Why are there so many definitions of eutrophication?

Abstract

AbstractBecause of the first observations in the 1900s of the oligotrophic and eutrophic states of lakes, researchers have been interested in the process that makes lakes become turbid because of high phytoplankton biomass. Definitions of eutrophication have multiplied and diversified since the mid‐20th century, more than for any other ecological process. Reasons for the high number of definitions might be that the former ones did not sufficiently describe their causes and/or consequences. Global change is bringing eutrophication more into the spotlight than ever, highlighting the need to find consensus on a common definition, or at least to explain and clarify why there are different meanings of the term eutrophication. To find common patterns, we analyzed 138 definitions that were classified by a multiple correspondence factor analysis (MCA) into three groups. The first group contains the most generic scientific definitions but many of these limit the causes to increased nutrient availability. A single definition takes into account all causes but would require additional work to clarify the process itself. Nutrient pollution, which is by far the primary cause of eutrophication in the Anthropocene, has generated a second group of environmental definitions that often specify the primary producers involved. Those definitions often mention the iconic consequences of nutrient pollution, such as increased algal biomass, anoxia/hypoxia and reduced biodiversity. The third group contains operational definitions, focusing on the consequences of nutrient pollution, for ecosystem services and therefore associated with ecosystem management issues. This group contains definitions related to regulations, mainly US laws and European directives. These numerous definitions, directly derived from the problem of nutrient pollution, have enlarged the landscape of definitions, and reflect the need to warn, legislate and implement a solution to remedy it. Satisfying this demand should not be confused with scientific research on eutrophication and must be based on communicating knowledge to as many people as possible using the simplest possible vocabulary. We propose that operational definitions (groups 2 and 3) should name the process “nutrient pollution,” making it possible to refine (scientific) definitions of eutrophication and to expand on other challenges such as climate warming, overfishing, and other nonnutrient‐related chemical pollutions.