Study reveals global algae blooms are growing, and warming waters may be to blame
News Article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/phytoplankton-blooms-grow-climate-change-1.6764789
Scientific Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05760-y#Abs1
The news article I chose for this blog post is titled “Study reveals global algae blooms are growing, and warming waters may be to blame.” It was published by the CBC and written by Jaela Bernstien on March 2, 2023. It is compiling and conveying the information from a scientific paper published in Nature on March 1, 2023, titled “Coastal phytoplankton blooms expand and intensify in the 21st century” by Dai et al. The CBC article focuses on the global increase in algae blooms in terms of both spatial growth and frequency that the Nature paper reports.
Overall, the CBC article by Bernstien does a decent job of conveying the results of the study and reporting on the methods of the study. It is very short, which is great for conveying the main idea to a non-scientific audience, but it also limits the amount of information that can be included from the scientific paper. As it pertains to summarizing and synthesizing the Nature article itself, Bernstien only devotes a short paragraph to it. In that paragraph, the author mentions that the scientists used satellite data to determine the increase in frequency and size of the blooms and that there are links between the growth of blooms and climate change. The paper has two other sections: one includes an interview with one of the researchers to explain why algae blooms are bad and another includes an interview with a professor from the University of Victoria, who is an expert on algae blooms, to provide more background information. These sections are also about a paragraph in length each and don’t add a whole lot to the discussion. Both interviews primarily highlight the uncertainties surrounding algal blooms and touch lightly on previous research. They barely discuss the contents of the Nature paper.
The Nature paper by Dai et al. has 3 main questions it is trying to answer:
1. Where and how frequently are the algae blooms occurring?
2. Have the blooms expanded in the last 20 years?
3. What is/are driving the algae blooms?
The authors answer these questions by analyzing the NASA satellite data since 2003 from exclusive economic zones (the region <230 miles off the coast) and large marine ecosystems. To analyze the satellite data, they developed a complex, automated algorithm that essentially uses the color of the water in the satellite images to determine if there is an algae bloom present. It was validated using actual sample data, independent calculations, and visual assessments. The results were then correlated to sea surface temperature (SST) and changes in ocean currents. What they found was that algae blooms were generally increasing in size and frequency throughout the world except in the Northern Hemisphere’s tropical and subtropical regions where there is weakening as seen in their Figure 2. The weakening was outweighed by the strengthening blooms in the rest of the world leading to a net increase of 13.2% in size and 59.2% in frequency. They attributed decreases in algae blooms to weakening currents due to an increasing SST bringing fewer nutrients to areas and less fertilizer use on land. The authors’ main takeaway was the increase in spatial extent and frequency of the bloom globally and the blooms being correlated with SST.
I was quite underwhelmed by the reporting of the CBC article from a scientific standpoint. It did not go into how they used the satellite data at all despite being more than half of the scientific paper. It only highlighted the net global increases and did not touch on variability around the world. The article barely even scratched the surface when it came to the drivers of the algal blooms, only stating one sentence about it. I was also disappointed by the presentation of the interviews. In each interview, the main discussion was surrounding the uncertainty of algae bloom changes. The interviews were nice for some light background information, though. I suppose that if a reader wanted a more scientific view, that is what the Nature article is for. It is linked, after all. That is why I have a completely different opinion on the article as it pertains to a general audience.
For a general audience, the CBC article is pretty good. It does not overwhelm a reader with a bunch of numbers and indecipherable figures. It gets straight to the point, albeit fairly generally, in a short read. Again, I have my gripes with the interviews focusing a lot on uncertainty. It takes away from the study a bit and makes it seem almost untrustworthy or to be taken with a grain of salt. Aside from that, I wish it wouldn’t have glossed over the connections between climate and the increase in blooms, especially being part of the title. Generally, though, it does not grossly omit or misrepresent the data which is great.
Overall, I would rate this article an 8/10. The article hits the main idea without being jam-packed with information. There are not any glaring issues with the representation of the science, but it does lose points with me for the interviews and only focusing on the global trend, omitting any regional data and trends.
I agree with you that it is a pretty good representation of the article for a general population, but I do think they could have pulled some more papers on HABs, since there are many out there talking about things other than just temperature that impact the frequency and intensity of HABs. My main comment is about the pictures. The article pulled several satellite images, which are very pretty, that show HABs. I feel three is a bit much and one should have been a figure or map from the actual article they are representing. Also their choices of images are interesting, since they mention on one the color is enhanced. Another one, does not actually describe the image at all so it is unclear if the image is enhanced as well. These images are very colorful and pretty which is good for an audience but with enhancement it can give the wrong idea, about what they look like or about their danger.
ReplyDeleteHi, Carlie! I agree. The images were a bit redundant as they each show essentially the same thing in different locations. For there to be three of them, especially in such a short article, is a bit overkill. I understand wanting to keep the audience's attention with such eye-catching images, but it would have been nice to have included something a bit more scientific like a graph to break it up!
DeleteI agree with you that the article quickly going over the part concerning the connection between climate change and the blooms, as this seemed to be the focus of the article at first. I know it's said that the relationship is not fully understood, but I was left quite confused when the article says that increasing ocean surface temp could both decrease phytoplankton populations as well as increase the size and frequency of occurence of algae blooms. To me it seems like these two things go counter to each other, and I'd like to better understand the relationship.
ReplyDeleteI was a bit confused by that as well. I'm still not sure I fully grasp it, but to my understanding of it, it has to do with the pre-warming climate and characteristics of the sea water. A warming temperature in a location that was already warm such as equatorial regions could potentially have no or negative effects, while a place that was cooler to begin with could have more drastic changes. I think it might come down to these relative changes.
DeleteI absolutely agree that the news article does not do a great job of the nitty-gritty, but excels in communicating the parts that have an "appropriate sophistication" of science. I also really wanted to see some discussion about more non-global trends and potential sources for these trends both in the article and in the paper. I looked in both the paper and article and could not find any sort of explanation as to why the northern hemisphere had a net decrease in algae blooms, but this screams more equal dispersion of the heat created globally, than things that can hinder the blooms and algae growth (i.e. more factories with harsher chemicals in the northern hemisphere will release more harmful substances into local waters, but the heat from these factories may disperse more evenly in the global system). Overall, I think this was a really good choice and I enjoyed the scientific paper, but can definitely agree with a lot of your analysis of the news piece.
ReplyDeleteThe news article was very reader friendly and provided a great overview of the scientific article without getting into all the complex details. My article did something similar where they interviewed other experts in the field to support their claims and to give more context on the science in the study. They do that to add more context and that allows for the readers to understand what the results of the study should mean to the world and ultimately to them as well. Would you say that getting these experts and putting their interviews in the article helps to make up for the fact the news article didn't go into too much scientific detail? For my article it helped a little because it barely touched on the scientific article so I was curious if it helped your news article as well.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think it did help in providing context and background for the reader. However, I'm not sure if the benefit provided from context outweighed the confusion it adds for the reader. As with most environmental problems, HABs and how they will change with climate is a complex issue. I think the article tries to convey the complexities with the interviews to a degree, but doesn't go deep enough which makes it appear as if there are the research is contradictory, leaving room for confusion.
DeleteI appreciate the article’s readability and its ability to convey the research’s main point through the use of quotes. However, as others have mentioned, it would be beneficial for the author to include more specific information from the paper. While the article does a nice job discussing the points it does include, it would have been more significant had the author touched on variability around the world concerning algae blooms, as you've touched on. This would provide readers with a better understanding of the data relative to their location, even though it is useful to include net increases as well. Overall, I agree with your analysis of the interviews and the article as a whole, and I found the research in the paper to be quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think the article may have been even more impactful for the audience if the author focused in on the data along the coasts of Canada that the paper provides. It could have given a scale or reference for the global data. Pairing it with the professor at the end that discusses their personal experience with Canadian blooms would've tied it all nicely together, too.
DeleteI agree with your analysis that the CBC article provided a decent overview for the general audience, while lacking the depth one would hope for to provide a proper overview of the scientific paper in question. Unfortunately, a reoccurring issue in some of the news articles covered in this course is while they are presented and titled as if they are reporting on a study, they are often a piece by the author about the general topic covered by the paper. In your blog post you mention that the two supplemental sections of the news article are interviews which touch upon previous research and hardly discuss the topics of the Nature paper. If the CBC author had chosen instead to utilize their interviews to supplement their coverage of the Nature paper. This would have enriched their article by offering useful contributions from peers within the field. An additional point I found frustrating was the CBC article's discussion of the negative impacts of blooms. While the CBC article mentions oxygen depletion from algal bloom decay, it forgoes the inclusion of HABs and the toxins produced.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read this article, I was so distracted by the interviews and the length that I didn't even notice that the author only mentioned the oxygen depletion from algal blooms. HABs are a pretty major issue to simply omit. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned considering the article was from the CBC and Lake Erie HABs are some of the worst, right by Canada.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe news article does a good job of going over the points in the scientific article but it felt like the author was trying to immediately focus on the negative impacts of blooms even though the scientific paper acknowledged that there are both positive and negative implications. Although CBC is a news article I think it would have been appropriate for them to include more data because global warming and climate change is talked about so frequently and it seems like readers want to understand more about it. As far as the scientific article, the one thing I didn't understand was whether or not warm water only causes increases in algae/plankton because it was also mentioned that it creates a smaller population. Lastly, the connection between water temperature and acidity made me wonder if the algae does better in a low pH environment even though acidity is frequently detrimental to living organisms- if temperature is the main cause of the changes in algae.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article does a good job of conveying fairly complicated information in a succinct way. To your point about the nonspecificity and uncertainty in the article, in my opinion, it actually strengthens the article. As we know, uncertainty is an unfortunate reality in all modes of science, and this article drives the point home that climate change is one potential source of the increased algael bloom frequency. More that there is still further research needed to properly guage the impacts. That accurate portrayel is something I don't often see in articles like this one.
ReplyDelete