What makes a cyanobacterial bloom disappear? A review of the abiotic and biotic cyanobacterial bloom loss factors.

Cyanobacterial blooms present substantial challenges to managers and threaten ecological and public health. Although the majority of cyanobacterial bloom research and management focuses on factors that control bloom initiation, duration, toxicity, and geographical extent, relatively little research focuses on the role of loss processes in blooms and how these processes are regulated. Here, we define a loss process in terms of population dynamics as any process that removes cells from a population, thereby decelerating or reducing the development and extent of blooms. We review abiotic (e.g., hydraulic flushing and oxidative stress/UV light) and biotic factors (e.g., allelopathic compounds, infections, grazing, and resting cells/programmed cell death) known to govern bloom loss. We found that the dominant loss processes depend on several system specific factors including cyanobacterial genera-specific traits, in situ physicochemical conditions, and the microbial, phytoplankton, and consumer community composition. We also address loss processes in the context of bloom management and discuss perspectives and challenges in predicting how a changing climate may directly and indirectly affect loss processes on blooms. A deeper understanding of bloom loss processes and their underlying mechanisms may help to mitigate the negative consequences of cyanobacterial blooms and improve current management strategies.

Impact of summer cattle grazing on the Sierra Nevada watershed: aquatic algae and bacteria.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated periphytic algal and microbial communities to assess the influence of human and cattle impact on Sierra water quality. METHODS: 64 sites (lakes and streams from Lake Tahoe to Sequoia National Park, California) were sampled for suspended indicator bacteria and algae following standardized procedures. The potential for nonpoint pollution was divided into three categories: cattle-grazing areas (C), recreation use areas (R), or remote wildlife areas (W). RESULTS: Periphyton was found at 100% of C sites, 89% of R sites, but only 25% of W sites. Eleven species of periphytic algae were identified, including Zygnema, Ulothrix, Chlorella, Spirogyra, mixed Diatoms, and Cladophoria. Mean benthic algae coverage was 66% at C sites compared to 2% at W sites (P < 0.05). The prevalence of E. coli associated with periphyton was 100% at C sites, 25% of R sites, and 0% of W sites. Mean E. coli CFU/gm of algae detected was: C = 173,000, R = 700, W = 0. (P < 0.05). Analysis of neighboring water for E. coli bacteria >100 CFU/100 mL: C = 91%, R = 8%, W = 0 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Higher periphytic algal biomass and uniform presence of periphyton-attached E. coli corresponded to watersheds exposed to summer cattle grazing. These differences suggest cattle grazing compromises water quality.

Risk factors for coliform bacteria in backcountry lakes and streams in the Sierra Nevada mountains: a 5-year study.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a 5-year longitudinal assessment of risk of acquiring disease from Sierra Nevada Wilderness area lakes and streams. This study examines the relative risk factors for harmful water microorganisms, using coliforms as an indicator. METHODS: Streams and lakes in the backcountry of Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Parks and neighboring wilderness areas were selected and water was analyzed each year over a 5-year period. A total of 364 samples from lakes or streams were chosen to statistically differentiate the risk categories based on land usage, as follows: 1) areas rarely visited by humans (Wild), 2) human day-use-only areas (Day Hike), 3) areas used by backpackers with overnight camping allowed (Backpack), 4) areas primarily impacted by horses or pack animals (Pack Animal), and 5) cattle and sheep grazing tracts (Cattle). Water was collected in sterile test tubes and Millipore coliform samplers. Water was analyzed at the university microbiology lab, where bacteria were harvested and then subjected to analysis using standardized techniques. Statistical analysis to compare site categories was performed utilizing Fisher exact test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 364 sampling sites were analyzed. Coliforms were found in 9% (4/47) of Wild site samples, 12% (5/42) of Day Hike site samples, and 18% (20/111) of Backpacker site samples. In contrast, 63% (70/111) of Pack Animal site samples yielded coliforms, and 96% (51/53) of samples from the Cattle areas grew coliforms. Differences between Backpacker vs Cattle or Pack Animal areas were significant at P