II. MACRONUTRIENTS P:N:C
1. Eutrophication: [a macronutrient phenomenon]. You are reading to understand how cultural and natural eutrophication differ, and how they are similar. Have you noticed how often the words "eutrophication", "cultural eutrophication" are used interchangeably? Have you noted how much research is currently devoted to these? Do you think it matters? Should we spend any more money on the problem? Did 92-500 help? What’s 92-500? Which would you prefer, green slimy stuff or PCB's in your swimming hole? How about in your dinner? Think of the available resources AND the true negatives. Then lament the philosophy of, and the need for, compromise.
a) *Greeson, P. 1969. Lake eutrophication - a natural process. Water Resources Bulletin. 5:16-30.
This is readable and accurate. When finished, you should be able to distinguish "natural eutrophication" from "cultural eutrophication".
2. What limits a) freshwater systems, b) coastal systems, c) open ocean systems ? How do they know?
*a) Ryther, J. and W. Dunstan. 1971. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and eutrophication in the coastal marine environment. Science 171:1008-1013.
One of the most perversely cited papers in print. The villains of the piece use it. Can you see how? Note that it deals with coastal, marine, environments. Note that ratios matter. (What ratios?) Note that the limiting nutrient matters. The oceans were once freshwaters. From whence came the "salt"? Think about it - why is phosphate not limiting in the ocean? Nitrate is NOT limiting in the open ocean. Know what is?
*b) Sundareshwar, P; Morris, J.; Koepfler, E.; and B. Fornwalt. 2003. Phosphorus limitation of coastal ecosystem processes. Science 299:563-562.
*c) Edmondson, W.T. 1991. Chapt. 3. The detergent problem 3:89-137 (in THE USES OF ECOLOGY: Lake Washington and Beyond. xx and 329. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London. (small pages)
In a sense it would be better if you read this after reading and discussing the original papers, but there are too many of them. (Look at the extra papers this week.) Some are pure nonsense, some are details. Titles and abstracts can tell you a lot. Have you ever written a paper? Did the title convey much? At least read the Science article, infra. Edmondson has just retired. He was the first of Professor Hutchinson's graduate students and, in many ways, he is much like Professor Hutchinson in his perspectives re science. He is renowned and highly respected (a member of the Nat. Acad. of Sciences) and, even he, was the target for some rather sleazy innuendo when certain corporations found it in their business interests to deny the usual role phosphates play in freshwater systems. Make sure you know the story of Lake Washington.
*d) Edmondson, W.T. 1970. Phosphorus, nitrogen, and algae in Lake Washington after diversion of sewage. Science 169:690-691. Take special note of the winter phosphate levels.
3. There are two, unusually well-known, early volumes concerning the scientific community's perceptions of eutrophication (either form). The N.A.S. (1969) and L. & O. (1972) volumes are sampled in this week's readings. The dates are telling. You must read these volumes in their entireties if you are involved in a project which includes eutrophied waters. The bases for the problem are, were then, well understood. Very little of the scientific understanding of eutrophication (either form) has changed in the last several decades. Most of the absurd denial has ceased. Reminds me of the developing public perception of the "greenhouse effect". Unfortunately, no remarkable cures for cultural eutrophication have surfaced. All sorts of "breakthroughs" have fizzled. By the way, if you do not know for what the initials "N.A.S." and "L&O" stand, find out! You should at least be embarrassed about the "N.A.S.".
a) EUTROPHICATION: Causes, Consequences and Correctives. 1969 (N.A.S.).
- Hutchinson, G.E. 1969. Introductory comments.
Hutchinson's words are regarded as somewhat Biblical by limnologists. His opinions are often better data than the data generated by most scientists. I think he was familiar with every word that had ever been written re ecology and limnology (and at times I have a suspicion that most other topics were equally known to him) and his decades old words, when carefully read, hold an incredible number of answers to as yet unasked questions.
- Also
.. Table of Contents (Really! Read it. A good t. of c., like a good set of references at the end of a paper, can tell you a GREAT deal about the full text.)
.. Summary and Recommendations ( In lieu of reading the entire volume - it is worth that investment of time, but --)
WHEN IS A NUTRIENT A POLLUTANT? Have you ever heard of "luxury consumption"?
Biogeochemistry is a word I expect you to appreciate (and possibly define). The P:N:C "controversy" infuriates many scientists. Schindler has a bit of a short fuse re it. Likens’ work is with streams, not lakes, and he is included so that you will have a first hand commentary re streams and the problem. Most of the material otherwise included this week relates to lakes. Deevey will give you a stronger "geo" re your understanding of the phosphorus problem.
b) NUTRIENTS AND EUTROPHICATION: The Limiting Nutrient Controversy.
1972 (Limnology and Oceanography Special Issue)
- Likens, G. Eutrophication and aquatic ecosystems.
The Hubbard Brook (N.H.) ecosystem study is one of the most comprehensive studies (decades) regarding the cycling of nutrients in a forested water shed which has ever been undertaken. Read to appreciate the breadth of the study and to remember the name of the project.
- Allen, H. / Wetzel, R. / King, D. You should recognize these as three special cases.
Wetzel is respected by all. He was more or less asked to provide a good (legitimate) example of the exception to the rule for this volume. King had the easier task of presenting the obvious - but please - a sewage lagoon is not a lake !!
- Deevey, E. - Learn to spell biogeochemistry!
- Fee, E. / Patalas, K. / Schindler, D. 1980. (from L&O) is essentially an argument - no one is right or wrong. This is a state-of-the-art "conversation".
4. Odds and ends and a nasty story
*a) Carignan, R. and J. Kalff. 1980. Phosporus sources for aqua5ic weeds: Water or Sediments? Science 207:987-89.
Not only is the atmosphere, but also the sediment, a necessary inclusion in any consideration of the true availability of nutrients. To make matters just a touch more difficult to predict, groundwater is also a contributor and a sink. -- Then, there's Perrier.
b) There are about another dozen papers dealing with the question of carbon as the limiting nutrient in freshwater systems. Is it? Does the answer matter? Read what you wish. But, whatever else you do, read what you need to help you understand the argument between Lange and Schindler. You should recognize their opposing points of view. Try to form an opinion of your own and plan to defend it. (However - consistency is the hallmark of little minds; i.e., you should be reasonable, not "right"). They are both very competent scientists. One is not a respectable scientist $$$. What is funding worth to you?
The summary (Keating) is just that. It deals with the P/C controversy in a restricted sense as of the date written. It will provide a more general discussion than any single research report, and could serve if you are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. But, do not make the mistake of reading it instead of some of the original papers. It is there mostly because I have it.
The commercial pr is partially for laughs, partially for sensitizing. Some of the propaganda is silly.
This type of propagandistic material is some of what Edmondson had to fight. The Lake Washington story concerns the most famous (and really the first) successful lake restoration project which was actually scientifically documented (and directed).