• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

HCB-1

☰
Home
About ITRC
Navigating this Website
Visit HCB-2 Website
Interactive Tools
Nutrient Reduction Tool
Monitoring Tool
Management Criteria Tool
Risk Communication Tool
1. Overview
1. Overview
1.1 Our Goals in Developing This Guidance
2. Using this Guidance for Cyanobacterial Bloom Response
3. Introduction to the Cyanobacteria
3. Introduction to the Cyanobacteria
3.1 What Are Cyanobacteria?
3.2 Health, Environment, and Economic Impacts
3.3 Cyanobacteria Biological Functions and Environmental Interactions
3.4 Understanding Your Water Body and Developing an HCB Management Plan
4. Monitoring
4. Monitoring
4.1 HCB Monitoring
4.2 Developing a Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program
4.3 Approaches to Monitoring
4.4 Selecting Appropriate Sample Collection Methods for Your Lake’s HCB Event
4.5 Water Quality Monitoring to Support Cyanobacteria Management
4.6 Examples of Recreational and Drinking Water Monitoring Approaches for Cyanobacteria
5. Strategies for Communication and Response Planning for HCBs
5. Strategies for Communication and Response Planning for HCBs
5.1 Immediate Communication and Response Tasks
5.2 Build, Improve, and Maintain Response Capacity
6. Management and Control Strategies for HCBs
6. Management and Control Strategies for HCBs
6.1 Summary Table
7. Strategies for Use in Nutrient Management
7. Strategies for Use in Nutrient Management
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Environmental Regulatory and Nonregulatory/Voluntary Programs for Nutrient Control
7.3 Source Identification and Prioritization
7.4 Linking Nutrients to Land Use
7.5 Point Sources
7.6 Nonpoint Sources
7.7 Water Quality Trading
8. Recommendations
8. Recommendations
8.1 Overall understanding of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins and their potential impacts
8.2 HCB Monitoring
8.3 Strategic Communication and Response Planning
8.4 HCB Management and Control Strategies
8.5 HCB Prevention Through Nutrient Reduction
References
Appendix
Appendix A. Visual Guide to Common Harmful Cyanobacteria
Appendix B. North American Lake Management Society survey on HCB notification/outreach
Appendix C. Management Strategy Fact Sheets
C.1 Management Strategy Fact Sheets
C.2 Cost Compilation for Several Mitigation Strategies
C.3 Abridged Strategies
Appendix D. Team Contacts
Appendix E. Glossary
Appendix F. Acronyms
Additional Information
Acknowledgments
Document Feedback
Navigating this Website

 

Strategies for Preventing and Managing Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms (HCB-1)
HOME

Barley and Rice Straw

Planktonic:   

In-water Prevention Strategy
Substantial Supporting Field Data

Benthic:

In-water Prevention Strategy
Limited Supporting Field Data

Barley straw (Hordeum vulgare) has been used for over four decades to prevent the growth of cyanobacteria. Initial reports showed widespread success in the United Kingdom, and barley straw deployment has spread to the United States in the past 20 years (Sellner and Rensel 2018). Decomposition of barley straw leads to the breakdown of lignin-containing cell walls within the straw. Lignin decomposition produces two types of residues that limit cyanobacterial growth. Some are specific compounds that individually inhibit cyanobacteria, while others yield strong oxidizing agents that rapidly reduce cell viability. For details and examples, please see Huang et al. (2015), Matthijs et al. (2012), Pillinger, Cooper, and Ridge (1994), Ridge and Pillinger (1996), Xiao et al. (2010), and Xiao et al. (2014).

The general procedure is as follows: 1–1.5 months prior to an expected HCB, stake or otherwise secure <1-year-old, fungicide-free bales of barley straw into the littoral zone of ponds, lakes, rivers, or streams. Bales should be applied at a rate of 7 bales/acre, with several bales saved to deploy halfway through the summer. Bales should be reapplied each year thereafter, again saving some bales for mid-summer deployment. Ranges for barley straw treatment of cyanobacteria in other systems are 6–50 mg barley straw/L in longer residence time waters, such as lakes or reservoirs (Sellner and Rensel 2018).

PLANKTONIC AND BENTHIC

EFFECTIVENESS

  • Water body type: Pond, lake/reservoir, bay/estuary, rivers/streams
  • Any surface area or depth
  • Any trophic state
  • Any mixing regime
  • Water body uses: Recreation, drinking water

NATURE OF HCB

  • All HCB types
  • Singular or repeating HCBs
  • Toxic and nontoxic HCBs
  • Prevention strategy

ADVANTAGES

  • Effective for most HCBs
  • Prevents HCBs and, therefore, any cyanotoxin accumulations
  • Used in many areas
  • Cost is low if bales are purchased from a farmer
  • Securing bales along the shoreline is easy
  • No impact on submerged plants or fish
  • Is an unregistered algaecide, so may be deployed by individuals, groups, etc., but not by licensed applicators

LIMITATIONS

  • Will work on most systems, but very large lakes would require significant staff effort for bale deployment
  • Possible open-water obstruction, so the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may need to be contacted
  • Straw decomposition products include tannins, a concern for removal in drinking water facilities
  • A small midsummer bale addition may be required
  • Limited application in high flow environments

This technique (7 bales/acre) is effective for most ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and low-salinity estuarine areas and is even more effective if enriched with fungi to aid in lignin decomposition (Sellner et al. 2015). There are some concerns about tannin removal in drinking water facilities from decomposing straw. This technique will not work if applied after the HCB has appeared, and it will not be as effective if the bales are placed in low-light or dark areas. Straw is used in eutrophic systems where blooms have historically occurred; hence, their decomposition results in minimal nutrient additions relative to available levels for bloom growth.

Figure 1. (A) Barley straw lining a stream entering an HCB-dominated lake in eastern Maryland and (B) along the shoreline of a brackish lagoon in Chesapeake Bay.
Source: A–Place, B–K. Sellner.

Other similar options are found in Effiong et al. (2020). Rice straw inhibits Microcystis aeruginosa in the laboratory (Park et al. 2006), was used effectively in Nile tilapia ponds (Eladel, Abd-Elhay, and Anees 2019, Shahabuddin et al. 2012), and inhibited Anabaena in laboratory experiments (Eladel et al. 2019). Using lake water in aquaria, Tomasko, Britt, and Carnevale (2016) reported that dried cypress leaves at 1.51 g/39 L were more inhibitory to cyanobacteria than equal additions of barley straw.

COST ANALYSIS

Costs for fungicide-free barley straw bales from farmers are inexpensive relative to retail prices from landscape or pond supply companies, where they can be 5–10 times more expensive. Implementation requires labor to secure bales in the littoral zone and may require a small midsummer bale addition.

Cost analysis per growing season: Barley straw

ITEM RELATIVE COST PER GROWING SEASON
Material $
Equipment $
Labor $
OVERALL $

REGULATORY AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The only limitations for bale deployment are aesthetics (viewsheds) and boating obstructions if bales are secured in open water.

CASE STUDY EXAMPLES

Williston Lake, Denton, Maryland, United States: 500 barley straw bales were deployed over 67 acres of an incoming stream and shoreline of Williston Lake from April to May while the lake was partially drained, resulting in the lake remaining free of Microcystis aeruginosa. Microcystin and anatoxin-a concentrations were below recreational exposure levels in the first year, followed by absence of the species and cyanotoxins in subsequent years (Sellner et al. 2015).

Ponds, drainage ditches, and lakes, United Kingdom and Ireland: Barley straw was effective in reducing Oscillatoria agardhii from 10,000 filaments/mL to nondetectable levels in a 6-ha lake after 3 weeks of exposure. Lake managers for 29 other water bodies indicated dramatic cyanobacteria reductions following barley straw additions (Newman and Barrett 1993).

Potable water reservoir, Aberdeen, Scotland: Approximately twice/year barley straw treatment (6–28 g/m3) of a reservoir from 1993 to 1998 substantially reduced cyanobacteria (Barrett, Littlejohn, and Curnow 1999).

Derbyshire Reservoir, United Kingdom: Cyanobacteria were significantly reduced when 50 g/m3 and 25 g/m3 of barley straw were added to a disused UK water supply reservoir (Everall and Lees 1996, 1997).

Pond, Dublin, Ireland: Barley straw additions (25–50 g/m2) to the pond at the Tolka Valley Park in Finglas, Dublin, prevented growth of Lyngbya mats (Stack and Zhao 2014).

REFERENCES

Barrett, P. R. F., J. W. Littlejohn, and J. Curnow. 1999. “Long-term algal control in a reservoir using barley straw.”  Hydrobiologia 415 (0):309-313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003829318450.

Effiong, Kokoette, Jing Hu, Caicai Xu, Tao Tang, Haomin Huang, Jiangning Zeng, and Xi Xiao. 2020. “Sustainable utilization of agricultural straw for harmful algal blooms control: a review.”  Journal of Renewable Materials 8:461-483. doi: https://doi.org/10.32604/jrm.2020.09111.

Eladel, Hamed, Mohamed Battah, Aida Dawa, Reham Abd-Elhay, and Doaa Anees. 2019. “Effect of rice straw extracts on growth of two phytoplankton isolated from a fish pond.”  Journal of Applied Phycology 31 (6):3557-3563. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-019-01766-0.

Eladel, Hamed Mohamed, Reham Abd-Elhay, and Doaa Anees. 2019. “Effect of rice straw application on water quality and microalgal flora in fish ponds.”  Egyptian Journal of Botany 59 (1):171-184. doi: https://doi.org/10.21608/ejbo.2018.4852.1199.

Everall, N. C., and D. R. Lees. 1996. “The use of barley-straw to control general and blue-green algal growth in a Derbyshire reservoir.”  Water Research 30 (2):269-276. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(95)00192-1.

Everall, N. C., and D. R. Lees. 1997. “The identification and significance of chemicals released from decomposing barley straw during reservoir algal control.”  Water Research 31 (3):614-620. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(96)00291-6.

Huang, Haomin, Xi Xiao, Anas Ghadouani, Jiaping Wu, Zeyu Nie, Cheng Peng, Xinhua Xu, and Jiyan Shi. 2015. “Effects of natural flavonoids on photosynthetic activity and cell integrity in Microcystis aeruginosa.”  Toxins 7 (1):66-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins7010066.

Matthijs, H. C., P. M. Visser, B. Reeze, J. Meeuse, P. C. Slot, G. Wijn, R. Talens, and J. Huisman. 2012. “Selective suppression of harmful cyanobacteria in an entire lake with hydrogen peroxide.”  Water Res 46 (5):1460-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.016.

Newman, Jonathan, and P. R. F. Barrett. 1993. “Control of Microcystis aeruginosa by decomposing barley straw.”  Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 31:203-206.

Park, M. H., M. S. Han, C. Y. Ahn, H. S. Kim, B. D. Yoon, and H. M. Oh. 2006. “Growth inhibition of bloom-forming cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa by rice straw extract.”  Lett Appl Microbiol 43 (3):307-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2006.01951.x.

Pillinger, J. M., J. A. Cooper, and I. Ridge. 1994. “Role of phenolic compounds in the antialgal activity of barley straw.”  Journal of Chemical Ecology 20 (7):1557-1569. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02059880.

Ridge, Irene, and J. M. Pillinger. 1996. “Towards understanding the nature of algal inhibitors from barley straw.”  Hydrobiologia 340 (1):301-305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00012772.

Sellner, Kevin, Allen Place, Ernest Williams, Yonghui Gao, Elizabeth VanDolah, Michael Paolisso, Holly Bowers, and Shannon Roche. 2015. “Hydraulics and Barley Straw (Hordeum vulgare) as effective Treatment Options for a Cyanotoxin-Impacted Lake.” International Conference on Harmful Algae.

Sellner, Kevin, and J. E. Rensel. 2018. “Prevention, control, and mitigation of harmful algal bloom impacts on fish, shellfish, and human consumers.” In Harmful Algal Blooms:  A Compendium Desk Reference, edited by Sandra E. Shumway, JoAnn M. Burkholder and Steven L. Morton, 435-492. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118994672.ch12

Shahabuddin, A. M., M. Oo, Y. Yi, Dhirendra Thakur, Amrit Bart, and J. Diana. 2012. “Study about the effect of rice straw mat on water quality parameters, plankton production and mitigation of clay turbidity in earthen fish ponds.”  World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences 4:577-585. doi: https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wjfms.2012.04.06.6515.

Stack, John, and Yaqian Zhao. 2014. “Performance assessment of an integrated constructed wetland-pond system in Dublin, Ireland ”  Journal of Water Sustainability 4 (1):13-26.

Tomasko, David, Mike Britt, and M. Carnevale. 2016. “The ability of barley straw, cypress leaves and L-lysine to inhibit cyanobacteria in Lake Hancock, a hypereutrophic lake in Florida.”  Florida Scientist 79:147-157.

Xiao, X., H. Huang, Z. Ge, T. B. Rounge, J. Shi, X. Xu, R. Li, and Y. Chen. 2014. “A pair of chiral flavonolignans as novel anti-cyanobacterial allelochemicals derived from barley straw (Hordeum vulgare): characterization and comparison of their anti-cyanobacterial activities.”  Environ Microbiol 16 (5):1238-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12226.

Xiao, Xi, Ying-xu Chen, Xin-qiang Liang, Li-ping Lou, and Xian-jin Tang. 2010. “Effects of Tibetan hulless barley on bloom-forming cyanobacterium (Microcystis aeruginosa) measured by different physiological and morphologic parameters.”  Chemosphere 81 (9):1118-1123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.09.001.

image_pdfPrint this page/section


HCB

Home
glossaryGlossary
referencesReferences
acronymsAcronyms
ITRC
Contact Us
About ITRC
Visit ITRC
social media iconsClick here to visit ITRC on FacebookClick here to visit ITRC on TwitterClick here to visit ITRC on LinkedInITRC on Social Media
about_itrc
Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer). This web site is owned by ITRC • 1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 • (202) 266-4933 • Email: [email protected] • Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Usage Policy ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States.