4.8 Article

Anthropogenic eutrophication of shallow lakes: Is it occasional?

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118728

关键词

Shallow lake; Eutrophication; Sustainability; Depth; Trophic state; Management

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [42177058, 41621002, 41790423]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The depth of lakes reflects their susceptibility to human disturbance, with shallow lakes being more prone to anthropogenic eutrophication. Deep lakes, on the other hand, are less affected by human activities.
Understanding and managing the susceptibility of lakes to anthropogenic eutrophication has been a primary goal of limnological research for decades. To achieve United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, scientists have attempted to understand why shallow lakes appear to be prone to eutrophication and resistant to restoration. A rich data base of 1151 lakes (each >= 0.5 km2) located within the Europe and the United States of America offers a rare opportunity to explore potential answers. Analysis of sites showed that lake depth integrated socioecological systems and reflected potential susceptibility to anthropogenic stressors, as well as lake productivity. In this study, lakes distributed in agricultural plain and densely populated lowland areas were generally shallow and subjected to intense human activities with high external nutrient inputs. In contrast, deep lakes frequently occurred in upland regions, dominated by natural landscapes with little anthropogenic nutrient input. Lake depth appeared to not only reflect external nutrient load to the lake, but also acted as an amplifier that increased shallow lake susceptibility to anthropogenic disturbance. Our findings suggest that shallow lakes are more susceptible to human forcing and their eutrophication may be not an occasional occurrence, and that societal expectations, policy goals, and management plans should reflect this observation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据