Heavy Fertilizer Use May Transform Lakes for Centuries, Study Suggests

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The widespread use of phosphorous-rich fertilizers by industrial agriculture could permanently alter the chemistry of nearby lakes, a new study suggests. Even if environmental inputs of the element are curbed considerably, the results indicate that the effects could be felt for decades to come.

Stephen R. Carpenter of the University of Wisconsin-Madison modeled the levels of phosphorus in and around Lake Mendota, a body of fresh water located in Madison, Wisc. with a watershed that is still about 80 percent farmland. "The global pattern is the same," Carpenter remarks, suggesting that the results may be applicable to many other similar lakes around the world. "We are releasing far more phosphorus to the soil than would be released by weathering [alone]." When too many nutrients are present in lake water algae growth can be stimulated to the point of choking off the oxygen supplies for other lake inhabitants, including fish. This process, known as eutrophication, can continue for years. Indeed, Carpenter's simple model, described in a report published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that a eutrophic state could persist for hundreds of years.

Intensive fertlization began around the middle of last century making widespread eutrophication a relatively new environmental problem, Carpenter writes. In addition, he notes that "There's a huge amount of phosphorus in the watershed that hasn't washed into the lake yet" and steps--such as changes in soil management and reducing rates of erosion--should be taken now to improve water quality.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe