Talk:Eutrophication

Merge nutrient pollution to here
I am proposing to merge the article on nutrient pollution to here as well. An alternative option would be to move only the general bits and leave the rest behind, then renaming the article to nutrient pollution in the United States. Comments anyone? EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Nutrient pollution topic is inherently global, as is 2/3rds of that article. The other 1/3 is in essence the government-related aspect and that portion currently just has US content. But I mostly agree with and prefer your "move only the general bits and leave the rest behind, then renaming...." idea but we should make sure that the new title and topic should avoid any huge overlap. Two ideas:
 * Rename to something like "Nutrient pollution regulation in the United States" or
 * Use your title but then have an understanding documented in talk to add (only) US specific non-governmental stuff. E.G. the dead zone from the Mississippi, lake Erie history etc. I did a quick check and there seems to be no article focused on such although there is dispersed coverage in other articles.
 * North8000 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the merger tag now. But it would be good to build up the nutrient pollution article more with content that is specific to nutrient pollution and not already available at the eutrophication article. EMsmile (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this discussion from last year. I plan to carry out the merger soon (together with User:ASRASR). An external reviewer that we are working with (Tim Jickells, see below), had also pointed out "The nutrient pollution material overlaps heavily with the eutrophication, I would have thought only one was needed provided when somebody searched for nutrient material they in some way landed on the eutrophication material." - Whether we need to leave behind a small sub-article called nutrient pollution in the United States we can find out later when we start doing the merger. EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nutrient pollution causes effects besides eutrophication: human health effects, environmental effects, economic effects. The US EPA website provides a summary of these various effects. https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects Moreau1 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Long story short, they are two different topics.  And having some overlap does not change that. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - my view hasn't changed significantly since I commented in 2018 on the same question. Then I said: The confusion arises because the introduction of pollutants is by far the most common cause of eutrophication. In the absence of a human population, eutrophication is a natural, and often very slow process in which water bodies become enriched with nutrients, particularly phosphates, from the degradation of rocks and soils by normal geomorphological processes. Sterile lakes slowly evolve into biologically dynamic lakes and then to swamps and finally marshes and damp grassland and woods. Human activities have converted a process often taking aeons into one which takes a few decades and in that framework the two appear to be synonymous. Perhaps the simpler answer is the eutrophication describes a change in the trophic state and pollution refers to an ongoing or past human activity.
 * I would be tolerant of some duplication and overlap as long as the two articles reflect the position that they are two, quite distinct, entities.  Velella  Velella Talk 18:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion they overlap so much that they can be better dealt with in one article rather than two separate articles: Nutrient pollution is the main cause of eutrophication, and eutrophication is the main problem of nutrient pollution (the other aspects can be explained but one doesn't need separate articles for that). We've had them as two separate articles for a long time and the result has been very unsatisfying. The article on nutrient pollution has lingered in low quality for a long time. It would be great if the people who oppose such a merger could then help to bring the nutrient pollution article up to scratch? If you want them as separate articles then they need to be streamlined so that the same content is not duplicated in two locations, e.g. things like "how nutrient pollution causes eutrophication". EMsmile (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to create a separate section of nutrient pollution in the article Eutrophication? 117.242.214.86 (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's make it a bit more specific. This is the current table of content of nutrient pollution. I've indicated which sections overlap nearly 100% with the same content at eutrophication: 1Nutrients --> similar content at eutrophication 1.1Nitrogen 1.2Phosphorus 2Environmental impacts --> similar content at eutrophication, except for the part about nitrates in drinking water, fish kills from high ammonia 3Sources of high nutrient runoff --> very similar content at eutrophication 3.1Point sources 3.2Nonpoint sources 3.3Other sources 4Mitigation of nutrient pollutant discharges --> very similar content at eutrophication 4.1Nutrient remediation 4.2Nutrient trading 4.3Nutrient source apportionment 5Country examples 5.1United States So how could we restructure this so that it doesn't overlap to 90% with eutrophication? That link above that User:Moreau1 posted is useful: https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects We could perhaps restructure along those lines provided that any content that is the same for eutrophication is not duplicated but linked (perhaps excerpts could be used as well). In that sense, the eutrophication article could contain the bulk of the content, and then only the things that are in addition to that should be detailed in the nutrient pollution article. EMsmile (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A suggestion is to add a qualification to the Nutrient Pollution article stating that it doesn't cover eutrophication and then we link to the Eutrophication article. Maybe a disambiguation statement? So in this process we remove all material referring to eutrophication from the nutrient pollution article. In examining the eutrophication article I noticed that the section referring to terrestrial eutrophication needs some strengthening, especially in explaining that the increased nitrogen in soil is coming from NOx emissions mainly from fossil fuel combustion.  ASRASR (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a hat note now at nutrient pollution. It currently says "This article is about a type of pollution. For one of the effects of this type of pollution on water bodies, see eutrophication." Is that good? Could it be better? We are also already linking from the section on "environmental effects" across to eutrophication. The question is whether the text about sources of nutrient flows and the reduction approaches of nutrient flows should be mainly at eutrophication or mainly at nutrient pollution?EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we also need to think about how to reduce overlap with harmful algal bloom as the effects of those algal blooms is currently provided at eutrophication as well. EMsmile (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of pairs of distinct topics that have some overlap. Overlap is not a reason to merge them. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the unnecessary overlap should be reduced. Do we really need to talk about the effects of harmful algal blooms in 3 articles? Why not just in one and then refer across from the other articles? Same about prevention (of nutrient pollution, eutrophication, harmful algal blooms) and sources of nutrients. Wikipedia editing becomes more efficient if it's clear which is the main article for a particular section and which is a related sub-article. At the moment it's not clear and therefore new editors add content whereever they feel like it without considering how the three articles fit together like a puzzle. EMsmile (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To start with, can we confirm which 3 articles you are referring to? Are they?:
 * Eutrophication
 * Nutrient pollution
 * Harmful algal bloom
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are the three articles that I was referring to. They each talk about:

At least those contents should be focused in one particular place and the other two articles should just refer across for that content. It would help to decide on which article should have the overview content and which has the detailed content in each case. EMsmile (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * sources of nutrients
 * the effects of harmful algal blooms
 * how to reduce nutrient inputs into waterways.
 * Actually there is even a fourth article which is called algal blooms. It has a long section on "harmful algal blooms", and a discussion on its talk page about a possible merger of algal bloom with harmful algal bloom. A merger might not be needed but the content about "harmful algal blooms" should be culled/condensed at algal bloom and moved to harmful algal bloom. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that, but didn't want to write about it until we clarify which article we're talking about here. While I oppose the merger discussions here on the grounds of them being distinct topics, merging harmful algal blooms into algal blooms looks like a good idea. Harmful algal blooms is unequivocally a subset of algal blooms. That alone is not enough to merge, it could be a sub-article.  But combine that with most of the current algal blooms article already being about harmful algal blooms there's little need for a sub-article.North8000 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I remain of the view that Eutrophication and Nutrient pollution should remain separate, but I do also agree that retaining this distinction means that we must address the current duplication. The clear distinction in my mind is that Eutrophication is a trophic state like any other trophic state and Nutrient pollution is just one way in which Eutrophication may occur. Because of the lack of clear distinction we now have some incorrect assertions such as under #Effects we have #Decreased biodiversity (although the text doesn't quite say that). In real world situations a moderately eutrophic lake will have considerable greater bio-diversity and much greater bio-mass than a nearby oligotrophic lake. Compare the undoubtedly eutrophic Esthwaite Water to the nearby Wastwater in the English Lake District. (The Esthwaite Water article describes it as mesotrophic but even in 1970 it was clearly eutrophic and is widely described as nutrient rich ). The conditions described in the article are largely restricted to hyper eutrophication directly caused by anthropogenic inputs. This is an extreme case of eutrophication. Similarly at sea, algal blooms caused by nutrient upwelling seemed to be branded as caused by mostly anthropogenic inputs. If we were starting again, which I guess we can. I would have started with a wide ranging description of Eutrophication itself without reference to anthropogenic inputs so that the trophic process was well understood. Then, and only then, include references to the adverse anthropogenic inputs and the difference that they make and link to relevant articles such as "Nutrient pollution", "Water Pollution" etc. In other words , limit this article to a description of the trophic state and its natural processes and to the ecological and limnological issues involved and provide most of the man-made adverse influences through linked articles.  Velella  Velella Talk  18:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a quick reaction: there is another article called trophic state index which we should link to more prominently (I've just added it under "See also" for now). But it also means we don't have to go into detail to describe the concept of trophic states as that's covered in the other article. EMsmile (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Being a limnologist I would agree with Velella that eutrophic is just one of the trophic states of water bodies and that much of the discussion about eutrophication is related to hypertrophic systems where cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) blooms occur. We did make improvements by closing the article on cultural eutrophication and moving it into its own section in this article. Because eutrophication is a relatively common technical term it is therefore of importance in this article that people understand that it encompasses the process of shifting from oligotrophic to mesotrophic to eutrophic to hypertrophic states. The shift beyond this to dystrophic systems can also be mentioned (the latter being the final stage before a lake becomes an acid bog dominated by Sphagnum - the precursor to peat). The article on dystrophic lakes is a good one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystrophic_lake). I think the lead of the article explains most of this and as pointed out by EMsmile the good article on the different trophic states needs to be better cited here. ASRASR (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am closing this discussion now. I guess the consensus was not to merge. I think we have succeeded in reducing overlap between nutrient pollution and eutrophication. EMsmile (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Expert comments from Tim Jickells
I have the pleasure of making some important improvements to this article especially re marine aspects thanks to input from Professor Tim Jickells (Univ of East Anglia). These changes are being made Feb 8, 2022. ASRASR (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of repetitive sections (overall ecological effects)
Suggest that the following section be removed since it is repetitive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication#Overall_ecological_effects ASRASR (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reworked that section now. I think we should be mindful of reducing overlap with harmful algal bloom as that article is actually quite detailed about ecological effects of such blooms. EMsmile (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment about alternative definition
There was a hidden comment which said "An alternative definition: Eutrophication as defined by Nixon, 1995 is the increase in organic matter to an ecosystem. Most commonly, eutrophication is the process in which a body of water becomes overly enriched with minerals and nutrients inducing excessive growth of algae, often resulting in oxygen depletion as bacteria respire this excess organic matter." I don't know what this Nixon 1995 reference is and whether it's important? Should we add a section on terminology maybe? EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment about Nomura's jellyfish
There was a hidden comment about Nomura's jellyfish, do we really need it? If so, we'd need a reference to go with it: "Other species (such as Nomura's jellyfish in Japanese waters) may experience an increase in population that negatively affects other species." EMsmile (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is "eutrophication in terrestrial ecosystems / terrestrial eutrophication" really a thing or a misnomer?
In the article we have a section on "terrestrial ecosystems" but in the first sentence of the article we define eutrophication as referring to water bodies. How can this be resolved? I am wondering if we should add a section on terminology to explain this. The term "terrestrial eutrophication" is not widely used, a Google search brings up only 27,000 hits. EMsmile (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * BTW even some of those are about aquatic Eutrophication. One of the meanings of "terrestrial" is "of the planet earth" and aquatic ecosystems could fall under that. But if sometimes refers to on-land,I think we need to cover it.   But we also need to convey that it generally means aquatic. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Housekeeping: this has now been clarified in the section on terminology. EMsmile (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Oceanography

 * Housekeeping: the two students didn't edit the eutrophication article but added eutrophication content at estuary which is also interesting. EMsmile (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Too much detail on alum sulfate treatment recently added?
A student (User:Kurt Krautmann) recently added a lot of content about Aluminum Sulfate Treatment. While the text seems to be OK and with suitable references, I would argue it is too detailed for this kind of overview article that eutrophication is and therefore not in line with WP:DUE. It needs to be condensed or moved to a suitable sub-article (perhaps to algal bloom? or to nutrient pollution?). Also I wonder if this kind of treatment is actually widely used. The references seem pretty old. If it was state of the art then surely there would be more recent references available? Pinging and User:ASRASR  EMsmile (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The section by User:Kurt Krautmann on alum treatment is well researched and written. I agree it takes up too much space in the article and could be summarized in one much shorter paragraph instead. It could also be moved as is to another article eg nutrient pollution. Alum treatment which has its origins in water and sewage treatment was never designed for addition to natural water bodies. It is an expensive short-term solution to clear lake or pond water of phosphate and deposit it to the benthic zone. It can have serious side effects like acidification and toxic effects on organisms (fish and invertebrates). It should not be seen as a general remedy for eutrophication. It may be useful in some cases where the runoff and discharge sources of phosphorus have already been reduced but there continues to be internal P loading from the polluted sediments causing seasonal algal blooms. This would need to be determined on a case by case basis depending on the lake depth and existence of stable thermocline or even a chemocline. It could be best used in man-made ponds in urban areas to reduce algal blooms (eg during summer periods in temperate zones). Dredging of P-laden sediment however could be a better option. But even in such cases, prevention of P loading to the water body has to be the first priority for action. User:EMsmile ASRASR (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding presence in this article, sounds we need somebody to condense it.        Maybe it should also get it's own article? North8000 (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:North8000. Maybe User:Kurt Kaufmann is interested in condensing the material. The summary could be added to the article on alum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_sulfate#Uses and then also "excerpted" to the eutrophication article. Also the present full section could be moved to the nutrient pollution article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient_pollution as suggested by User:EMsmile. It could also benefit from a few more recent references. ASRASR (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for these explanations, ASRASR - very helpful. Do you happen to have a reference or two at your fingertips that we could use for your statements, such as It is an expensive short-term solution to clear lake or pond water of phosphate and deposit it to the benthic zone. It can have serious side effects like acidification and toxic effects on organisms (fish and invertebrates).? I see the existing text quoted a Swedish publication from Uppsala University which makes it sound like it's widespread and without problems: In a large scale study, 114 lakes were monitored for the effectiveness of alum at phosphorus reduction. Across all lakes, alum effectively reduced the phosphorus for 11 years. While there was variety in the longevity, (21 years in deep lakes and 5.7 years in shallow lakes), the results express the effectiveness of alum at controlling phosphorus within lakes..EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also moved the content now to chemical phosphorus removal and just left a short mention and pointer here. I've also mentioned it in the article aluminium sulfate under "uses". EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)