A Global warming groupies' agenda overlaid on what should be science artcle devoid of speculative buzz words.
Gee, what tipped you off? The title?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs dkahn400 responded, this article does not try to reinforce the rather well-substantiated phenomenon of anthropogenic climate change as you vociferously insisted. No sir, it actually talks about how increased use of fertilizers influence algal blooms (eutrophication) and how several factors (increased levels of CO2, rise in temperatures, and any others) affected the growth of these organisms and the composition of the toxins they produce... which you would have realized, had you bothered to read more than just the title and pounced onto your guns yelling murder.
Of course, as you state, you would rather prefer articles that are really political in nature, but are thinly veiled as science stories. As you put it, these would be '...infinitely more enlightening and relevant.' If that is how most self-ascribed climate change skeptics feel, then it is a very sad state of affairs. To eagerly expect sensational and seemingly-vindictive rumor-mill stories that scream of non-existent conspiracies is doing a disservice to the erstwhile noble epithet of a 'skeptic'.
I sincerely hope you get a chance to enjoy science without trying to politically deconstruct it just to promote a specific idealistic agenda that may or may not conform with the scientific evidence.
The perchlorate ion is stable kinetically. Meaning the perchlorate ion has a very high activation energy barrier. This is because it exists in the square planar configuration, labelled D4h in the Schoenflies geometric system. It has an immense amount of chemical energy, and once the D4h symmetry is broken it becomes extremely reactive. Putting perchlorate in contact with fuels like oil, graphite and sulphur is not harmful. However if you activate the mixture you had best be far away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDkhan400
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of what it is about. It is full of could
be's, might bees, maybes, "needs more studies" , give
me money for more researches" etc. They are starting
out with a premise and then looking for ways to prove it.
This is the way that Pseudo science is conducted
these days. And this is the way that every weather
phenomenon or any other natural phenomenon gets attributed to mans activities.
This is kind of like the approach that prosecuting attorneys use in getting a conviction. Just keep throwing stuff at the wall until you get something that sticks. Make a case ...no matter how shaky and then make people disprove it. This is not science ...this is an agenda.
Man is part of the environment and we can effect it
just like animals can over graze their pastures.
Wringing our hands over it is not going to change it
and no matter what measures we take for conservation they are all bound to fail as long as we keep increasing
our numbers . The ONLY long term solution is to control
our numbers and this is where we need to be focusing
our efforts. Anything else is doomed to failure.
“The work is really at an early stage,” says Ulf Riebesell, a professor of biological oceanography at the Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany. But it is fair to say that as algae and other tiny ocean species solve new survival problems, they may force us to do the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis last paragraph says it all and makes one wonder what the point is in printing this, unless it is part of an agenda, or begging for more research dollars.
rodestar99 - You say 'The ONLY long term solution is to control our numbers and this is where we need to be focusing our efforts. Anything else is doomed to failure.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you that we the human species do need to reduce our numbers. But that is most definitely not the only thing we need to do, even if all other efforts will be 'doomed to failure' if we don't also reduce our population.
But when you say the article 'is full of could
be's, might bees, maybes, "needs more studies" , give
me money for more researches" etc. They are starting
out with a premise and then looking for ways to prove it' I'm not sure why you're surprised.
You say 'This is the way that Pseudo science is conducted these days.'
But what scientists - real scientists - do is precisely to start with a premise and then go and look for evidence to prove or disprove it.
As for 'And this is the way that every weather phenomenon or any other natural phenomenon gets attributed to mans activities' I don't know that any climate scientists claim that human beings are responsible for everything! Climate scientists have made huge efforts in research and in modelling to find out what contribution human activities make, and what contribution natural forces make, to the climate. Unless we understand both we can't understand the world.
Back to my first point. As bsebadger says, the article also mentions the now well-known phenomenon that fertiliser runoff makes algal blooms worse. So as well as reducing our population we need to grow our food in more sustainable ways.
Examples include growing nitrogen-fixing plants such as legumes to reduce fertiliser use, increasing soil aeration and organic matter to enable soils to absorb water and nutrients, switching from annual crops to perennial crops and from simplistic monocultures to polycultures so that more extensive, diverse and effective root systems can absorb nutrients better, and increasing woods, orchards, scrub and hedges to absorb runoff.
See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry.