SciBlogs

Archive October 2009

Science news haikus Daniel Collins Oct 30

3 Comments

Great_Wave_off_KanagawaIn the spirit of
the scientific abstract:
Science news haikus

Science

Groundwater recharge
How it changes with climate
Could be good or bad

Virtual water
Maps inefficienct usage
In SADC

New Zealand

CRI taskforce
Purpose, governance, funding
Bring home the bacon

Wild rivers campaign
Advocating solitions
“Rivers, wild and free”

Waitaki birthday
The dam turns 75
Built with picks and spades

Laissez-faire water
Private operation eased
Water, “core service”?

International

Food aid a mixed bag
Focus on Short-term band-aid
Misses long-term costs

Levant water fight
Israeli water use fair?
Arguments flying

Holes in the bucket
Water leak photo essay
Thermo’s 2nd law

Peter Gleick on peak water Daniel Collins Oct 27

No Comments

In an analogous way to peak oil, peak water refers to a peak in the production of usable water. There are differences, sure: water is mostly renewable. But where water is essentially non-renewable, such as with fossil groundwater, the analogy is spot on. Where water is renewable, the analogy is still very useful. The peak denotes the point where the production of water outpaces the natural supply; if this practice is sustained, the water stored will not be.

There’s another concept out there, too: peak ecological water. This refers to a the turning point in water production when any further water production starts to cause more harm than good. This is much harder to quantify than peak water, but it still apparent.

Here Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, provides a more thorough explanation.

YouTube Preview Image

GNS blogs: Earth system science in real-time Daniel Collins Oct 23

No Comments

Perhaps the research boat had already sailed with everyone else on it, but I for one just discovered the GNS blogging team. Only one appears active at the moment, but I hope and we have the opportunity to hear more about their science in real-time.

Julian Thompson is currently traipsing around New Zealand, rock hammer in hand spying for fossils.

Troy Baisden has already started and completed his Easter Island blogging mission, where he gathered the dirt on the past civilisation’s collapse.

I sense dormancy from Heidi Berckenbosch too, in her travels across the seven seas.

In any case, props to the GNS team! And go say hi to Julian.

MfE groundwater report: “Propaganda” or misunderstood? Daniel Collins Oct 22

1 Comment

The Ministry for the Environment released a report yesterday on New Zealand’s groundwater quality, prepared by Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd. Today, I read in the Christchurch Press that the report concludes that “groundwater quality has no significant relationship with land use”. What’s more, Green Party co-leader Russel Norman called it “propaganda”.

Bold claims indeed. Fortunately we can check some facts.

First, some more from the Press:

Quality was rapidly changing at a third of the sites, with “patterns that suggest human influence”. But the report said there was “no systematic or significant relationships” between groundwater quality and land use or land cover.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said the claim was absurd and “propaganda”.

He said the uncertainty in the report suited the Government’s political agenda “to downplay the environmental impacts of agricultural intensification”.

Early last year, the ministry pulled a controversial chapter from its state of the environment report that pointed to industrial dairying as the largest cause of environmental decline.

Norman suggested the latest report followed political pressure, but Smith said he was disappointed such accusations were being made of officials at independent Crown research institutes.

However, he was “a little surprised” at the conclusion because the popular notion was that land-use intensification led to water-quality problems.

Smith said he would defer to the specialists who prepared the report rather than favour popular opinion.

Ministry adviser Mike Thompson, who reviewed the report, said it was not the report’s intention to dismiss the link between groundwater and more intensive land use.

Now I’m not in a position to conjecture about any hidden politics, but I can tackle the science. So faced with the interesting conclusion I of course go to the source. From the executive summary (emphasis added):

… this report has not revealed any systematic or significant relationships between groundwater quality (state or trends) and land use or land cover around the monitoring sites.

This clearly differs from the journalist’s remarks, but does it really matter? Actually, yes. As the report explains:

… relationships between groundwater quality and land use are difficult to elucidate because:
• land use observations are usually made by eye and may not accurately describe land use or land use intensity;
the groundwater at the monitoring site might not have entered the aquifer in the area where the land use observation was made;
• impacted groundwater might not have had time to travel all the way from its source area to the monitoring site; and/or
• substances indicative of land use impact (e.g. NO3-N) might have been transformed or degraded before reaching the monitoring site.

Groundwater quality is a result of local and regional effects, including effects tracing back to yesterday or decades ago. There is no expectation whatsoever that local groundwater quality should intimately reflect local land use at the time it was observed. What’s more, the land uses observed (if observed at all) make no mention of fertiliser or manure management practices (see spreadsheet #1 on the MfE site).

In any case, as the journalist writes, a third of the sites show trends indicative of humans – that is, of land use.

But the human fingerprint can actually be detected further afield. The report tells us that a nitrate-nitrogen concentration > 1.6 mg/L is “probably” indicative of human influence; > 3.5 mg/L is “almost certainly”. Analysis of spreadsheet #1 shows that 34% of the sites are “almost certainly” influenced by humans; a further 16% are “probably” influenced. That is, 50% of the sites probably show some human effect, over and above the third inferred from the trends.

Bottom line: Groundwater quality at at least half of the NZ sites analysed by GNS are probably affected by land use practices. Which practices, where and when is not clear.

Calling for a Cambrian explosion of ideas Daniel Collins Oct 19

No Comments

Fellow SciBling Grant Jacobs has an interesting suggestion for improving media coverage of technical issues. He calls it sidebar science. A scientist-developed information box is appended to an online news article for further reading. I like the multi-level approach. It’s like a choose your on adventure novel, where you decide what is TMI.

This needn’t be limited to science though. Any coverage with specialist content – economics, anthropology, gastronomy. (Yes, gastronomy. I really like Science of Cooking.)

But Grant not only suggested a neat idea. He also threw down the gauntlet for the rest of us. What strategies can the mainstream media use to bring more expertise to their coverage? Let the Cambrian explosion of ideas begin.

The yin and yang of virtual water Daniel Collins Oct 19

1 Comment

The Royal Society of New Zealand released a report on virtual water some weeks back. The report aimed to plug a knowledge gap in NZ, primarily in the policy sector, about what “virtual water” means and how it can help or hinder resource management and agricultural exports. It got a smattering of indigenous press coverage (here, here, and hear).

Virtual water and its alter ego “water footprinting” have been getting more attention in the last few years. Following in the wake of carbon footprinting, they are an attempt to quantify our consumptive impact on water resources. Roughly 70% of the water abstracted in NZ as well as globally is used to grow crop that ultimately make it onto the dinner plate. On the one hand, we get fed; on the other, rivers go dry and aquifers shrink. Consumers are increasingly taking note.

As one of the contributors to the report, I am happy with what came out. It sets a valuable scene for policy discussions at national, regional and farm scales. On the other hand, it glossed over the question of “How should water footprinting be conducted?” And while the report is not the first mention of virtual water in New Zealand, there needs to be so much more. Crikey Creek will be one of the venues.

Virtual water analysis has two good things going for it, and one bad. Unfortunately, it is the bad that gets most traction in public discourse currently.

The good? Virtual water analysis highlights how our consumer choices and society as a whole are rooted in water – we are all hydroponic people. It can also be used to identify the most efficient use of water, say in terms of nutrition-per-drop or dollars-per-drop.

The bad? Virtual water analysis is being used as an environmental indicator of society’s impact on water resources, where in reality it misses the mark. Hence the burning question: How should water footprinting be conducted?

The details? Some answers? Rest assured, they will come. Consider this an hors d’oeuvre to whet your appetite. Just don’t ask me how much water was used to produce it.

P addiction, overdose and eutrophication Daniel Collins Oct 09

4 Comments

estuar09b_240We have an addiction problem. The craving for P goes right down to our bones and DNA. I’m not talking about methamphetamines, but phosphorus.

We are about 1% phosphorus, by weight. Written as ‘P’ in chemical shorthand, it is an essential building block for proteins and bones, and central to our internal energy production. While we could suffer from osteoporosis or hypertension with too much, too little and we might experience bone pain and weight loss. Our addiction is genetically encoded.

Plants are addicted to P too, but it’s not readily available in the environment. It doesn’t have a common gaseous form like carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. When on the Earth’s surface, it is generally just headed for the next geological burial ground, where it would wait to be uplifted tectonically before again seeing the light of day.

But as humans have increased in number, seeking ever more food from the land, we have short circuited P’s biogeochemical cycle. We have excavated it from guano-encrusted islands and igneous rocks around the world, to be packaged into fertiliser for our farms.

While fertilisers have provided us with more nourishment, it has done the same for natural ecosystems. The P that is applied to farms doesn’t all stay there, nor does the P that we eat. Much of it makes its way to streams and lakes where it fertilises more growth, more photosynthetic production. And just as too much P causes problems for human health, so too does it cause problems for streams and lakes.

High levels of P in freshwater ecosystems tend to support higher amounts of algae. But if their numbers are not kept in check by being on another critter’s menu, they will change the demographics of the freshwater ecosystem. Fewer trout. More aquatic weeds. Even a greater incidence of neurotoxins from algal blooms. This is what eutrophication is all about – an abundance of nutrients, and from some perspectives, an over-abundance.

Eutrophication is the obesity epidemic of inland and coastal waters. What that means to us is less fishing, less swimming and generally less enjoyment from natural ecosystems.

Eutrophication was recognised as a pollution problem in the mid-20th century. The main culprit then being localised discharge from waste water treatment facilities. Around half of the lakes in developed regions of the world have since been identified as eutrophic, but now the problem has shifted from waste waters to agricultural runoff – from “point” sources to “non-point” sources.

P is not the only element at play, though. Nitrogen (N) also brings it share of problems. We’ve short circuited the nitrogen cycle as well, but it tends to have a greater impact on coastal ecosystems. Our addiction to N is another story for now.

Just as we seek ways to control methamphetamine abuse, we also look for ways to reduce the overdose of P to streams and lakes. A laundry list of actions taken have been reducing or removing P from laundry detergents, better management of waste water treatment, buffers of plants along stream banks, moderated application of fertilizers. Anything that reduces the amount of P that gets into the environment. The list is long, and under continued scrutiny by scientists and policy makers.

So by now you should have a good overview of our other P addition problem, the science that connects our biological needs for phosphorus to ecological and human consequences, and the policies that aim to balance the ledger of agricultural productivity and environmental health. Consider this as you read that news article about stream quality, as you walk by a nearby lake, or as you eat tonight’s dinner.