Talk:Eutrophication/Archive 1

Dubious photo[edit]

Isn't there something wrong with the photo purporting to show Potomac water laden with cyanobacteria? The color of the trees looks highly unnatural and suspiciously similar to the color of the water. This photo is almost certainly not in natural color, and therefore misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.17.89 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would say its just an old photo thats been scanned more than it being done of purpose IMO --Hypo Mix (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the photo is misleading. In the original photo, everything is unnaturally cyan. The image was later modified to show a more natural-looking color. Since the point of the image is the color, and the color is clearly artificial, a different image should be used. (Httarc (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Non-aquatic eutrophication[edit]

Eutrophication is not limited to aquatic systems, so the article needs some fairly hefty revision. Any objections? Also the references list is far too long - could the person responsible trim it? --Sambostock 19:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Really? I'd go slow and provide some references of your own. I think the lead sentence is the widely accepted definition of the term, although the web site you link to is interesting and provides a perhaps better alternative (expanded?) definition.

I did not add the reference list, so I cannot comment on its usefulness. I would say, if all those references were used to develop the text they should stay. If they are just a list that provides further reading, the list should be trimmed as you suggest. I'm always concerned when contributors just add references, without proper citation in the text. It becomes impossible to know with futuire edits/changes if the reference makes sense or not. In effect, just adding a list of references at the end contributes nothing to the veracity of any claims or statements in the text, as there is no necessary association between the two. If no one comes forward and fixes as you suggest, there would really be no harm in just deleting all the references given. - Marshman 19:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked more closely and see that many of the references are cited in the text, so those should certainly stay - Marshman 19:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would object to inclusion of non-aquatic eutrophication? I've been looking in some older Ecology texbooks (Krebs, 2nd ed.1978, R.L. Smith 1966)and dictionaries and so far have not found any intent that the terms 'eutrophic' and 'eutrophication' were intended to apply to terrestrial systems. The terms relate to a particular process found in aquatic systems, that do not occur in the same fashion in terrestrial habitats. To bend this definition to would severely dillute the meaning and confuse issues. (user: JC Benthos, 11/22/06)

The terms 'Eutrophic' is of Greek origin and was originally used to describe the fertility of soils in peat bogs (together with 'Oligotrophic'). However, 'Eutrophication' has been extensively used to describe algal blooms in surface water bodies for quite sometime now. A good compromise could be to insert this information in the article while retaining the present contents. (User: Ritesh Prasad Gurung[1] 11/24/2006)

The term "competitive release" is used (over-used) in this article. Although possibly a new combination with a special definition, as an ecologist I have never seen this "term" before and it means nothing to me. It is not defined in the article, so most readers must be as lost as I am about how it relates to eutrophication. - Marshman 19:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) - I have now confirmed that it is a real term (see [2]), but I think a difficult concept to simply introduce as a term without explanation, partly because it is a poor english combination (scientists do that kind of sh-- all the time). To my thinking it is backwards as "competitive" is an adjective in english. - Marshman 19:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

Contrary to what is said [in the opening sentences of the article], eutrophication is not in fact a form of pollution, but yet is caused by pollution. Eutrophication is the actual process that is occurring, not the reason of the process. As the water becomes saturated with nutrients from pollution and extreme biomass begins to accumulate, the body of water begins to turn over. As the biota within the pond, lake, river, etc. becomes overwhelming and nutrients are depleted, the ecosystem begins to die. This is the actual process of eutrophication. Preceding statement is by 140.141.3.109 (talk • contribs), removed to talk page by -- Paleorthid 05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the disputed tag. The problem you point out seems to be fixed so there is no reason for it to be there any more.--Santahul 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First section[edit]

The summary above the contents is way to heavy. That bits supposed to be a few sentences but at the moment it looks like somebody just copy and pasted and article out of a journal.--195.194.178.251 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is eutrophication "the ecosystem response to the addition of..." or simply "the addition of...". 4 definitions from USGS suggests it to be the latter (http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html) Equinexus (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giant salvinia[edit]

I'm moving material from Nutrient to this article, and it mentioned giant salvinia. Are problems with that due to eutrophication, or is it inherently invasive? If it's the former, it could be added to this article as an example, and this tidbit added to the article on the plant. -- Beland 04:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Eutrophication/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

Needs citations:

~~"The process may be made worse by the use of fertilisers in crops such as maize, rice, and sugarcane grown on the floodplain."~~

~~"Phosphorus is often regarded as the main culprit in cases of eutrophication in lakes subjected to point source pollution from sewage."~~
"Increased content of nitrates in soil frequently leads to undesirable changes in vegetation composition and many plant species are endangered as a result of eutrophication in terrestrial ecosystems, such as the majority of orchid species in Europe." Done
"but there are three particularly troubling ecological impacts: decreased biodiversity, changes in species composition and dominance, and toxicity effects."
"In order to gauge how to best prevent eutrophication from occurring, specific sources that contribute to nutrient loading must be identified." This could be viewed as OR, reword or cite the sources that state this.
"Reducing eutrophication should be a key concern when considering future policy, and a sustainable solution for everyone, including farmers and ranchers, seems feasible" Needs to be cited, as this appears as OR.
"Rectification actions aimed at abating eutrophication and algal blooms are usually desirable, but the focus of intervention should not necessarily be aimed at eliminating blooms, but towards creating a sustainable balance that maintains or improves ecosystem health."

Other issues:

The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. For an article of this length, it should probably be two to three paragraphs. Make sure to touch on each section being discussed in the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
"The World Resources Institute has identified 375 hypoxic coastal zones in the world, concentrated in coastal areas in Western Europe, the Eastern and Southern coasts of the US, and East Asia, particularly in Japan." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. To improve the flow of the article, either expand on this sentence or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences in the article.
"Ecosystems (like some meadows, forests, and bogs that are characterized by low nutrient content and species-rich, slowly growing vegetation adapted to lower nutrient levels) are overgrown by faster growing and more competitive species-poor vegetation, like tall grasses, that can take advantage of unnaturally elevated nitrogen levels and the area may be changed beyond recognition and vulnerable species may be lost." This sentence is a little long, consider splitting into two sentences.
The long list in the "Ecological effects" section should be converted to prose and should be cited as well.
The subheadings under the "Nonpoint sources" heading are not needed. Same goes for the "Minimizing nonpoint pollution: future work" heading.

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed-out points on needing citations are common knowledge in scientific field. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since some effort was made in addressing the above points, I'll leave the article on hold for another week. Please address the other issues so the article does not need to be delisted. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps: Delisted[edit]

The article has been on hold for another week and no other improvements were made. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural eutrophication[edit]

Listing this article in a series about pollution accounts only for what is known as cultural eutrophication. It fails to account for the natural eutrophication process. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.183.4 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural and cultural eutrophication can (and are) bother covered in this article. There is no harm in having this article included in a series on water pollution. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cultural eutrophication[edit]

Cultural eutrophication is a sub-topic and could be covered here in the main article. Propose merging the articles for clarity. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lfstevens (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably a safe bet by now.--BDD (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Have a nice day =D[reply]

Hypoxia...really?[edit]

Hypoxia comes from the Greek meaning low oxygen. Algae is photosynthetic which means it consumes sunlight and CO2 and produces oxygen as a byproduct of energy production. The problem may be too much of a good thing...algae...but low levels of oxygen is not likely the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.1.226 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoxia is not necessarily caused completely by the algal activity—see Hypoxia (environmental) and Hypoxia_(environmental)#Causes of hypoxia. – Jonadin93 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

CAN SOMEBODY REMOVE "AMSTERDAMIANS ARE JEWISH" UNDER REFERENCE NUMBER 5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.26.208 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's gone.North8000 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New article - Phosphates in detergent[edit]

I just made Phosphates in detergent. I linked that article from this article in a small way but this article could have a small section on the topic to highlight it. I am posting this notice to harmful algal bloom and eutrophication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riparian buffers and phosphate[edit]

Some phosphate pollutants (i. e., some phosphate salts) are soluble in water. So, how can Riparian Buffer Zones be effective in preventing eutrophication (as they filters the pollutants)? Bapanandwikimandal

Biota in buffer zones can take up soluble phosphates and lock most up in the immediate area as insoluble phosphates. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eutrophication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070124215138/http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/toxicyanbact/en/ to http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/toxicyanbact/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eutrophication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]