I agree that the dissolved substances released during the decomposition of the white water lily is altering the growth rate of the Okefenokee Swamp bacterioplankton. However, I see it more likely that this alteration is more of a result of a handful of chained together that result in a chain reaction, thus altering the swamp bacterioplankton. One cause for instance could be acid rain, as a result from the smog and pollution in the air. I don't know, it's just a theory, but what are your thoughts on this idea?

There is little population from smog etc in the area generally, farther north, this is the case. The acids are plenty low in the region due to tannins, pH's of 4-5 ranges are not uncommon.

Bacteria and fungi generally process waste faster if you increase the temps.
But in general, we will have more production/growth from wetland plants as the temps increase due to Global warming + more CO2. They are one of the few winners most likely if that was all that happened to them.

A trophic chain or a decompositional chain is a good way to think about it.
Each player has their role.

Regards,
Tom Barr

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Linking critters to bacteria.(note, not full paper for just this one, the others can dowload the pdf below)

pH issues:

Effects of Acid Stress on Aerobic Decomposition of Algal and Aquatic Macrophyte Detritus: Direct Comparison in a Radiocarbon Assay -- Schoenberg et al. 56 (1): 237 -- Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Carbohydrate Signatures of Aquatic Macrophytes and Their Dissolved Degradation Products as Determined by a Sensitive High-Performance Ion Chromatography Method -- Wicks et al. 57 (11): 3135 -- Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Annual Cycle of Bacterial Secondary Production in Five Aquatic Habitats of the Okefenokee Swamp Ecosystem -- Murray and Hodson 49 (3): 650 -- Applied and Environmental Microbiology

That should keep you out of trouble for a bit.

AEM is a great journal BTW and open access.

Regards,
Tom Barr

What are some possible factors that the readers should take into account (other than the dissolved substances) that affect the growth of the Okefenokee Swamp? How will this affect each one of us personally?


I think that we use pesticides to control this problem. There will be various factors that we need to consider before attempting to solve it, and I understand that there will be both pros and cons in dealing with this issue. However, this is something that will affect us all both directly and indirectly and thus we should carefully consider its effects and ways in which we can solve the problem.

The role of carbon in the cycling, export/import/rates of growth.
Everything in wetlands is determined by the carbon.
Increased rates of nutrient cycling will affect different species at different rates, I think for now, the swamp is going to be pretty hard to alter, but if you switch the hydrology, then you will have massive issues that cannot be rectified.
and that's often what the humans like to do...........


I'm not so sure pesticides are really that large of an issue in this system. Out here in CA, we have far far more pesticides in the wetlands/water due to massive agriculture year round+ very little remaining wetlands(4% left since 1850).

I've suggested adding wetland type buffer zones that mitigate agricultural run off, this reduces the levels of nutrients by about 40-80% with minimal land use, public funding for it, public support, increased biodiversity and reclaimation.

Farmers have less issues dealing with their runoff obligations, get better yields as they now have a source of natural pollinators and pest, so the selection is not as great (so you get less resistance to herbicides/pesticides with proper management) and have nicer areas around their land which increases land values, reduces dust, and saves soil(a lot), reduces erosion, reduces aquatic weeds, recreational value.

This can be done at the massive scale, one study modeled the Mississippi River and conservatively estimated a 40% reduction if such buffer zones where added. This would cost about 4 Billions dollars and take 10-12 years. Not cheap, but given the lost in Gulf fishing, a drop in the bucket............and it would improve many things up and down the river, remember that 1993 flood?

It would not have been remotely close to that bad if these same buffers where added. Wetlands buffer flooding and soil lost.

I think better management of the environment and horticulture interface is the way to go here.

That way we nab back some of those lost wetlands, improve the water quality and keep the farmers/industry happier.

Using the rates of decomposition as an indicator of system health is a good predictor for most wetlands.


Regards,
Tom Barr

Although pesticides may be a desirable way to control, we must also evaluate the consequences such action might have before we take any sort of action. As it already is, the inhibitory compounds released during the decomposition of aquatic macrophytes act as selective agents which alter the structure of the bacterial population, with regards to resistance. If pesticides were used to control the situation, then that could alter the rate at which this decompisition happens, thus altering the bacterial population, with regards to resistance, at a faster rate. Such possibilities need to be taken into consideration before any action is taken.

Does the natural temperature of Georgia and Florida have anything to do with the rate at which the decomposition of the bacteria occurs? Think about it. If something phenomenal is occurring here that is producing a different outcome than in other places, there has to be a reason for it other than simply the things that are present in that site. There has to be an external factor that is altering the rate at which the process occurring. I believe that this external factor might be the higher temperatures that are present throughout these regions, which speed up the process of the bacterial decomposition.

It is a subject that can not easily be put aside. It is obvious that global warming is present through weather fluctuations and o-zone depletion. Could pollution and the green house effect be contributing to destruction of swamps in America such as the Okefenokee swamp?

A dry spell has lowered the water level dramatically in the Okefenokee Swamp, raising the danger of wildfires and forcing alligators to crowd into the deeper pools in search of fish. Weeks of below-normal rainfall have lowered the Okefenokee swamp's water level by about 1.3 feet and reduced the flow in two rivers -- the St. Marys and the Suwannee -- that originate in the swamp. This is an example of global warming in one instance.
But how is it going to affect our enviornment?Because of this warming trend, there is some concern among many that we are seeing the beginning of something particularly dangerous, even catastrophic on the horizon that we might be able to prevent by changing our lifestyles. we'll see the oceans rise due to melting ice caps, causing coastal areas to be taken over by flooding. due to the increased warming, areas that are presently livable will become deserts and in turn we will lose cropland and lose food production.Some even warn increased pests as cold winters do not kill as many off, others note that pollution will be worse in hot cities, and that we will see more hurricanes and deadly storms.

Generally GW will help swamps, they grow faster at warmer temps.
They are not limited by water. Some will dry up(Africa/SA), some will form and/or become wetter. Deforestation etc and many other human induce development/overpopulation issues are part of the problem there, GW is a much larger scale process that cannot be undone and restored except on the scale of several thousands, of years and we will not see these present CO2 levels for about a million years. Basically, the oceans will absorb the excess CO2..............but it'll take millions of years to reduce it.

So we screw ourselves the most, the planet shall keep growing and evolving long after we are gone. Some things will perish, some will not and fill in and take their place.

Sadly, approaching the resources on earth like a parasite, what happens to a parasite when you kill the host? How do you change people? I really see less hope there, but perhaps things might change, but I know it will get much worse before a lot of that will change.

Some clown scientist might argue that GW is really happening, but I remember the same thing when they said Smoking did not cause Cancer(Even Bob Dole argued he was not sure not that long ago about that issue when questioned point blank about it , but who gave large sums and raised Tobacco in home state?). You can pay some poor fool to say just about anything. Does not mean he's remotely close to being right or is not telling plain lies for $ and spreading doubt in the face of strong evidence to the contrary without any support, just semantic "doubt". The TV talking heads do this all day long, it's their business and the game they play.

Anyone can place doubt into any study, any topic, anywhere, anytime.
Confusing an issue is bad method of debate, but it is effective for many folks on the fence. It's also done a fair amount in this hobby, as well as religion and politics to a much larger degree.

Critical thinking can carry you far and through all that.
But we all fall prey to the onslaught and let our guard down.

I'm just trying to nab back some of the wetlands via restoration projects in CA for my part.



Regards,
Tom Barr