#AlgalDoom
Interview with Dr. Boyer
Q: What is your focus of study?
A: Well, I’m a biochemist by training. I was a marine biologist for many years, and I worked on paralytic shellfish poisoning. I was working on that for about fifteen years, and to an extent I still work on it but it’s very difficult to be a marine biologist in Syracuse, so I have switched over to working on the freshwater equivalent; blue-green algal blooms. That’s really the big picture. On a finer scale when I was back doing my PhD in the dark ages, we were interested in why the algae made the toxin. I’m still working on that same question, because it doesn’t make any resource/economy/ecological sense for the algae to make the toxin, but clearly natural selection doesn’t get rid of it, so there has to be some selective pressure that’s keeping it there. That’s sort of a biochemical question. We have also flipped to the practical side and said, we don’t know why they’re making the toxin, so let’s just assume they make it. Then what do we do? How do you control what’s causing the algae to grow, and what can we do from a practical point of view to get rid of them?
We are the analytical arm for the DECs toxin analysis program, so we analyze lake samples from 125 lakes, along with our own lake program and with environment Canada.
Q: How big of an impact is human activity in harmful algal blooms?
A: It depends. When you talk about nutrients coming into a lake, there are basically two sources. There is the amount that comes in from the surface waters, whether that is human or natural. That’s what’s referred to as an external load; it’s coming in from outside of the lake into the lake. There’s a second source that’s called the internal load, that’s what’s coming from the bottom of the lake up to the top. The big question for any lake that you’re dealing with is what’s the relative contribution to those two loads?
We know that in Irondequoit Bay that most of the phosphorous that came into that Bay was actually not coming from the creeks flowing into the Bay, or even the houses and septic systems around the Bay. Most of that load was coming from within the lake in the sediments being turned over, so it was very heavily dependent on the internal load. Instead of cleaning up the creeks, well they did clean up the creeks but it didn’t have much effect, they put these giant oxygen bubblers down there and aerate the sediments down at the bottom so they don’t release the phosphorous.
The Western basin of Lake Erie, we know that the western basin is so shallow that the sediments already have air, so we know it’s not going to stratify. So the internal load is probably not the driving force. What the driving force is all the agricultural land and the sediments that are running into it. So every single lake, even every single basin of every lake is different, so the questions is always who’s the relative source of the nutrients, internal or external and if it’s external, what can we do about it?
Q: What is the most affected local area affected by algal blooms?
A: Lake Neatahwanta is probably the worst. The issue with Neatahwanta is the lake is very shallow, so it’s probably well mixed, ruling out the internal phosphorous load. What’s driving that lake is there are a series of muck land or muck farms that are running into that lake unchecked. There’s a whole series of cows that are allowed to graze and poop right down at the edge of the lake, however the muck is much more prevalent than the cow manure so the muck is what’s probably driving that lake’s phosphorous input. What they’re doing is they’re going to dig up the sediments. They are digging up the sediments, piling it up on the shore and letting the water from the sediments run back into the lake, without knowing the sediments are actually causing the problem. Politically speaking, it was easier to dig up the sediments than to actually change the practice of the muck farmers.
Lake Ontario is an interesting example. Most of the nutrients are coming from the Niagara River because it’s draining Lake Erie, which has all this agricultural land running into it. So can we do anything about the Niagara River? No, but if they cleaned up Lake Erie maybe it would help us. So half of the nutrient loading comes from the Niagara River, and the other 25% comes from the Genesee or Oswego River, and another 25% comes from a split between Canada and the US.
Q: What can be done on a human level to stop these HABs?
A: So let’s do three different cases. We have farmers, citizens that live on the shore, and citizens that don’t live on the shore.
There are a number of easy things a farmer can do, and the one that we’re working with right now is regulating manure spreading. How do they do that? Well, they go spread it out on their fields with a manure spreader. When do they do that? You can’t drive out when your field is wet, so you wait until the field is frozen. So when it’s sitting on top of the ice and the ice starts to melt, that water with all the nutrients from the manure gets carried directly into the lake. So stopping this winter spreading is an easy thing a farmer can do. Buffer strips are another easy way to keep soil particles out of the creek, which can reduce the amount of phosphorous carried into the lake. Soil is really good at collecting phosphorous, so running the water off a 20-ft dyke can effectively clean the water and stops the phosphorous from entering the lake. One of the things that the farmers could do, which seems so simple, is to not add phosphorous if you don’t need it. You go out and you do a soil test. But in order to get a good soil test, you have to go out and measure a certain number of sites, and it turns out that it’s cheaper for them to just dump the fertilizer on than to test it and see if they want the fertilizer.
What do the citizens who live on the shore do? They build their grass right down to the shoreline and fertilize it, effectively dumping phosphorous right into the lake. If you put any type of buffer strip before the end of the shoreline, it will act like it would on a farm and take up the phosphorous.
Citizens off the shore; what can they do? Lawn fertilizers can be a big input, however we don’t really know the impact they have yet. The DEC has done studies and the average lawn is never short of phosphorous, it’s short of nitrogen. So not using combined nitrogen-phosphorous fertilizers could help. Soaps and laundry detergents aren’t as big a problem anymore because they pulled the phosphorous out of them. Surprisingly enough, one of the best things they can do, and you wouldn’t think about it, is to control the amount of water. Any water conservation process that you can do; watering your lawn once, installing a green roof to absorb the water to take it out of the system and solving the problem. You have to make it appealing, that yeah they’re making a small sacrifice but it’s going to help the problem. Radishes, for example, are extremely good at cleaning up water so if you can plant your buffer strip with radishes, you can eat your radishes and clean your lake at the same time.
Q: What is your focus of study?
A: Well, I’m a biochemist by training. I was a marine biologist for many years, and I worked on paralytic shellfish poisoning. I was working on that for about fifteen years, and to an extent I still work on it but it’s very difficult to be a marine biologist in Syracuse, so I have switched over to working on the freshwater equivalent; blue-green algal blooms. That’s really the big picture. On a finer scale when I was back doing my PhD in the dark ages, we were interested in why the algae made the toxin. I’m still working on that same question, because it doesn’t make any resource/economy/ecological sense for the algae to make the toxin, but clearly natural selection doesn’t get rid of it, so there has to be some selective pressure that’s keeping it there. That’s sort of a biochemical question. We have also flipped to the practical side and said, we don’t know why they’re making the toxin, so let’s just assume they make it. Then what do we do? How do you control what’s causing the algae to grow, and what can we do from a practical point of view to get rid of them?
We are the analytical arm for the DECs toxin analysis program, so we analyze lake samples from 125 lakes, along with our own lake program and with environment Canada.
Q: How big of an impact is human activity in harmful algal blooms?
A: It depends. When you talk about nutrients coming into a lake, there are basically two sources. There is the amount that comes in from the surface waters, whether that is human or natural. That’s what’s referred to as an external load; it’s coming in from outside of the lake into the lake. There’s a second source that’s called the internal load, that’s what’s coming from the bottom of the lake up to the top. The big question for any lake that you’re dealing with is what’s the relative contribution to those two loads?
We know that in Irondequoit Bay that most of the phosphorous that came into that Bay was actually not coming from the creeks flowing into the Bay, or even the houses and septic systems around the Bay. Most of that load was coming from within the lake in the sediments being turned over, so it was very heavily dependent on the internal load. Instead of cleaning up the creeks, well they did clean up the creeks but it didn’t have much effect, they put these giant oxygen bubblers down there and aerate the sediments down at the bottom so they don’t release the phosphorous.
The Western basin of Lake Erie, we know that the western basin is so shallow that the sediments already have air, so we know it’s not going to stratify. So the internal load is probably not the driving force. What the driving force is all the agricultural land and the sediments that are running into it. So every single lake, even every single basin of every lake is different, so the questions is always who’s the relative source of the nutrients, internal or external and if it’s external, what can we do about it?
Q: What is the most affected local area affected by algal blooms?
A: Lake Neatahwanta is probably the worst. The issue with Neatahwanta is the lake is very shallow, so it’s probably well mixed, ruling out the internal phosphorous load. What’s driving that lake is there are a series of muck land or muck farms that are running into that lake unchecked. There’s a whole series of cows that are allowed to graze and poop right down at the edge of the lake, however the muck is much more prevalent than the cow manure so the muck is what’s probably driving that lake’s phosphorous input. What they’re doing is they’re going to dig up the sediments. They are digging up the sediments, piling it up on the shore and letting the water from the sediments run back into the lake, without knowing the sediments are actually causing the problem. Politically speaking, it was easier to dig up the sediments than to actually change the practice of the muck farmers.
Lake Ontario is an interesting example. Most of the nutrients are coming from the Niagara River because it’s draining Lake Erie, which has all this agricultural land running into it. So can we do anything about the Niagara River? No, but if they cleaned up Lake Erie maybe it would help us. So half of the nutrient loading comes from the Niagara River, and the other 25% comes from the Genesee or Oswego River, and another 25% comes from a split between Canada and the US.
Q: What can be done on a human level to stop these HABs?
A: So let’s do three different cases. We have farmers, citizens that live on the shore, and citizens that don’t live on the shore.
There are a number of easy things a farmer can do, and the one that we’re working with right now is regulating manure spreading. How do they do that? Well, they go spread it out on their fields with a manure spreader. When do they do that? You can’t drive out when your field is wet, so you wait until the field is frozen. So when it’s sitting on top of the ice and the ice starts to melt, that water with all the nutrients from the manure gets carried directly into the lake. So stopping this winter spreading is an easy thing a farmer can do. Buffer strips are another easy way to keep soil particles out of the creek, which can reduce the amount of phosphorous carried into the lake. Soil is really good at collecting phosphorous, so running the water off a 20-ft dyke can effectively clean the water and stops the phosphorous from entering the lake. One of the things that the farmers could do, which seems so simple, is to not add phosphorous if you don’t need it. You go out and you do a soil test. But in order to get a good soil test, you have to go out and measure a certain number of sites, and it turns out that it’s cheaper for them to just dump the fertilizer on than to test it and see if they want the fertilizer.
What do the citizens who live on the shore do? They build their grass right down to the shoreline and fertilize it, effectively dumping phosphorous right into the lake. If you put any type of buffer strip before the end of the shoreline, it will act like it would on a farm and take up the phosphorous.
Citizens off the shore; what can they do? Lawn fertilizers can be a big input, however we don’t really know the impact they have yet. The DEC has done studies and the average lawn is never short of phosphorous, it’s short of nitrogen. So not using combined nitrogen-phosphorous fertilizers could help. Soaps and laundry detergents aren’t as big a problem anymore because they pulled the phosphorous out of them. Surprisingly enough, one of the best things they can do, and you wouldn’t think about it, is to control the amount of water. Any water conservation process that you can do; watering your lawn once, installing a green roof to absorb the water to take it out of the system and solving the problem. You have to make it appealing, that yeah they’re making a small sacrifice but it’s going to help the problem. Radishes, for example, are extremely good at cleaning up water so if you can plant your buffer strip with radishes, you can eat your radishes and clean your lake at the same time.