Jump to content

Talk:Harmful algal bloom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Harmful algal blooms)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Whit5022.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dlehdwns516.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Red tide

[edit]

So I think this should be merged with red tide. Red tide is a colloquial term for a scientific phenomenon. We should redirect red tide to here. What say the rest of you guys? OptimistBen 04:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The red tide page is rather limited right now, because lots of other HAB related issues link there, even though they are not red or tidal. -Gomm 20:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talk • contribs)

"I think they should remain separate for clarity of understanding. Red tides are regional, mainly marine, (salt water) and are caused by various organisms clearly named in that article. Harmful algal blooms refer to a much broader category, can be fresh or salt water and are caused by a much wider variety of organisms. The existing links from one article to the other are more than adequate to enable a person to focus on the most appropriate area of study." Photojack53 08:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should remain separate. Although the terms 'harmful algal bloom' and 'red tide' are often used interchangeably, this usage is incorrect and there is a trend among the HAB community to move away from this.--Bosco911 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the strong reasoning above that red tide and HAB should not be merged. While at first glance the terms appear synonymous, there are important differences that merit each having its own article. This discussion has been around for a few months, and I believe consensus exists not to merge. I'm removing the merge tags accordingly; if anyone disagrees please revert my changes and keep discussing. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are two terms referring to the same phenomenon, and they should definitely be merged, regardless of any terminology nitpicking. The "Red tide" article is bigger and more comprehensive, while the HAB article is a mere stub created to advance a particular viewpoint (that the term "Harmful algal bloom" is allegedly "more scientific"). There are no citiations substantiating this alleged superiority, and Google yields only 103K hits for "harmful algal bloom" as opposed to 722K for "red tide"--a clear indication that "red tide" is the more common term. While you may personally feel that it is inaccurate, please do not use Wikipedia as an instrument for pushing your agenda.

See also the Wikipedia guideline about merging, and note that the article in question fulfills not merely one, but all four of the criteria listed for merging articles--this is more than enough. The proper way would be to mention the alternative name and its rationale in the article (this has already been done), merge, then recreate the HAB page as a redirect to the merged article.

I replaced the appropriate merge tags; I'll wait a week or two for input, then I'll go ahead with the merger. Freederick (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAB is definately more correct scientifically-this refers to blooms of algae that are harmful or potentially harmful. About 300 species of microalgae are reported to form mass occurrences, so-called 'blooms', and nearly one-fourth of these species are known to produce toxins (from Hallegraeff et al. 2003. Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae. UNESCO). Red tide is a term used colloquially to describe blooms of non-toxic species as well: Noctiluca being one example that produces fine red coloured blooms. Halfsnail (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I guess things haven't moved on much!  ;-) As HAB is now the favoured scientific term, I'd favour merging red tide into HAB rather than the other way round. Even the red tide article explains why red tides are really just one example of a wider phenomenon. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'll try to remember to pop back here in a week or so to perform the merge. Looks like it's long overdue judging from the date that Gomm first proposed this.

Fully agree. As a 'non specialist' user who just came in here to understand what's going on off the coast of Oman at the moment, there does not appear to me to be any need for two separate articles. Just make Red Tide a subset of HAB and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.245.5 (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC) sure why not you[reply]

HAB is a diffrent phenomenon than Red Tide, so lets just give red tide a more scientific name and get it over with.

I fully and compleatly agree! They are two related, but seperate subjects that should be kept apart! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.54.197 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) While not exactly the same it would be better to have both together. Most will look them up for the same reasons - the toxins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.18.119 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think both should be seperate for clarity and understanding Preyus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.89 (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New merge discussion

[edit]

So here's the current situation. We have three articles:

  • Algal bloom: About algal blooms in general, whether or not they produce harmful toxins.
  • Harmful algal bloom: About algal blooms which produce harmful toxins.
  • Red tide: About algal blooms and the term "red tide."

I don't know what a more appropriate organisation is, but the current organisation is clearly counterproductive. For example, all three of them describe causes of algal blooms:

  • Algal bloom: "Algal blooms are the result of an excess of nutrients, particularly phosphorus. The excess of nutrients may originate from fertilizers that are applied to land for agricultural or recreational purposes, these nutrients can then enter watersheds through water runoff."
  • Harmful algal bloom: "The frequency and severity of HABs in some parts of the world have been linked to increased nutrient loading from human activities. In other areas, HABs are a predictable seasonal occurrence resulting from coastal upwelling, a natural result of the movement of certain ocean currents."
  • Red tide: "Red tides are caused by increase in nutrients that algae need, usually from runoff from a farm, causing an overpopulation. Their occurrence in some locations appear to be entirely natural,[1] while in others they appear to be a result of human activities."

This redundancy is a problem. I'm going to boldly propose that all three of these articles be merged into a single article, with sections for the "red tide" term and harmful blooms in particular, unless there is significant disagreement. If you disagree, please suggest a different organisation. It may be that three articles is fine, but the content needs to be reorganised to eliminate redundancy. Dcoetzee 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem with merging red tide with algal bloom. All red tides are algal blooms, though only some algal blooms are red tides, and the only thing special about a red tide that differentiates it from other algal blooms is its colour. However, that is not the case with harmful algal blooms. It is true that a harmful algal bloom is a special case of an algal bloom, but it is a particularly special case. A normal algal bloom is a benign event that nourishes zooplankton and forage fish. A harmful algal bloom is toxic, with radical consequences, leading to the opposite effects. If you are going to merge, then for consistency you should also consider merging dead zone and eutrophication into algal bloom as well. But all of these are substantial topics in their own right. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging all three pages. I think the segregation that exists at the moment is a hindrance to understanding algal blooms (in all their forms), which must surely be the primary function of the articles. As a marine biologist, I'm also a little concerned about the distinction between what are being termed "harmful algal blooms" and "algal blooms", as the articles tend to imply that "algal blooms" are always benign. I would like to see these distinctions emerging in the combined article:

  • Red Tide is a colloquial term for a bloom of red or brown pigmented algae. Depending on the algae concerned, it may be an HAB or an AB.
  • Algal Bloom is a generic term for a short-term over-abundance of algae. It is often very harmful to the ecosystem due to anoxic conditions as the algae decay (basically the rapid decomposition of a huge algal mass consumes all the oxygen in the water column, killing everything that can't move out of the area).
  • Harmful Algal Bloom is a term generally referring to a bloom of toxic algae (such as dinoflagellates Alexandrium spp. and Karenia spp.). The variant of algae concerned becomes important because it can have knock-on toxicity impacts dues to absorption of toxins by fish, shellfish, etc and their subsequent consumption by seabirds, larger marine organisms and humans, as well as the anoxia problems of other algal blooms.

In a combined article, I think these distinctions would be clearer and there would be far less redundancy and confusion. Mikespoff (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of naming convention, I think that "Red Tide" should definitely redirect to the main article, which (in the interests of the most generic naming) should probably be titled "Algal Blooms". Mikespoff (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this discussion from 13 years ago (!). I would be in favour of merging red tide into harmful algal bloom, as "red tide" is an outdated, colloquial term now. EMsmile (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. North8000 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Red tide is an outdated term. If it's about a specific kind of HAB (yes) but it could easily be included in the HAB article. Due to the overlapping content on causes and impacts, the merged article would not be as big as you might expect. HAB is 48 kB of readable prose. The article red tide is only 11 kB which is actually very small. EMsmile (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check this publication from 2017 which states that: "Algal assemblages, visible or not, toxic or not, and irrespective of cell concentration, can have harmful impacts and are often generically referred to as “red tides”". I think this would strongly support the proposed merger. EMsmile (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown tide" currently redirects to red tide which seems to indicate that they are the same thing, or very similar? EMsmile (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Red Tide article itself makes it absolutely clear that it is not a distinct topic and is merely a synonym / duplication of harmful algal bloom. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of house keeping: See further updates about this merger here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Red_tide#Potential_merge . Thanks for doing this work, North8000. EMsmile (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to singular title

[edit]

I think the content in this page should rather be at Harmful algal bloom, because except for nouns that are never given as singular (e.g. scissors), the manual of style says to use a singular title. In fact, the first sentence of this article uses singular. I propose to move the content of this article there, using a history merge. --Slashme (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly neutral as to the title, although feedback from others would be worth waiting for. My personal leaning, however, is still toward the plural, since so many of the governmental sources use it, such as EPA, NASA, NOAA, WA state and the White House. The real thrust of the article is also oriented toward "them" as opposed to "it."
I think what separates this article title from typical nouns is that it's primarily about "harmful" blooms, and that adjective refers to the multitude of them more than the single harmful bloom. An example of that difference is in this article, where the singular "bloom" is only used when describing a particular bloom event, but the overall article only refers to "blooms." --Light show (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The singular title rule is actually quite strong: even an article like Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug is in the singular, even though you'll see NSAIDs much more frequently than NSAID on the web and in literature. --Slashme (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if someone wants to change it that's fine with me. --Light show (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New article - Phosphates in detergent

[edit]

I just made Phosphates in detergent. I linked that article from this article in a small way but this article could have a small section on the topic to highlight it. I am posting this notice to harmful algal bloom and eutrophication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harmful algal bloom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harmful algal bloom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the statement in article on avoiding eating fish caught during harmful algae blooms is inaccurate, or at least not shared by every expert.

[edit]

Whens it comes to blue-green algae blooms, many sources say that if you remove the guts/organs of the fish, the risk pf consumption is low. Some advise avoiding eating them as precaution, though say the risk is low if properly gutted. The state of Oregon states in a PDF from the Oregon Health Authority: "Eating fish caught from affected waters is an unknown health risk. There have been no reports of people becoming sick from eating fish caught during a bloom, but there has been no definitive research regarding the risk to human health.". The article's food section should be updated to reflect that different points of views expressed in the three reliable sources linked to below:

--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Types

[edit]

If there are three main types, couldn't there be three sub headings and descriptions - one for each? Rather than Cyano and Red Tide. SquashEngineer (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Algal bloom?

[edit]

This came up at a related article and here was the part of my post that could be relevant here: "....merging harmful algal blooms into algal blooms looks like a good idea. Harmful algal blooms is unequivocally a subset of algal blooms. That alone is not enough to merge, it could be a sub-article. But combine that with most of the current algal blooms article already being about harmful algal blooms there's little need for a sub-article. By North8000 2/22/22

see also similar discussion on this talk page from 2009 (scroll up). EMsmile (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the experts here (about the images)

[edit]

I was starting to work on the merge and am starting to question some of the images in this article. There are a few pictures here which look to me like routine "duckweed" coverage that I see all the time on inland ponds.....small green leaf plants that float on the surface completely covering the water. Do you think that these are algal blooms, and, if so, do you think that they are harmful algal blooms? North8000 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging ASRASR as I think he would have experience with this. EMsmile (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi North8000 I can't see that any of the illustrations in this article are duckweed growth. Lemna when it covers ponds is not at all as smooth green as blue-green algae - which provide a creamy green layer. Which illustration did you consider was Lemna? EMsmile ASRASR (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ASRASR Thanks for the post. I may be getting my terminology wrong so I should start by explaining. One thing that I see quite commonly in smaller ponds in the US is the surface being completely covered by small "leaf" plants (maybe 2-4 mm in diameter). I've heard this called "duckweed" which may be the wrong name. It seems like the normal state for these ponds in the summer rather than being an "algal bloom" much less a harmful algal bloom. There are two pictures in the article (captions are like "dog swimming in a fresh water algal bloom" and "boaters in a freshwater algal bloom.") which I'm asking about. Basically I'm just trying to figure out if it's a good idea to have those images in the article, the opposite possibility being that the might mis-inform readers on what that common sight is. What is your opinion on that question? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in any hurry but if we don't get additional expert guidance I plan to take those two images out. From my small amount of non-expert research it appears that those two images are of "Duckweed"/ Lemnoideae which is apparently not algae and seldom harmful and not harmful in the ways described in this article. I'm not one to be overly picky but it's quite possible that the images are misleading/ misinforming readers. Also, on a sidebar procedural note, the captions are unsourced and unsourcable which I would not normally bring up. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi North8000 I agree that illustrations that are unsourced should not be in Wikipedia. So I agree that these can be removed.
Regards ASRASR (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the images now where it wasn't clear if the algae was actually harmful (and which actually looked like harmless): "dog swimming in a fresh water algal bloom" and "boaters in a freshwater algal bloom.". Most of the images now seem to show cyanobacter algal blooms (blue green algae). If I understand correctly they can cause HABs (but don't have to). So it might be good to balance these images out with some photos that definitely show HABs (perhaps more of those red ones?). Also more photos from outside of the U.S. would be good. I haven't searched yet in Wikimedia Commons but there is bound to be some HAB photos from the Baltic Sea area for example. Maybe also some of the big lakes in Africa? Lake Victoria, Lake Chad? EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Red Tide into this article

[edit]

Please see discussion at Red Tide regarding merging that article into this one. From the standpoint of this article, this would include strengthening the coverage of the term "Red Tide" here and also adding any good material & sources from the article that is not currently in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the merge from the red tide article

[edit]

I completed the merge from the red tide article. I errored on the side of carefulness regarding losing material or references. I plan to do additional work on merging some material within this article at the more detailed level. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks a lot User:North8000! I've been through it superficially to remove links to the old red tide article and to replaced "red tide" with HAB or with "HAB event" in many cases. When you go through it again (or someone else), please consider if it's too US centric in some cases and whether the US-specific content needs to be moved to the country example section in some instances. EMsmile (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I emphasise that anyone should edit. My "additional work" note was more to acknowledge that, at the smaller scale level, there is still some duplication that I introduced that I'll try to remove. When choosing terms, it's good to keep in mind that one plus of the red tide term is that it a bit more specific than HAB because it includes only HAB's that are in marine/ocean environments. Of course there are also minuses for the red tide term. It can be misleading because they aren't all red, and it's not the term that the experts use. Sincerely, `North8000 (talk)
Yes, for that reason I sometimes replaced "red tide" with "coastal HAB" but I am not sure if it's necessary to reiterate "coastal" each time, e.g. if the whole section is about coasts anyhow. But I guess it's something to be aware of. Either way, I am so glad that you got this merger done after it's been discussed and mulled over for such a long time. Thank you! :-) EMsmile (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I do agree that it's too US centric in some respects. But they are areas that would take a lot of work to fix. Regarding coverage of specific geographic areas, specific monitorings, specific study & mitigation measures, specific blooms, there is a lot more sources/coverage of US items. Of course the best and hardest way to fix this is to find more sources on and add coverage on more of those things outside of the US. But perhaps an easier way to make a small change is to look for small US items that might be wp:Undue and remove them. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could move some of the US content to the examples sections: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Harmful_algal_bloom#United_States EMsmile (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi North8000 and EMsmile. Good to see the merge. To diversify the geographic scope of the article we can add the material on the Baltic Sea which is probably the largest water body in the world that gets blue green blooms every summer covering the entire sea surface. These are as well neuro-toxic to mainly mammals. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147135/beguiling-bloom-in-the-baltic-sea#:~:text=Large%2C%20late%2Dsummer%20blooms%20of,role%20in%20this%20aquatic%20ecosystem. ASRASR (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which key publications would you recommend for this, ASRASR? EMsmile (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting statements?

[edit]

In the Human health --> Food section, I have rearranged chronologically. However, the Food section begins: "Eating fish or shellfish from lakes with a bloom nearby is not recommended." This seems to contradict text in the lede, which says: "HAB species can be found in oceans, bays, and estuaries, but they cannot thrive in freshwater environments."

May we remove the "lake bloom" statement, which is overly specific? My thought is that most shellfish are harvested from non-freshwater sources. The remainder of the section reads just as well, even with the removal of the "lake" text. I am loathe to rmv a sourced statement, and propose moving it, with some better development, to the 2018 "Utah" paragraph, same Food section. Opinions, suggestions, welcomed.(Please ping me) Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 20:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a deeper problem. The "The HAB species can be found in oceans, bays, and estuaries, but they cannot thrive in freshwater environments." statement is wrong. I didn't look at the history, but my first guess is that the error came from substituting "HAB" for "Red Tide". I ran out of time so will have to end my comment there. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
North8000 No problem, you did a masterful job of combining the two articles, we can address the oddities as time permits! It does seem logical that freshwater (possibly more stagnant) would also be effected. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tribe of Tiger The statement regarding freshwater environments in the lead is incorrect. Toxic cyanobacteria occur in hypertrophic lakes and ponds. Here is a recent reference to relevant work - Toxin Analysis of Freshwater Cyanobacterial and Marine Harmful Algal Blooms on the West Coast of Florida and Implications for Estuarine Environments Neurotox Res. 2021; 39(1): 27–35.
Published online 2020 Jul 18. doi: 10.1007/s12640-020-00248-3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7904716/
With regard to risks of eating fish or shellfish from water bodies containing toxic algae this statement needn't be specific to freshwater lakes. Shellfish are normally consumed whole while fish are normally gutted. So the accumulated toxin in the gut is probably removed from fish but not shellfish. Regards ASRASR (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ASRASR Yes, given this information, I think both "seawater" and freshwater should be mentioned in the Human health --> Food section, as well as the lede. Will read your source, thanks. Agree that shellfish pose a greater danger, for human consumption, than fish, just a personal opinion.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the wrong "cannot thrive" sentence. But I suggest continuing to pursue the other issues that you raised. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Health and the Environment in the Central Valley

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JehlianeC (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Elysetnguyen (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed newly added content

[edit]

Hi User:JehlianeC, I removed this as it wasn't clear how this could be used as a remedy exactly. Be careful when using primary sources - secondary sources are generally better, see WP:PST.

Temperature/Light Monitoring

[edit]

Cyanobacteria are found to thrive most at higher light levels due to their photo-protective function,[1] and these elevated temperatures allow for toxic cyanobacteria strains to flourish substantially, outgrowing other aquatic life such as diatoms and green algae;[2] in addition, chlorophyll-a and pheophytin-a algal pigments were found to increase in the day but remain stagnant in the night, with no significant level of production occurring at night.[3] Vertical mixing has effects that reduce the factors that lead to HAB production. EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dahm, Clifford N.; Parker, Alexander E.; Adelson, Anne E.; Christman, Mairgareth A.; Bergamaschi, Brian A. (2016). "Nutrient Dynamics of the Delta: Effects on Primary Producers". San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 14 (4). doi:10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss4art4.
  2. ^ Dahm, Clifford N.; Parker, Alexander E.; Adelson, Anne E.; Christman, Mairgareth A.; Bergamaschi, Brian A. (2016). "Nutrient Dynamics of the Delta: Effects on Primary Producers". San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 14 (4). doi:10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss4art4.
  3. ^ Volkmar, Emily C. “Using Lagrangian Sampling to Study Water Quality during Downstream Transport in the San Luis Drain, California, USA.” Diel Biogeochemical Processes in Terrestrial Waters, vol. 283, no. 1–2, Apr. 2011, pp. 68–77. EBSCOhost, https://0-doi.org.pacificatclassic.pacific.edu/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2011.01.029.

EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harmful_algal_bloom&oldid=1223659758"