Red tide or Karenia brevis. (formerly known as Gymnodinium breve)

[Kim]

So I'm slow! I only heard about this stuff yesterday and I've spent the whole morning reading everything I can find about what it is, why it is and what it does.
Now the 'what it is' seems to have clear answers. It's history also seems to be fairly clear. It's been around since at least 1530. OK - until the '70s there were a few misconceptions about where it comes from but they seem to have nailed that too, 18 to 74 kilometers off shore in nutrient poor water. 'What it does' is also clear - it moves to nutrient rich inshore waters. it kills fish and other marine life, it makes people sick. When you get to the 'why' though it suddenly becomes a lot less clear. Why has it been getting worse in recent years? Why has there been so much research done for so long, with apparently so few clear answers coming out? Why is it still such a mystery?
I'm really curious. Quite a lot of people have suspicions and theories - about sewage, about chemicals etc Why are they so hard to test and prove one way or the other?

Nearly 500 years and no answers.......strange, no?

For those that know nothing about this stuff yet:
http://www.floridamarine.org/features/view_article.asp?id=24936

 

[archman]

Good lord Kim, nobody's called Karenia by its old name for something like a decade now. You might as well call it Ptychodiscus, which is how I learned it

It's a fairly generic dinoflagellate, only of interest when it blooms in high densities... and starts killing everything. Like most dino's, it produces dinotoxins internally, which leak out when the cells rupture. The anal folks call them brevetoxins.

They aren't that mysterious. We know they bloom under elevated nutrient levels, like pretty much everything else. We know intimate details about their particular toxin. The organism itself has been gene sequenced and electron-micrographed out the butt, and a great deal of satellite imagery has been dedicated to tracking it in surface waters. They seem to outcompete plankton in the same size class when they attain high densities.

The problem issue is phytoplankton ecology. It's horribly complicated, and extremely fast-paced. You have multiple size-classes of critters interacting with one another, sometimes performing multiple ecological roles, feedbacking in positive and negative ways, reacting to a plethora of environmental parameters (at different scales)... blah blah blah. It's enough to make most people scream. RIOceanographer can back me up here. Heck, the role of viroplankton alone are a bleeding nightmare!

Nutrient loading in coastal areas has been on the upswing for decades. That's the cause of most aberrant red tide outbreaks. It's the same principle as the one used for fecal coliform bacteria. When sewage levels go on the rise, bacterial levels follow. This is why beaches in Florida are often closed nowadays. Dinoflagellates operate just like bacteria in this regard, albeit slower, and Karenia muscles its brethren out when it gets dense enough.

Dinoflagellates are typically present in most oceanic water, but in low concentrations, just like most of the other phytoplankton. If they weren't horribly thin on the ground, the water wouldn't be so clear.

We have a dedicated Karenia lab in our oceanography department. One of my major professors runs it. She's built a buoy that can remotely identify and count the nasty things, well before they get to bloom strength. It's hoped that such a system can be deployed to high risk areas in a preventive monitoring role.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020805074922.htm

The most common tactic used by politicians to stall environmental regulation is request further study. They take advantage of the scientific method, which by definition cannot prove anything (only disprove), and they use any inkling of complete scientific consensus (which is near impossible) to cry off from action.

So even though most ecologists that study this stuff have a pretty good idea what the problem is and how to solve it, the 110% proof demanded by politicoes hasn't magically appeared. The more expensive and lifestyle-altering the solution, the greater the burden of proof required. Fixing the red tide problem requires an epic-scale burden of proof, needless to say. Until a bloom gases a large city into submission, it likely won't become more than a regional issue. Even then, the solution will likely be a targetted one against Karenia itself, which attacks the symptoms only, not the disease.

Taking better care of wastewater and runoff is the true solution. Coastal nutrient levels need to be reduced back down to what they were naturally. As the current EPA stance is to relax existing measures rather than increase them, the U.S. is not likely to see any drop in red tides anytime soon. Exceptions to this lie in those states and municipalities with foresight (and more importantly, funds) to go it alone.

By the by, I think that Florida weblink is the best one out there, at present.

 

[Kim]

Good lord Kim, nobody's called Karenia by its old name for something like a decade now. You might as well call it Ptychodiscus, which is how I learned it

Well, as you know I'm not a scientist so I just called it by the same name that people like the Florida fisheries and NOAA (and almost everyone else out there with a web page about it!) does.
Thanks for the information though! So this really comes down to - "Well we are almost certain we know but we can't prove it"? Sounds a bit like global warming to me!

Sometimes I think that all this denial will get us all killed someday. I'm glad I don't have to swim/dive in the stuff.
I suppose if it continues to have such an effect on the Florida beaches though there's probably more chance of important people taking notice than say....in Louisiana. There must be a lot of tourist dollars involved!

 

[archman]

Thanks for the information though! So this really comes down to - "Well we are almost certain we know but we can't prove it"? Sounds a bit like global warming to me!

Yes, the scientific method, by definition, cannot prove anything. Technically it disallows use of the word "fact" as well. Science can only "offer support" to theories. This is why it is rare to ever see a scientist fully endorse their findings, or fully support a theory. If they do, they're committing a breach of etiquette. The general public is typically unaware of how the scientific method operates. This often fuels undeserved irritation and impatience with the scientific community for not taking a hard stance on specific issues.

Lawyers love taking advantage of this. Any smidgeon of uncertainty on a topic suddenly becomes a big deal. I'm sure there's a legal term for this tactic... Andy probably knows what it is.

The legal system and the scientific method are not really all that compatible. A lawyer can trash any scientist on the stand with almost no effort, merely by asking them if they're "certain" about something science-related.

 

[drbill]

Too bad our educational system seems to deemphasize teaching about what science really is, and what scientific "facts" really are. We can (with subjectivity) apply a probability level to findings, but archman is absolutely correct that science and scientific "facts" are not as exact as people want them to be.

I think of all the scientific "facts" I taught in my high school classes decades ago that are no longer accepted as such. Our understanding of the universe is a dynamic process, and one that builds on the findings and assumptions of studies that go before us.

Having said that, I'd like to reassure our members that all the findings of my own scientific investigations are indeed irrefutable facts! That's why no other scientist hass even tried to refute the research findings!!

 

[archman]

I'd like to reassure our members that all the findings of my own scientific investigations are indeed irrefutable facts! That's why no other scientist has even tried to refute the research findings!!

yeah, in California anything goes. :bang: :bravo: :fro: ilot:

 

[Kim]

Well I suppose it can't be scientifically proven that if you hit a tree head on at 50mph you will definitely die - luckily there is also such a thing as common sense though.
It's a pity that politicians don't seem to have much of that very often. Vested interests can make very bad decisions.....where's people power when you need it!

 

[CBulla]

I've mentioned in other threads about the ongoing K.brevis outbreak that we have had here steady for about the last 5 years (much stronger at times than not). currently we're dealing with it in a strange way as it seems that during one of the storms this year the current beach outbreak (at that time) was pulled off shore then stuffed under a thermocline. OH.. wait, you can't track what you can't see. The reefs and divers hitting them sure can though.

A Google search on 'Florida Red Tide' can find a flood of written word regarding the current 'bad' outbreak thats been noticable for 3/4 of the year now and showing no signs of letting up. A search of the Conch forum will yeild more.

A favorite article with pictures: http://www.floridasportsman.com/confron/051086/

Also, something to note... in the last 5 years or so of persistant red tide, FL has had its LARGEST and most consistant building population booms ever. 26000 people a day moving to the state. The county I live in has gone from roughly 150k people to 550k in that time. Hmm.. I don't need to be a scientist to know what the largest contributing factor is!

 

[RIOceanographer]

Good lord Kim, nobody's called Karenia by its old name for something like a decade now

I've been known to do it if I am not being careful.

I don't know what it is with phytoplankton taxonomists, but I swear it seems like every species has been renamed at least 15 times. I wonder if those guys rename their own kids all the time too?

"Have you met my son Bob?"
"Oh... I didn't know John had a twin brother?"
"No... we just renamed him because we realized Bob wasn't very cladistic...."

It's enough to make most people scream. RIOceanographer can back me up here.

Sure thing..... here it goes.....

ARRRGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

I think Archman already explained the issue well. The most general reason for the increase in HAB frequency is an increase in nutrients from sources like sewage/wastewater treatment plants, fertilizer usage and even animal feces from farms. We call that increase in nutrients eutrophication. And aside from being associated with blooms of toxic species, eutrophication can also cause other things like hypoxia or decreases in water clarity.

What gets really complicated is when you start talking about why species X blooms and not species Y. Why a toxic dinoflagellate, and not some diatom? That is when you get into the part that can make you scream! Then you have to consider everything from temperature, stratification, nutrient ratios, turbulence, chemical excretions from competing species, grazing by zooplankton, and even viruses.

To reiterate the earlier point: ARRRGHH!

 

[RIOceanographer]

Having said that, I'd like to reassure our members that all the findings of my own scientific investigations are indeed irrefutable facts! That's why no other scientist hass even tried to refute the research findings!!

After going through the peer review process, it can feel like other scientists might even try to refute the finding of my keys in the morning..... :11:

"I found my keys."
"How do you know they are your keys?"
"Well they started my car."
"Out of how many trials?"
"Er... well one..."
"One trial is not statistically significant!"
"But...."
"And did you try and start any other cars with the same key?"
"Not as such....."
"You need a control group!!!!"