Geo-engineering in lakes--a call for consensus.
Geo-engineering in lakes--a call for consensus.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1021/es401363w
复制
发表时间：
2013-04
影响因子：
11.4
通讯作者：
B. Spears;B. Dudley;Kasper Reitzel;E. Rydin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Spears;B. Dudley;Kasper Reitzel;E. Rydin
当气候变化研究人员激烈地争论与大气地球工程相关的价值和风险时，1水生生态学家都非常清楚这两个阵营之间的鲜明对比。与大气控制的建议不同，在湖泊和水库中使用除磷材料的地球工程已经在全球范围内实施了几十年，作为富营养化管理工具（图1），在其使用方面缺乏科学共识。2这项技术被称为“磷封顶”，可用于控制几十年来人为污染积累的沉积物中遗留的磷储存。如果不加以处理，这些遗留的磷存储可以延长水质改善几十年后，集水区管理。3除了加速受营养物影响的水体的恢复之外，由于相对成本低，而且能够在短期内迅速改善水质，因此，人们往往将地球工程与集水区营养物管理措施分开考虑。4，5然而，在该技术的功效方面存在着许多知识空白，而且还没有科学证据可以支持大规模应用。我们认为，全面的数据分析和提高未来地球工程研究计划的一致性是必要的，以提供所需的理论和实践知识的进步，以提高该方法的有效性。随着最近引入的水质目标和静止沃茨的最后期限，例如作为欧盟水框架指令（WFD）或美国清洁水法的一部分，水生生态系统中的地球工程辩论的规模正在迅速增加。2在欧盟约36%（即31,819平方公里的湖泊总面积; http：//www. eea。Europa. eu/data-and-maps/data/wise_wfd），所有报告的WFD湖泊均未达到基于生态条件的水质目标。在城市和农村集水区的湖泊生态恶化的主要驱动力是磷污染，虽然它是不可能的，磷将是唯一的压力，需要在大多数湖泊管理。考虑到目前使用流行的地球工程产品处理湖泊的成本估计在每平方公里湖泊表面积30万欧元至80万欧元之间（即分别用于铝和镧基产品），重要的是该技术的应用必须基于合理的科学理解。未能实现这些水质目标可能会吸引水当局和监管机构的重大财政处罚。越来越多的关注是缺乏经过测试的理论和经验数据，在湖泊中进行现场规模的地球工程决策可以基于。这主要是因为很少进行产生相关数据所需的长期生态系统规模的实验。3对于迄今为止进行的大多数水体规模试验，规范是由水管理人员选择应用地球工程，研究人员发现自己试图根据太短的处理前和处理后监测计划来解释处理的效果。这种调查并不能反映对生物区系的长期影响。此外，设计适当的生态系统实验的数据往往局限于灰色文献，应该提供，应用失败的报告极为罕见。研究人员发表研究结果的能力受到湖泊反应时间的限制
As climate change researchers hotly debate the values and risks associated with atmospheric geo-engineering, 1 aquatic ecologists are all too aware of a stark contrast between the two camps. Unlike proposals for atmospheric manipulations, geo-engineering in lakes and reservoirs using phosphorus (P)-removing materials has been implemented at a global scale as a eutrophication management tool for decades (Figure 1), in the absence of scientific consensus on its use. 2 The technique, known as “P-capping”, can be used to control legacy P stores in bed sediments that have built up over decades of anthropogenic pollution. If left untreated, these legacy P stores can prolong water quality improvements for decades following catchment management. 3 As well as accelerating recovery of nutrient-impacted waterbodies, geo-engineering is often considered in isolation of catchment nutrient management measures due to its low relative cost and ability to produce rapid short term improvements in water quality. 4, 5 However, many knowledge gaps exist with respect to the technique’s efficacy, and the scientific evidence is not yet available with which wide scale application can be supported. We argue that a comprehensive analysis of data and increased coherence across future geo-engineering research programs is necessary to deliver advances in theoretical and practical knowledge needed to improve the efficacy of the approach. With the recent introduction of water quality targets and deadlines for standing waters, eg as part of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) or the Clean Water Act in the United States, the scale of the geo-engineering debate in aquatic ecosystems is rapidly increasing. 2 In the EU around 36%(ie, 31,819 km2 total lake surface area; http://www. eea. europa. eu/data-and-maps/data/wise_wfd) of all reported WFD lakes fail water quality targets based on ecological condition. The main driver of ecological deterioration in lakes within urban and rural catchments is P pollution, although it is unlikely that P will be the only pressure requiring management in most lakes. Given that current cost estimates of treating lakes with popular geoengineering products range between€ 0.3 million and€ 0.8 million per km2 lake surface area (ie, for aluminum and lanthanum based products, respectively), it is important that the application of this technique be based on sound scientific understanding. Failure to achieve these water quality targets can attract significant financial penalties for water authorities and regulators.Of increasing concern is the lack of tested theory and empirical data upon which decisions of field-scale geoengineering in lakes can be based. This is due mainly to the rarity of long-term ecosystem scale experiments that are needed to produce the relevant data. 3 For most of the waterbody scale trials conducted to date, the norm is that geo-engineering was selected by water managers for application and researchers find themselves trying to interpret the effects of the treatment based on a too-short pre-and post-treatment monitoring program. Such investigations do not capture long-term impacts on biota. In addition, data from ecosystem experiments that have adequate design are often confined to the gray literature and should be made available, and reports of failed applications are extremely rare. The ability of researchers to publish their findings is limited by the time taken for lakes to respond