Search

Whilst a diverse array of phosphorus (P)-adsorbent materials is currently available for application to freshwater aquatic systems, selection of the most appropriate P-adsorbents remains problematic. In particular, there has to be a close correspondence between attributes of the P-adsorbent, its field performance and the management goals for treatment. These management goals may vary from a rapid reduction in dissolved P to address seasonal enrichments from internal loading, targeting external fluxes due to anthropogenic sources, or long-term inactivation of internal P inventories contained within bottom sediments. It also remains a challenge to develop new methods and materials that are ecologically benign and cost-effective. We draw on evidence in the literature and the authors’ personal experiences in the field, to summarise the attributes of a range of P-adsorbent materials. We offer ‘guiding principles’ to support practical use of existing materials and outline key development needs for new materials.

Whilst a diverse array of phosphorus (P)-adsorbent materials is currently available for application to freshwater aquatic systems, selection of the most appropriate P-adsorbents remains problematic. In particular, there has to be a close correspondence between attributes of the P-adsorbent, its field performance and the management goals for treatment. These management goals may vary from a rapid reduction in dissolved P to address seasonal enrichments from internal loading, targeting external fluxes due to anthropogenic sources, or long-term inactivation of internal P inventories contained within bottom sediments. It also remains a challenge to develop new methods and materials that are ecologically benign and cost-effective. We draw on evidence in the literature and the authors’ personal experiences in the field, to summarise the attributes of a range of P-adsorbent materials. We offer ‘guiding principles’ to support practical use of existing materials and outline key development needs for new materials.

Here, we communicate a point of departure in the development of aquatic ecosystem models, namely a new community-based framework, which supports an enhanced and transparent union between the collective expertise that exists in the communities of traditional ecologists and model developers. Through a literature survey, we document the growing importance of numerical aquatic ecosystem models while also noting the difficulties, up until now, of the aquatic scientific community to make significant advances in these models during the past two decades. Through a common forum for aquatic ecosystem modellers we aim to (i) advance collaboration within the aquatic ecosystem modelling community, (ii) enable increased use of models for research, policy and ecosystem-based management, (iii) facilitate a collective framework using common (standardised) code to ensure that model development is incremental, (iv) increase the transparency of model structure, assumptions and techniques, (v) achieve a greater understanding of aquatic ecosystem functioning, (vi) increase the reliability of predictions by aquatic ecosystem models, (vii) stimulate model inter-comparisons including differing model approaches, and (viii) avoid ‘re-inventing the wheel’, thus accelerating improvements to aquatic ecosystem models. We intend to achieve this as a community that fosters interactions amongst ecologists and model developers. Further, we outline scientific topics recently articulated by the scientific community, which lend themselves well to being addressed by integrative modelling approaches and serve to motivate the progress and implementation of an open source model framework.

A large number and wide variety of lake ecosystem models have been developed and published during the past four decades. We identify two challenges for making further progress in this field. One such challenge is to avoid developing more models largely following the concept of others ('reinventing the wheel'). The other challenge is to avoid focusing on only one type of model, while ignoring new and diverse approaches that have become available ('having tunnel vision'). In this paper, we aim at improving the awareness of existing models and knowledge of concurrent approaches in lake ecosystem modelling, without covering all possible model tools and avenues. First, we present a broad variety of modelling approaches. To illustrate these approaches, we give brief descriptions of rather arbitrarily selected sets of specific models. We deal with static models (steady state and regression models), complex dynamic models (CAEDYM, CE-QUAL-W2, Delft 3D-ECO, LakeMab, LakeWeb, MyLake, PCLake, PROTECH, SALMO), structurally dynamic models and minimal dynamic models. We also discuss a group of approaches that could all be classified as individual based: super-individual models (Piscator, Charisma), physiologically structured models, stage-structured models and trait-based models. We briefly mention genetic algorithms, neural networks, Kalman filters and fuzzy logic. Thereafter, we zoom in, as an in-depth example, on the multi-decadal development and application of the lake ecosystem model PCLake and related models (PCLake Metamodel, Lake Shira Model, IPH-TRIM3D-PCLake). In the discussion, we argue that while the historical development of each approach and model is understandable given its 'leading principle', there are many opportunities for combining approaches. We take the point of view that a single 'right' approach does not exist and should not be strived for. Instead, multiple modelling approaches, applied concurrently to a given problem, can help develop an integrative view