Local action needed to protect nature from global warming

April 1, 2015, Radboud University Nijmegen
Local action needed to protect nature from global warming
Reducing nutrient runoff into the Doñana wetlands will prevent the spread of algal blooms, which climate change could otherwise worsen. Credit: Andy J. Green

Stronger local management can increase the resilience of nature to the impacts of climate change, writes an international team of researchers in Science. The authors examined three UNESCO World Heritage Sites: the Amazon rainforest, the Great Barrier Reef and Spain's Doñana wetlands. The team, led by Wageningen University, warned that deforestation and nutrient pollution can exacerbate the effects of rising temperatures.

Blue-green algae

Sarian Kosten is one of the authors of the study published in the academic journal Science on Friday 20 March. She works at the Institute for Water and Wetland Research at Radboud University and is specialised in the relationship between climate and quality. "Blue-green algae cause many problems, one of which is that they can produce toxins, which threatens the large groups of birds that spend the winter in Spain's Doñana wetlands," says Koster. "The amount of blue-green algae as a proportion of the total algae biomass is highly dependent on the level of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen in the water and the temperature. This is an interactive effect: if the proportion of blue-green algae is to be kept at the same level, the nutrient concentration needs to be reduced by 30 % for each degree increase in temperature."

Local and global

"The possibility to take local action to combat the negative effects of a global problem such as applies to many other ecosystems. Local measures such as reducing pollution, water extraction, deforestation and fishing can make these ecosystems less vulnerable to climate change."

An earlier study by Kosten showed that the synergetic effects of temperature and nutrients in water apply globally. "We combined the data from a large number of shallow lakes located from sub-Arctic Europe to the very south of South America. If we want to prevent a dominance of blue-green algae in a future warmer climate, we need to further reduce the concentration of nutrients in water."'

Explore further: World Heritage Sites risk collapse without stronger local management, researchers say

Related Stories

Lakes react differently to warmer climate, study finds

October 4, 2012

A future warmer climate will produce different effects in different lakes. Researchers from Lund University in Sweden have now been able to explain that the effects of climate change depend on what organisms are dominant ...

In hot water: lakes speed up climate change

April 6, 2010

Lakes that warm up due to climate change give off large amounts of CO2, says Dutch PhD researcher Sarian Kosten in Global Biochemical Cycles. And those emissions speed up climate change in their turn.

Recommended for you

Ocean acidification may reduce sea scallop fisheries

September 21, 2018

Each year, fishermen harvest more than $500 million worth of Atlantic sea scallops from the waters off the east coast of the United States. A new model created by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), ...

28 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Science Officer
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
Wouldn't algae control be an issue, even during an Ice Age?
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
How much algae do you find in ice?

But so what? The problem here is we have lifeforms sensitive to Oxygenation, which may not live in ice age conditions. I don't live in Ice Age conditions.

What's the point?
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2015
Know what truly needs protection from global warming, REAL SCIENCE.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
Absolutely, control it locally, turn off lights you don't use. You're supposed to be hot in the Summer, cold in the winter, leave the heat at the fringe of comfort. Get fuel efficient cars and scooters. (Not for nothing, but motor scooters, put an air foil around them 100mpg easy, I know ridiculous!)

Solar, wind supplements can take car of where ever we don't need high density power; lights, computers, etc..

Make it happen!
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Absolutely, control it locally, turn off lights you don't use
Doh, how do any of your posts move forward from mere claims of "4 technical degrees" and why your CO2 claim is 16,666 times LOWER than wiki which you claim is in "great agreement" - deluded AGAIN !

Water_Prophet claimed
You're supposed to be hot in the Summer, cold in the winter, leave the heat at the fringe of comfort. Get fuel efficient cars and scooters. (Not for nothing, but motor scooters, put an air foil around them 100mpg easy, I know ridiculous!)
You are so far from reality its crazy, you are crazy, its NOT the heat you keep muttering about - its the CO2, which you STILL fail to quantify !

Water_Prophet claimed
...Make it happen!
Like your MANY arbitrary claims:-

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't YOU ?

Whats wrong with you Water_Prophet ?
Bongstar420
1 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2015
LOL...Global Warming is a phenomena which is the result of the structure of nature, and people don't agree on what the structure of nature is.

If she is an actual scientist, then she should understand that.
https://en.wikipe...sophy%29

Who is going to protect the algae?

Supernatural and spiritual claims (which includes accepting the concept of "unnatural" things as real) are untestable and likely to be artifacts of neurology
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
Protect nature?

AGW IS a part of nature.

What version of nature needs protection?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
ryggy good point.

We need to protect those aspects of nature that serve our own ends. Right now, global melting-not warming per se, is threatening those lands near sea level.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
threatening those lands near sea level.


Move.
Build dikes.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2015
Yeah, you move those rich folks who value their beach front property so much. Let me know how that works out for you.
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2015
Nature has obviously been a dismal failure these last few billion years. It's a good thing we came along with computer models and good intentions to fix it.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
Yeah, you move those rich folks who value their beach front property so much. Let me know how that works out for you.

Stop subsidizing their insurance.
Abolish FEMA.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
Repeal Ohm's Law, yeah that'll work.

Sure, it there a form I can fill out? A vote I can place against FEMA and close it down? I'll get right on it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
Repeal Ohm's Law, yeah that'll work.

Sure, it there a form I can fill out? A vote I can place against FEMA and close it down? I'll get right on it.


Stop voting for socialists.
zz5555
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
Nature has obviously been a dismal failure these last few billion years. It's a good thing we came along with computer models and good intentions to fix it.

What do climate models have to do with this? This appears to be an entirely empirical study - why do you feel compelled to make a political comment about the data? You've said you don't understand climate models, or climate science for that matter, so why bring them up? As for nature, it's well known that humans are the primary cause of the current climate change, so what does nature have to do with it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
so what does nature have to do with it?

Humans are IN nature.
If you believe humans evolved, then they evolved in nature, not outside of nature.

Do the AGWites believe humans were created by a higher being, outside of nature, and placed upon earth to preserve nature?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet stated
Yeah, you move those rich folks who value their beach front property so much. Let me know how that works out for you
Why can't U prove ANY of your claims ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your particular claim of CO2's effect of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

I have proven my credentials on other threads, why havent you checked with Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia - my student number is 07602128

:-)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Repeal Ohm's Law, yeah that'll work.

Sure, it there a form I can fill out? A vote I can place against FEMA and close it down? I'll get right on it.


Stop voting for socialists.

LOL, but then the wrong socialist might get it!

The fact is, we can reduce our use of fossil fuels, even use them as a tool. This will change global climate. Reduce AC, get fuel efficient cars, etc..
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
LOL, but then the wrong socialist might get it!
The fact is, we can reduce our use of fossil fuels, even use them as a tool. This will change global climate. Reduce AC, get fuel efficient cars, etc..
You have STILL not proven ANY of your claims ?

Y is that ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
Why are you so concerned? Everyone on the web has a Doctorate. Despite all your degrees, you can't come up with a single word of jargon in your fields.

Proof enough for the forum I think.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Why are you so concerned? Everyone on the web has a Doctorate. Despite all your degrees, you can't come up with a single word of jargon in your field
No. My field electronics & efficiency of power delivery systems in RAPS, earlier site:-
http://members.ii...s/Power/

I have no need talking electronics with u as u cannot understand ANY underlying physics which INCLUDES (radiative) heat transfer, from that perspective ANY physics u came across by accident post your claimed high school degree is mere subset incl 2 years Physics at Curtin University which is 4 semester units in physics as part of Electronic Engineering 4 yr degree part time 1976-1982, check my student number 07602128 & why not ph them to check:-
http://niche.iine.../physorg

Water_Prophet conceded
Proof enough for the forum I think[q/]Yes, proof u are a LIAR, NO qualifications, regardless can't prove your subsequent claims re CO2's radiative forcing !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
Yeah, so condenser, kirchhoff's laws, Ohm's law is an approximation that can be represented as a series, v = L di/dt. Op Amps draw "no" current, semi-conductor devices use Boltzmann distributions, you're right, I wouldn't understand.

Radiative heat transfer? Blackbody radiation rules? I am afraid, despite what you think is an intimidating package, radiative transfer is simplicity itself. Just because you find the term "radiative heat transfer," intimidating, and can't dispute or show your own derivations to contradict it, doesn't mean it isn't simple to use Wein's law, Plank's laws, etc..

Oh well Mikey.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Yeah, so condenser, kirchhoff's laws, Ohm's law is an approximation that can be represented as a series, v = L di/dt.Op Amps draw "no" current, semi-conductor devices use Boltzmann distributions, you're right, I wouldn't understand
Correct, u don't know mesh or network analysis - all u do is throw jargon - that is your limit, f..kwit !

Water_Prophet claimed
Radiative heat transfer? Blackbody radiation rules? I am afraid, despite what you think is an intimidating package, radiative transfer is simplicity itself
Good !
Then prove how u arrived at 0.00009W/m^2 for CO2 ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Just because you find the term "radiative heat transfer," intimidating, and can't dispute or show your own derivations to contradict it, doesn't mean it isn't simple to use Wein's law, Plank's laws, etc
Its obviously NOT the term, its the FACT u STILL haven't qualified your claims, especially CO2's ?

No distractions, do it !

so sad :-(
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
It's so easy to provide the answers when someone gives them to you isn't it?
You lose, Mikey. Again.

Electronics, moles, climate science, all you ever prove is that you shouldn't be here.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
It's so easy to provide the answers when someone gives them to you isn't it?
You lose, Mikey. Again.
Electronics, moles, climate science, all you ever prove is that you shouldn't be here.
No. The Evidence is abundantly clear you STILL have NOT proven ANY of your claims - Y is that ?

Y is your writing NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y do you claim 0.00009 is in "great agreement" with 1.5 - how is that even possible, can't u count ?

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
You've said you don't understand climate models, or climate science for that matter, so why bring them up? As for nature, it's well known that humans are the primary cause of the current climate change, so what does nature have to do with it?


When have I said I don't understand climate models? I've stated that I've done modelling/indexes within my field and understand their limitations. Just because I don't know every variable that we attempt to quantify in climate models doesn't mean that I don't understand their treatment as irrefutable fact deserves some balance. I'm presuming you also require all who agree with AGW science/theory to demonstrate their complete understanding of how it works before they are allowed to express their support?
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
What do climate models have to do with this? This appears to be an entirely empirical study - why do you feel compelled to make a political comment about the data?


"Local action needed to protect nature from global warming"

Does that read like empirical data to you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2015
"United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said humanity "really should make every effort" to reduce global population trends to protect the environment and fight global warming in an interview with Climate One."
http://rightwingn...warming/

Every effort EXCEPT the one demonstrate to be effective, economic prosperity.

But economic prosperity can't occur with massive, central govt intervention in the economy (socialism) so the only way the socialists will consider will require coercion and misery.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.