Because 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.

中文翻译：

---

为什么富营养化有这么多定义？


由于在 20 世纪 00 年代首次观察到湖泊的贫营养和富营养状态，研究人员对由于浮游植物生物量高而导致湖泊变得浑浊的过程产生了兴趣。自 20 世纪中叶以来，富营养化的定义比任何其他生态过程都更加丰富和多样化。定义数量较多的原因可能是以前的定义没有充分描述其原因和/或后果。全球变化使富营养化比以往任何时候都更加受到关注，强调需要就共同定义达成共识，或者至少解释和澄清为什么富营养化一词有不同的含义。为了找到共同模式，我们分析了 138 个定义，这些定义通过多重对应因子分析 (MCA) 分为三组。第一组包含最通用的科学定义，但其中许多限制了提高营养可用性的原因。单一定义考虑了所有原因，但需要额外的工作来阐明过程本身。养分污染是迄今为止人类世富营养化的主要原因，它产生了第二组环境定义，这些定义通常指定所涉及的初级生产者。这些定义经常提到营养物污染的标志性后果，例如藻类生物量增加、缺氧/缺氧和生物多样性减少。第三组包含操作定义，重点关注养分污染对生态系统服务的影响，因此与生态系统管理问题相关。该组包含与法规相关的定义，主要是美国法律和欧洲指令。 这些直接源自营养物污染问题的众多定义扩大了定义的范围，并反映出需要警告、立法和实施补救方案。满足这一需求不应与富营养化科学研究相混淆，而必须以使用最简单的词汇向尽可能多的人传播知识为基础。我们建议操作定义（第 2 组和第 3 组）应将这一过程命名为“营养物污染”，从而可以完善富营养化的（科学）定义，并扩展应对气候变暖、过度捕捞和其他非营养物相关化学物质等其他挑战的范围。污染。