Next Article in Journal
Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Predictive Analysis of Attitudes and Dependency Among Ecuadorian University Students
Previous Article in Journal
New Energy Vehicle Decision-Making for Consumers: An IBULIQOWA Operator-Based DM Approach Considering Information Quality
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 17
10.3390/su17177755
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Strategies for Eutrophication Control in Tropical and Subtropical Lakes

by
Cristian Alberto Espinosa-Rodríguez
1,*,
Luz Jazmin Montes-Campos
1,
Ligia Rivera-De la Parra
2,*,
Alfredo Pérez-Morales
3 and
Alfonso Lugo-Vázquez
1
1
Grupo de Investigación en Limnología Tropical, UIICSE, FES Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tlalnepantla 54090, Mexico
2
Laboratorio de Fisiología Vegetal L-204, FES Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tlalnepantla 54090, Mexico
3
Centro Universitario de Investigaciones Oceanológicas, Universidad de Colima, Manzanillo 28860, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 7755; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177755
Submission received: 26 June 2025 / Revised: 11 August 2025 / Accepted: 24 August 2025 / Published: 28 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clean Technologies and Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Eutrophication, a growing environmental concern, exacerbates algal blooms and alters the physical and chemical properties of water, thereby diminishing biodiversity, water quality, and ecosystem services. While various control strategies have been developed, most are designed for temperate regions and may not be applicable to tropical systems, which differ ecologically and climatically. This study reviewed 84 articles published between 2000 and 2024, focusing on eutrophication management in tropical and subtropical lakes. The studies were categorized into physical (8), chemical (17), and biological (59) approaches. Over time, research activity has increased, with Asia leading in publication output. Among biological strategies, biomanipulation—especially the use of macrophytes—emerged as the most common and effective strategy. Macrophytes are preferred due to their strong antagonistic interaction with algae, ease of implementation, cost-effectiveness, and minimal ecological risks. While the review also addresses the limitations of each method, it concludes that macrophyte-based biomanipulation remains a promising tool for mitigating eutrophication in tropical and subtropical freshwater ecosystems. In this context, effective lake restoration requires balancing ecological goals with human needs, supported by stakeholder engagement, community education, and multi-sectoral governance.

1. Introduction

Eutrophication is one of the foremost environmental challenges requiring urgent attention to ensure the sustainable supply of water for human activities [1]. This process leads to an increase in phytoplankton biomass with potential toxicity, fluctuations in oxygen levels, a reduction in diversity, and a loss of ecosystem services [2]. Additionally, both climate change and cultural eutrophication exacerbate the problem [3]. Therefore, aquatic restoration and lake management are essential for maintaining these ecosystem services [4].
Over the past three decades, several proposals for lake management and restoration have been implemented to reduce eutrophication; however, they remain costly; therefore, research continues with the objective of developing sustainable and widely applicable ecosystem management practices. [5]. In addition, several studies have shown that strategies implemented in temperate latitudes may not yield the same results in tropical systems, where different environmental conditions prevail and eutrophication control efforts have been considerably less [6]. Lake eutrophication management requires addressing nutrient input from both diffuse and point sources within the surrounding drainage basin, alongside controlling internal nutrient loading within the lake itself [7]. Internal loading control can be achieved through physical methods (e.g., sonication, mechanical mixing, filtration, UV radiation, air flotation, shading, dilution, and flushing), chemical approaches (e.g., herbicides, algaecides, reactive oxygen species, flocculation, and coagulation), and biological methods such as biomanipulation [7,8,9].
Biomanipulation has become one of the most commonly employed strategies for lake restoration in temperate ecosystems due to its cost-effectiveness and its ability to enhance trophic cascade effects, thereby mitigating phytoplankton proliferation without generating adverse impact on the ecosystem functioning [8]. However, the effectiveness of biomanipulation in tropical and subtropical lakes may be limited by environmental differences [9], including longer periods of solar radiation, reduced seasonality and warmer conditions. These factors contribute to higher primary production, a higher density of omnivorous-planktivorous fish species, and the dominance of colonial and filamentous cyanobacteria, which thrive in warmer climates [10]. Additionally, larger zooplankton (>3 mm) are scarce, favoring smaller, less efficient filter-feeding species [10].
Among the most important biomanipulation methods are the introduction of piscivorous fish to reduce planktivorous fish biomass, thereby increasing large zooplankton populations and reducing primary producer biomass [8]. Another essential strategy involves the use of macrophytes, which remove nutrients and prevent their availability to phytoplankton [11]. In addition, macrophytes can produce allelochemicals that inhibit algal growth [12]. While these and other biomanipulation methods offer promising solutions, their applicability in lower latitudes remains limited. The objective of this work is to make a literature review from 2000 to 2024 on effective methods for controlling eutrophication in tropical and subtropical lakes.

2. Methods

A comprehensive literature review was conducted on eutrophication control methods in tropical and subtropical lakes over the past 25 years. This review focused only on studies published between 2000 and 2024 and restricted to research conducted within latitudes 40° north and 40° south, including both tropical and subtropical regions. The initial search was carried out using Clarivate Analytics WEB OF SCIENCE from the Biological Abstracts database, with the following search terms: tropical lake restoration (TLR), tropical lake management (TLM), tropical lake biomanipulation (TLB), cyanobacterial control (CC) (+restoration), and eutrophication control (EC) (+tropical). To refine the results, additional keywords were incorporated in the latter two cases, as the initial search yielded results that were overly broad and often unrelated to the study’s focus.
The retrieved articles underwent a multi-step screening process: first, titles were reviewed to exclude studies unrelated to eutrophication or lake restoration; subsequently, abstracts were assessed for thematic relevance. Articles meeting these criteria were further examined by reviewing the materials and methods sections to determine the geographic location of the study. Studies conducted outside the defined latitudinal range were excluded. Finally, the full texts of the remaining articles were assessed for relevance and methodological rigor.
After completing the search on Web of Science, the same process was repeated using the GOOGLE SCHOLAR database, using the same search terms. The advanced search tool was applied to limit results to articles containing these phrases in the title. Duplicate articles identified between the two databases were counted only once and excluded from the final total.
The data collected were used to generate descriptions of each eutrophication control method, alongside graphical representations including the number of publications by search term, by year, by country, by method (physical, chemical, and biological) and by the type of tested organisms (e.g., macrophytes, fish). Additional tables were created to catalog the methods applied in shallow lakes, deep lakes, and laboratory experiments. An analysis was conducted to identify complications and/or limitations referred to in the collected studies (Figure 1). Lakes were classified as follows: (1) shallow lakes with a mean depth ≤ 5 m and (2) deep lakes with a mean depth > 5 m.

3. Results

A total of 1366 publications were identified in the Web of Science; however, only 53 met the established criteria, considering studies published between 2000 and 2024 within the latitudes of 40° north and 40° south. In Google Scholar, 271 publications were found, of which 31 satisfied the inclusion requirements. Combining both databases, 1637 publications were retrieved, but only 84 articles fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this study. From 2000 to 2011, the number of publications remained relatively low, with only 17 publications. From 2012 to 2019, the number of publications ranged from 2 to 5 per year, while from 2019 onwards, approximately 8 publications per year were recorded (Figure 2A). Among the keywords, with fewer numbers of publications was “Tropical lake biomanipulation” had the fewest publications, with only 5 articles, whereas “Cyanobacterial control” had the highest number, with 41 publications (Figure 2B).
East Asia was the region with the highest publication output, with 42 studies; China led with 35 references, South America followed with 20 studies, of which Brazil accounted for 15, and South Asia recorded 9 studies. In contrast, regions such as North America, Africa, West Asia, and Oceania reported only 2 to 4 publications each (Figure 3A).
There was a limited number of publications on physical methods for eutrophication control, with only 8 studies in total. Among these, sonication and mechanical mixing were each investigated in a couple of studies (Figure 3B). Chemical methods showed that flocculants, coagulants, and reactive oxygen species were the most frequently tested approaches (Figure 3C). For biological methods, macrophytes and fish were the most studied groups, with 25 and 20 publications, respectively (Figure 3D).
Table 1 summarizes 25 physical and chemical strategies applied in laboratory, shallow, and deep lakes, many of which led to a reduction in nutrients and phytoplankton, with some studies focusing on cyanobacteria. However, certain limitations were identified, such as the substitution of cyanobacteria with alternative algal groups, nutrient reloading, and the short-term effectiveness of these methods.
In contrast, 24 studies focused on biological methods in shallow lakes, predominantly involved the introduction of macrophytes and the removal of fish. Additional methods included the analysis of zooplankton, ciliates, macroalgae, bivalves, and woody debris. The main findings of these studies included reductions in nutrients, phytoplankton, turbidity, and cyanotoxins, with limitations outlined in Table 2.
A total of 14 studies on eutrophication control in deep lakes using biological methods are summarized in Table 3. Many of these reported reductions in nutrients, cyanobacteria, phytoplankton, and pigments, along with increases in water transparency and zooplankton abundance. The limitations also included the substitution of cyanobacteria and the short-term effects of treatments.
Lastly, 20 studies on biological strategies applied in laboratory settings were more diverse, including the use of terrestrial plants, plant extracts, bivalves, zooplankton, macrophytes, fish with different feeding behavior, and combinations of biological groups. The primary limitations included no evident effects on algae, nutrient increases due to animal digestion leading to phytoplankton proliferation, and lower rates of mucilaginous phytoplankton digestion (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Eutrophication control remains one of the main current environmental challenges in freshwater ecosystems. In 2012, 63% of lakes worldwide were classified as eutrophic, and by 2018, it was observed that the largest eutrophic water bodies are located in tropical and subtropical regions [92]. Elevated temperatures modify water viscosity, affecting the locomotion and filtration of zooplankton species, thereby limiting the assimilation of filamentous cyanobacteria. Furthermore, these regions often harbor larger populations of zooplanktivorous and omnivorous fish, which limit the proliferation of large zooplankton, reducing the effectiveness of zooplankton as phytoplankton grazers and contributing to algal bloom expansion [3]. Moreover, the prevalence of omnivory allows fish populations to sustain a higher carrying capacity than zooplanktivorous ones, thereby enhancing their potential to control large zooplankton. Given that many of these fish share similar ecological niches, their combined predation pressure is likely greater. However, our understanding of the trophic roles of many fish species, particularly in warm regions with high biodiversity, remains limited [8].
Elevated temperatures can also stimulate bacterial activity, leading to oxygen depletion and promoting the release of nutrients from sediments [93]. Additionally, studies in South American lakes have shown that cyanobacterial growth can increase by 60 to 80%, depending on temperature [94]. While research progress in mitigating eutrophication in tropical and subtropical regions has been limited, our study reveals a growing concern for restoring eutrophic lakes, as well as an increase in the number of publications focused on eutrophication control strategies between 2000 and 2024.
Biological methods for eutrophication control accounted for the highest proportion of publications, comprising 70.2% of the studies in our review, followed by chemical methods at 20.2%, and physical methods at 9.5%. A balanced evaluation of the advantages and limitations of each method for eutrophication control highlights physical strategies. Sonication, for example, is considered environmentally friendly due to its low impact, effectively removing algal cells and eliminating surface contamination, biofilms, and chemical and biological pollutants [71,95]. However, one disadvantage is the release of toxins from some cyanobacteria species, which may negatively affect water quality [96]. Other studies have shown that ultrasonics (640 kHz for 6 min) can remove toxins such as microcystins produced by Microcystis aeruginosa [95]. Another limitation of sonication is its selectivity, as it has a greater impact on cyanobacteria with gas vacuoles and filamentous algae [97]. Finally, Lürling and Tolman [98] observed that when this method was combined with Daphnia to reduce Scenedesmus biomass, the zooplankton died within 15 min of ultrasonic exposure.
Mechanical mixing, on the other hand, increases oxygen concentration in the water, benefiting organisms like fish and zooplankton [99]. It also reduces concentrations of ammonia, iron, manganese, and other potentially toxic substances [100]. However, it is not recommended for shallow systems due to the potential release of nutrients from sediment disturbance, which can lead to microalgal proliferation [101]. Additionally, it can cause thermal increases in deeper layers of the system, altering biogeochemical processes such as the mineralization of organic material in sediments, which leads to the release of phosphorus into the water column, promoting phytoplankton growth [102]. Furthermore, while mixing has been shown to affect cyanobacteria such as Microcystis and Anabaena, it does not have the same effect on diatoms or the cyanobacterium Planktothrix agardhii, as this species tolerates turbulence and remains unaffected [103].
Chemical strategies, such as the use of algicides, are readily available, cost-effective, and simple to apply. However, their lack of specificity makes them unsustainable and potentially harmful to other biota [104]. Copper-based algicides, the most commonly used, are effective in controlling cyanobacteria at high concentrations [105], but they are toxic to non-target species, disrupting ecological interactions [2]. Additionally, the decomposition of algae following algicide treatment reduces oxygen levels, while the release of toxins from cyanobacteria exacerbates the problem [106]. Finally, prolonged use of algicides can also lead to resistance in algae populations [107].
The use of reactive oxygen species, particularly hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), is a common method for eutrophication control, as it leaves no residue [108], is environmentally friendly, inexpensive, and easy to apply [109]. The required concentration depends on factors such as the dominant species, biomass, algal colony size, and potential ecological risk [110]. However, when used in concentrated forms, it must be handled by trained personnel due to the need for expertise in its application, particularly in large lakes aimed at mitigating eutrophication [104]. It is uncertain whether it effectively reduces biomass or truly mitigates algal growth [110]. The concentrations used typically range from 10 mg L−1 [109] to 100 mg L−1 [111], though higher concentrations may affect non-target organisms [104].
Flocculation and coagulation are commonly employed methods to settle phytoplankton cells to the bottom of the water bodies, where light availability is limited. These methods are economically viable and can even be used in drinking water treatment [112]. Among coagulants, chitosan is favored for being s biodegradable, although at high concentrations, it may cause cell lysis in other organisms. Other coagulants, such as alum, are toxic to fish and, because of their sulfate content, can exacerbate nutrient loading, further contributing to eutrophication [101]. Flocculants are expensive, and some can induce ecological changes. To increase their effectiveness, they need to be used after applying coagulants [113].
Biomanipulation is the most common biological strategy because of its cost-effectiveness and involvement of organisms such as fish, zooplankton, and macrophytes [102]. While the removal of planktivorous fish has proven effective in temperate systems, its success is diminished in tropical lakes [114] due to the higher diversity and abundance of fish species, which limits the proliferation of large zooplankton. Additionally, higher temperatures in tropical areas promote continuous phytoplankton growth, particularly among filamentous or colonial cyanobacteria [10]. For example, in subtropical conditions, the introduction of piscivorous fish like Hoplias malabaricus has been shown to increase zooplankton abundance (mainly Daphnia obtusa), resulting in reduced chlorophyll concentration and turbidity.
In temperate ecosystems, the removal of planktivorous fish and the introduction of piscivores positively influence trophic states. However, after 10–15 years of biomanipulation, many lakes tend to return to their pre-manipulation states, leading to a decline in the effectiveness of these methods. This classical approach is particularly ineffective in warmer lakes due to the biotic and abiotic differences found in tropical and subtropical systems. Few studies have explored how biomanipulation, based on trophic cascades, enhances zooplankton pressure on phytoplankton in tropical lakes, where typical fish assemblages impose significant limitations. The removal of omnivorous fish is often counteracted by compensatory responses from the remaining fish population, leading to short-lived effects of fish-based biomanipulation [8]. Using an integrated approach that combines field observations, mesocosm experiments involving fish removal and reintroduction, and analysis of zooplankton seed banks, Iglesias et al. [115] found that fish predation is a key factor in the small body size of zooplankton in subtropical lakes. Furthermore, fish release nutrients that stimulate phytoplankton growth, making fish population regulation a critical component of biomanipulation-based restoration programs. In tropical regions, whole-lake biomanipulation has shown limited success, with the amount of fish biomass removed typically falling below the thresholds required for success in temperate lakes, suggesting that more intensive efforts may be necessary at lower latitudes [8]. In warmer regions, stocking silver carp has been recommended for controlling cyanobacterial blooms, particularly in nutrient-enriched tropical lakes where large herbivorous zooplankton cannot effectively manage the blooms [64,116]. However, management practices must be carefully tested to avoid negative outcomes such as excessive predation pressure on zooplankton and the recurrence of cyanobacteria blooms [8].
Macrophyte growth in certain water bodies is hindered by high herbivore populations or excessive turbulence, which suspends particles in the water column, reducing light availability and impairing macrophyte growth [117]. Beklioğlu et al. [114] mentioned that while adding macrophytes can improve water quality, this effect is often short-lived and may need to be repeated periodically. Although macrophytes do not provide the same level of refuge for zooplankton against fish predation as in temperate lakes [9,115], the high diversity of aquatic plant species and functional groups in warmer regions presents substantial potential for improving water clarity. These benefits include competition with phytoplankton for nutrients, enhanced sedimentation rates, and the release of allelopathic substances that can inhibit cyanobacterial growth [8,12]. Moreover, the effects of macrophytes vary by growth form [10]; for example, submerged plants tend to have stronger and more consistent impacts on water clarity compared to floating or emergent species [11]. It is also relevant to assess whether macrophytes can tolerate eutrophication, considering factors such as the availability of plant sources (e.g., turions), grazing pressures, and rapid growth rates to ensure successful establishment [8]. However, macrophyte conservation also presents social and management challenges. In tourism-based economies, dense macrophyte mats are often perceived as a nuisance, interfering with boating, recreational fishing, and swimming. This perception frequently leads to mechanical removal or the use of herbicides. Furthermore, communities engaged in intensive agriculture near lakes may require guidance on fertilizer use to minimize nutrient runoff [118]. There is often a lack of ecological understanding among local populations regarding the role of macrophytes in maintaining ecosystem services, resulting in insufficient public support for restoration programs [119]. Additionally, large-scale initiatives to introduce species such as tilapia, common carp, and grass carp for protein production have been shown to negatively affect water quality and biodiversity in many countries [8]. As a result, social conflicts surrounding lake management highlight the challenge of reconciling ecological benefits with human preferences and livelihoods [118,120].
Since classical biomanipulation has not produced the same results in tropical ecosystems as in temperate systems, a combination of strategies has been implemented in tropical and subtropical lakes with positive results. Zhou et al. [21] found that in a subtropical shallow lake, the combination of hydrogen peroxide and shading significantly reduced algal biomass for nearly a month, accompanied by a decline in eukaryotic algae, while hydrogen peroxide alone controlled the bloom only for a brief period. In the shallow Lake Taihu, the combination of lanthanum-modified bentonite (LMB) and the submerged macrophyte Vallisneria natans significantly reduced concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlorophyll, even in the presence of omnivorous fish. In contrast, treatments with either LMB or V. natans alone did not lead to substantial reductions in nutrient and chlorophyll levels [43]. Another example of synergistic effects is reported for the Similarly in shallow Lake Dianchi, cyanobacterial control was achieved through the use of the pulmonate snail Radix swinhoei and the submerged macrophyte Potamogeton lucens [76].
The low abundance of large zooplankton highlights the importance of exploring alternative options, such as the use of filter-feeding bivalves. In mesocosm outdoor experiments, similar findings were reported using the bivalve mollusk Cristaria plicata and the submerged macrophyte Hydrilla verticillata [77]. Another experiment reported that the combination of the Asian clam Corbicula fluminea and the bighead carp Aristichtys nobilis reduced algae abundance, but neither carp nor clams alone were sufficient to control algae biomass [83]. These results are relevant for warmer lakes, where large-sized zooplankton are scarce. While mesocosm experiments have demonstrated the efficacy of combined methods, modeling studies have reported similar results. For instance, in the shallow subtropical Lake Longhu, a combination of traditional biomanipulation (stocking piscivorous fish to increase large zooplankton populations) and non-traditional methods (stocking filter-feeding fish) was used to control cyanobacteria, with model simulations showing that the integrated approach maintained low cyanobacterial abundance, improved ecosystem stability, and increased fishery income [51]. This suggests that a complementary approach might be an effective strategy for eutrophication control in warmer lakes.
Floating islands also play an important role in nutrient removal, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, while providing habitat for various organisms. However, this method is primarily suitable for shallow water bodies [115]. The use of microorganisms capable of degrading pollutants has also been reported. This method offers low environmental impact and effectiveness, with even greater potential when combined with other strategies. However, the outcomes are generally long-term, and some bacteria may produce toxic substances [7]. Despite the variety of available methods, not all can be implemented. For example, sonication and reactive oxygen species can generate free radicals that may not only affect phytoplankton but also harm other organisms, potentially leading to mortality and disrupting the ecosystem. Similarly, the use of algicides is not recommended due to their nonspecific action, which can alter the water’s chemical properties and negatively impact both cyanobacteria and eukaryotic algae. Additionally, shading lakes can harm all photosynthetic organisms, including aquatic plants that provide oxygen, potentially leading to fish mortality and benefiting anaerobic organisms, thus disturbing the ecosystem.
Regarding scalability, Yamada-Ferraz et al. [35] conducted laboratory experiments to optimize site-specific parameters such as phoslock dosage, incubation time, and reactive soluble phosphorus (RSP) immobilization efficiency. In field mesocoms, the results mirrored those of the laboratory experiments, with more than an 80% reduction of RSP in the water column. Similarly, Spivak et al. [121] found that small-scale experiments effectively capture algal responses to nutrient enrichment and remain consistent across spatial scales, making them valuable tools for guiding ecological management and eutrophication mitigation strategies in natural lakes. These findings suggest that mesocosms are a reliable method for testing restoration strategies before implementing whole-lake interventions.
The consideration of social conflicts surrounding lake management is equally important, as it highlights the challenge of reconciling ecological benefits with human preferences and livelihoods. Successful restoration strategies must therefore incorporate stakeholder participation, community education, and multi-sectoral governance, aiming to balance biodiversity conservation with social equity and the practical use of lake resources [118,120]. Engaging stakeholders in the development of restoration strategies that integrate both catchment-level and in-lake approaches is essential. By considering the economic value of lake-derived resources, such a collaborative framework can help sustain social and political commitment, ensuring that restoration efforts deliver tangible environmental and socio-economic benefits across various scales and timeframes.
Our results indicate that biological methods, particularly those involving macrophytes, fish, and zooplankton, are the most widely studied in tropical and subtropical regions. These methods are favored for their ease of use, affordability, and general effectiveness in reducing phytoplankton biomass. Other biological methods, such as culturing bacteria, ciliates, or using diatoms as adhesive carriers, represent newer strategies primarily tested in laboratory settings, with further research needed to determine their applicability in natural systems. Ultimately, our study confirms that the most effective methods for controlling eutrophication in tropical and subtropical lakes are biological approaches, particularly the use of macrophytes. Both laboratory and field implementations in these ecosystems have not presented major challenges, suggesting that prior laboratory research, followed by mesocosm experiments, will provide valuable insights into the successful application of macrophytes for eutrophication control. To ensure effective outcomes and avoid mismanagement, it is critical to analyze various physical, chemical, and biological factors before full-scale implementation in tropical and subtropical lake ecosystems.

5. Conclusions

Research on eutrophication in tropical and subtropical regions has experienced significant growth between 2000 and 2024, driven by increasing environmental concerns. The majority of studies originate from Asia, with China leading the contributions. Strategies developed for temperate climates often do not yield the same results in warmer regions, necessitating the exploration of new methods or the combination of existing approaches. Among these, biological methods, particularly those involving submerged macrophytes, have become the most prevalent for eutrophication control. Macrophytes are widely regarded as a cost-effective and efficient solution for reducing phytoplankton biomass, with minimal adverse ecological effects. While lake managers have access to a diverse set of tools to accelerate restoration, achieving effective lake restoration requires a careful balance between ecological objectives and human needs. This balance can be best achieved through stakeholder participation, community education, and multi-sectoral governance. The integration of both catchment-level and in-lake strategies, while accounting for the economic value of lake resources, is essential for fostering social and political support and ensuring long-term environmental and socio-economic benefits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: C.A.E.-R.; literature review: L.J.M.-C., formal analysis: C.A.E.-R. and L.J.M.-C.; funding acquisition: A.L.-V.; methodology: C.A.E.-R. and L.J.M.-C.; writing—original draft: C.A.E.-R., L.J.M.-C., L.R.-D.l.P., A.P.-M. and A.L.-V.; writing—review and editing: C.A.E.-R., L.J.M.-C., L.R.-D.l.P., A.P.-M. and A.L.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We thank DGAPA PAPIIT project IN231920 for financial support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Downing, J.A. Limnology and Oceanography: Two Estranged Twins Reuniting by Global Change. Inland Waters 2014, 4, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chislock, M.F.; Doster, E.; Zitomer, R.A.; Wilson, A.E. Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 2013, 4, 10. [Google Scholar]
  3. Moss, B.; Kosten, S.; Meerhoff, M.; Battarbee, R.W.; Jeppesen, E.; Mazzeo, N.; Havens, K.; Lacerot, G.; Liu, Z.; De Meester, L.; et al. Allied Attack: Climate Change and Eutrophication. Inland Waters 2011, 1, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dodds, W.K.; Whiles, M.R. Freshwater Ecology; Elsevier: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-12-374724-2. [Google Scholar]
  5. Klapper, H. Technologies for Lake Restoration. J. Limnol. 2003, 62, 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Amorim, C.A.; Moura, A.N. Effects of the Manipulation of Submerged Macrophytes, Large Zooplankton, and Nutrients on a Cyanobacterial Bloom: A Mesocosm Study in a Tropical Shallow Reservoir. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 265, 114997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, Y.; Luo, P.; Zhao, S.; Kang, S.; Wang, P.; Zhou, M.; Lyu, J. Control and Remediation Methods for Eutrophic Lakes in the Past 30 Years. Water Sci. Technol. 2020, 81, 1099–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Jeppesen, E.; Søndergaard, M.; Lauridsen, T.L.; Davidson, T.A.; Liu, Z.; Mazzeo, N.; Trochine, C.; Özkan, K.; Jensen, H.S.; Trolle, D.; et al. Biomanipulation as a Restoration Tool to Combat Eutrophication: Recent Advances and Future Challenges. In Advances in Ecological Research; Woodward, G., Jacob, U., O’Gorman, E.J., Eds.; Global Change in Multispecies Systems Part 2; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; Volume 47, pp. 411–488. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jeppesen, E.; Meerhoff, M.; Jacobsen, B.A.; Hansen, R.S.; Søndergaard, M.; Jensen, J.P.; Lauridsen, T.; Mazzel, N.; Branco, C.W.C. Restoration of Shallow Lakes by Nutrient Control and Biomanipulation—The Successful Strategy Varies with Lake Size and Climate. Hydrobiologia 2007, 581, 269–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Meerhoff, M.; Mazzeo, N.; Moss, B.; Rodríguez-Gallego, L. The Structuring Role of Free-Floating versus Submerged Plants in a Subtropical Shallow Lake. Aquatic Ecol. 2003, 37, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. They, N.H.; da Motta Marques, D. The Structuring Role of Macrophytes on Plankton Community Composition and Bacterial Metabolism in a Large Subtropical Shallow Lake. Acta Limnol. Bras. 2019, 31, e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gross, E.M.; Legrand, C.; Rengefors, K.; Tillmann, U. Allelochemical interactions among aquatic primary producers. In Chemical Ecology in Aquatic Systems; Brönmark, C., Hansson, L.A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  13. Li, D.H.; Wang, Z.C.; Qin, H.J.; Li, Y.X.; Zhang, L. An Integrated Technology of Bloom Barrier and Bloom-Trap for Cyanobacterial Bloom Control. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2012, 12, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee, T.-J.; Nakano, K.; Matsumura, M. A Novel Strategy for Cyanobacterial Bloom Control by Ultrasonic Irradiation. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 46, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hao, A.; Haraguchi, T.; Kuba, T.; Kai, H.; Lin, Y.; Iseri, Y. Effect of the Microorganism-Adherent Carrier for Nitzschia palea to Control the Cyanobacterial Blooms. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 159, 106127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bakheet, B.; Beardall, J.; Zhang, X.; McCarthy, D. Potential Control of Cyanobacterial Blooms by Using a Floating-Mobile Electrochemical System. J. Chem. Technol. Biot. 2019, 94, 582–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gaskill, J.A.; Harris, T.D.; North, R.L. Phytoplankton Community Response to Changes in Light: Can Glacial Rock Flour Be Used to Control Cyanobacterial Blooms? Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 540607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tsujimura, S. Water Management of Lake Yogo Targeting Internal Phosphorus Loading. Lake Reserv. Manag. 2004, 9, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ma, W.-X.; Huang, T.-L.; Li, X. Study of the Application of the Water-Lifting Aerators to Improve the Water Quality of a Stratified, Eutrophicated Reservoir. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 83, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pandey, J.; Yaduvanshi, M.S. Sediment Dredging as a Restoration Tool in Shallow Tropical Lakes: Cross Analysis of Three Freshwater Lakes of Udaipur, India. Environ. Cont. Biol. 2005, 43, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhou, Q.; Li, L.; Huang, L.; Guo, L.; Song, L. Combining Hydrogen Peroxide Addition with Sunlight Regulation to Control Algal Blooms. Environ. Sci. Pollut. 2017, 25, 2239–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, C.; Wang, Y.; Chen, K.; Shi, X.; Yang, G. Using Hydrogen Peroxide to Control Cyanobacterial Blooms: A Mesocosm Study Focused on the Effects of Algal Density in Lake Chaohu, China. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 272, 115923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gu, P.; Wang, Y.; Wu, H.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, K.; Zhang, Z.; Ren, X.; Miao, H.; Zheng, Z. Efficient Control of Cyanobacterial Blooms with Calcium Peroxide: Threshold and Mechanism. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 882, 163591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Buley, R.P.; Adams, C.; Belfiore, A.P.; Fernandez-Figueroa, E.G.; Gladfelter, M.F.; Garner, B.; Straus, D.L.; Wilson, A.E. Correction to: Field Evaluation of Seven Products to Control Cyanobacterial Blooms in Aquaculture. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 49326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jiang, Y.; Fang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, B.; Zhang, J. Community Succession during the Preventive Control of Cyanobacterial Bloom by Hydrogen Peroxide in an Aquatic Microcosm. Ecotox. Environ. Safe 2022, 237, 113546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sedmak, B.; Carmeli, S.; Eleršek, T. “Non-Toxic” Cyclic Peptides Induce Lysis of Cyanobacteria—An Effective Cell Population Density Control Mechanism in Cyanobacterial Blooms. Microb. Ecol. 2007, 56, 20–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Han, S.-I.; Kim, S.; Choi, K.Y.; Lee, C.; Park, Y.; Choi, Y.-E. Control of a Toxic Cyanobacterial Bloom Species, Microcystis aeruginosa, Using the Peptide HPA3NT3-A2. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 32255–32265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, H.; Xiao, X.; Lin, F.; Grossart, H.-P.; Nie, Z.; Sun, L.; Xu, C.; Shi, J. Continuous-Release Beads of Natural Allelochemicals for the Long-Term Control of Cyanobacterial Growth: Preparation, Release Dynamics and Inhibitory Effects. Water Res. 2016, 95, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, B.; Kang, H.; Kim, S. Using a Novel Coagulant as a Practical and Sustainable Approach for Cyanobacterial Bloom Control. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2023, 30, 103057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pinheiro, T.L.; Becker, V.; da Cunha, K.P.V.; Frota, A.; Monicelli, F.; Araújo, F.; Capelo-Neto, J. The Use of Coagulant and Natural Soil to Control Cyanobacterial Blooms in a Tropical Reservoir. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 939, 173378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Drummond, E.; Leite, V.B.G.; Noyma, N.P.; de Magalhães, L.; Graco-Roza, C.; Huszar, V.L.; Lürling, M.; Marinho, M.M. Temporal and Spatial Variation in the Efficiency of a Floc & Sink Technique for Controlling Cyanobacterial Blooms in a Tropical Reservoir. Harmful Algae 2022, 117, 102262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Liu, K.; Jiang, L.; Yang, J.; Ma, S.; Chen, K.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, X. Comparison of Three Flocculants for Heavy Cyanobacterial Bloom Mitigation and Subsequent Environmental Impact. J. Ocean. Limnol. 2022, 40, 1764–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Song, Q.; Huang, S.; Yang, S.; Zhu, H.; Luo, X.; Zheng, Z. Mechanism of Cyanobacterial Bloom Control by Magnetic Lanthanum-Based Material. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 861, 160603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhou, Y.; Peng, H.; Jiang, L.; Wang, X.; Tang, Y.; Xiao, L. Control of Cyanobacterial Bloom and Purification of Bloom-Laden Water by Sequential Electro-Oxidation and Electro-Oxidation-Coagulation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 462, 132729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yamada-Ferraz, T.M.; Sueitt, A.P.E.; Oliveira, A.F.; Botta, C.M.R.; Fadini, P.S.; Nascimento, M.R.L.; Faria, B.M.; Mozeto, A.A. Assessment of Phoslock® Application in a Tropical Eutrophic Reservoir: An Integrated Evaluation from Laboratory to Field Experiments. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2015, 4, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Barçante, B.; Nascimento, N.O.; Silva, T.F.G.; Reis, L.A.; Giani, A. Cyanobacteria Dynamics and Phytoplankton Species Richness as a Measure of Waterbody Recovery: Response to Phosphorus Removal Treatment in a Tropical Eutrophic Reservoir. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kuster, A.C.; Huser, B.J.; Thongdamrongtham, S.; Padungthon, S.; Junggoth, R.; Kuster, A.T. Drinking Water Treatment Residual as a Ballast to Sink Microcystis Cyanobacteria and Inactivate Phosphorus in Tropical Lake Water. Water Res. 2021, 207, 117792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rodríguez-Gallego, L.R.; Mazzeo, N.; Gorga, J.; Meerhoff, M.; Clemente, J.; Kruk, C.; Scasso, F.; Lacerot, G.; García, J.; Quintans, F. The Effects of an Artificial Wetland Dominated by Free-floating Plants on the Restoration of a Subtropical, Hypertrophic Lake. Lake Reserv. Manag. 2004, 9, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pan, G.; Yang, B.; Wang, D.; Chen, H.; Tian, B.; Zhang, M.; Yuan, X.; Chen, J. In-Lake Algal Bloom Removal and Submerged Vegetation Restoration Using Modified Local Soils. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zeng, L.; He, F.; Dai, Z.; Xu, D.; Liu, B.; Zhou, Q.; Wu, Z. Effect of Submerged Macrophyte Restoration on Improving Aquatic Ecosystem in a Subtropical, Shallow Lake. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 106, 578–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moi, D.A.; Alves, D.C.; Antiqueira, P.A.P.; Thomaz, S.M.; Teixeira de Mello, F.; Bonecker, C.C.; Rodrigues, L.C.; García-Ríos, R.; Mormul, R.P. Ecosystem Shift from Submerged to Floating Plants Simplifying the Food Web in a Tropical Shallow Lake. Ecosystems 2021, 24, 628–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Swe, T.; Lombardo, P.; Ballot, A.; Thrane, J.-E.; Sample, J.; Eriksen, T.E.; Mjelde, M. The Importance of Aquatic Macrophytes in a Eutrophic Tropical Shallow Lake. Limnologica 2021, 90, 125910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Han, Y.; Jeppesen, E.; Lürling, M.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, T.; Li, W.; Chen, K.; Li, K. Combining Lanthanum-Modified Bentonite (LMB) and Submerged Macrophytes Alleviates Water Quality Deterioration in the Presence of Omni-Benthivorous. Fish. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 314, 115036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zhu, Y.; Shu, K.; Yang, K.; Chen, Z. Purification Efficiency of Two Ecotypes of Wetland Plants on Subtropical Eutrophic Lakes in China. Wetlands 2024, 44, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pakdel, F.M.; Sim, L.; Beardall, J.; Davis, J. Allelopathic Inhibition of Microalgae by the Freshwater Stonewort, Chara australis, and a Submerged Angiosperm, Potamogeton crispus. Aquat. Bot. 2013, 110, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Scasso, F.; Mazzeo, N.; Gorga, J.; Kruk, C.; Lacerot, G.; Clemente, J.; Fabián, D.; Bonilla, S. Limnological Changes in a Sub-Tropical Shallow Hypertrophic Lake during Its Restoration: Two Years of a Whole-Lake Experiment. Aquat. Conserv. 2001, 11, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, X.; Tang, Y.; Jeppesen, E.; Liu, Z. Biomanipulation-Induced Reduction of Sediment Phosphorus Release in a Tropical Shallow Lake. Hydrobiologia 2017, 794, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, Z.; Hu, J.; Zhong, P.; Zhang, X.; Ning, J.; Larsen, S.E.; Chen, D.; Gao, Y.; He, H.; Jeppesen, E. Successful Restoration of a Tropical Shallow Eutrophic Lake: Strong Bottom-up but Weak Top-down Effects Recorded. Water Res. 2018, 146, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Cheng, Y.; Yang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Q. Control of Cyanobacterial Blooms in Different Polyculture Patterns of Filter Feeders and Effects of These Patterns on Water Quality and Microbial Community in Aquacultural Ponds. Aquaculture 2021, 542, 736913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ahoutou, M.K.; Yao, E.K.; Djeha, R.Y.; Kone, M.; Tambosco, K.; Duval, C.; Hamlaoui, S.; Bernard, C.; Bouvy, M.; Marie, B.; et al. Impacts of Nutrient Loading and Fish Grazing on the Phytoplankton Community and Cyanotoxin Production in a Shallow Tropical Lake: Results from Mesocosm Experiments. MicrobiologyOpen 2022, 11, e1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Peng, G.; Zhou, X.; Xie, B.; Huang, C.; Uddin, M.M.; Chen, X.; Huang, L. Ecosystem Stability and Water Quality Improvement in a Eutrophic Shallow Lake via Long-Term Integrated Biomanipulation in Southeast China. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 159, 106119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. do Nascimento Filho, S.L.; do Nascimento Moura, A. Strong Top-down Effects of Omnivorous Fish and Macroinvertebrates on Periphytic Algae and Macrophytes in a Tropical Reservoir. Aquat. Ecol. 2021, 55, 667–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Amorim, C.A.; Valença, C.R.; de Moura-Falcão, R.H.; do Nascimento Moura, A. Seasonal Variations of Morpho-Functional Phytoplankton Groups Influence the Top-down Control of a Cladoceran in a Tropical Hypereutrophic Lake. Aquat. Ecol. 2019, 53, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, C.; Yu, X.; Peng, M. The Roles of Polyculture with Eucheuma gelatinae and Gafrarium tumidum in Purification of Eutrophic Seawater and Control of Algae Bloom. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101, 750–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rodrigues, N.; Ribeiro, D.; Miyahira, I.C.; Portugal, S.G.M.; Santos, L.N.; Neves, R.A.F. Hypereutrophic Conditions Limit the Removal of Suspended Particulate Matter by the Invasive Bivalve Mytilopsis leucophaeata (Conrad, 1831) (Dreissenidae). Hydrobiologia 2023, 580, 1461–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, W.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, L.; Montagnes, D.J.S.; Yang, Z. “Surface Browsing” May Allow “Filter-Feeding” Protozoa to Exert Top-Down Control on Colony-Forming Toxic Cyanobacterial Blooms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 10331–10338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Heilpern, S.A.; Wootton, J.T. Process Catalyzers in Amazonian Rivers: Large Woody Debris Modifies Ecosystem Processes across Freshwater Habitats. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ko, S.-R.; Srivastava, A.; Lee, N.; Jin, L.; Oh, H.-M.; Ahn, C.-Y. Bioremediation of Eutrophic Water and Control of Cyanobacterial Bloom by Attached Periphyton. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 4173–4180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Quintão, J.M.B.; Rezende, R.S.; Júnior, J.F.G. Microbial Effects in Leaf Breakdown in Tropical Reservoirs of Different Trophic Status. Freshwater Sci. 2013, 32, 933–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Keitel, J.; Zak, D.; Hupfer, M. Water Level Fluctuations in a Tropical Reservoir: The Impact of Sediment Drying, Aquatic Macrophyte Dieback, and Oxygen Availability on Phosphorus Mobilization. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 6883–6894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Qin, H.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, H.; Li, D.; Wen, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yan, S. Fenced Cultivation of Water Hyacinth for Cyanobacterial Bloom Control. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 17742–17752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Finkler Ferreira, T.; Crossetti, L.O.; Motta Marques, D.M.L.; Cardoso, L.; Fragoso, C.R.; van Nes, E.H. The Structuring Role of Submerged Macrophytes in a Large Subtropical Shallow Lake: Clear Effects on Water Chemistry and Phytoplankton Structure Community along a Vegetated-Pelagic Gradient. Limnologica 2018, 69, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sim, D.Z.H.; Mowe, M.A.D.; Song, Y.; Lu, J.; Tan, H.T.W.; Mitrovic, S.M.; Roelke, D.L.; Yeo, D.C.J. Tropical Macrophytes Promote Phytoplankton Community Shifts in Lake Mesocosms: Relevance for Lake Restoration in Warm Climates. Hydrobiologia 2021, 848, 4861–4884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhao, S.-Y.; Sun, Y.-P.; Lin, Q.-Q.; Han, B.-P. Effects of Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and Nutrients on the Plankton Community of a Deep, Tropical Reservoir: An Enclosure Experiment. Freshwater Biol. 2013, 58, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lin, Q.; Chen, Q.; Peng, L.; Xiao, L.; Lei, L.; Jeppesen, E. Do Bigheaded Carp Act as a Phosphorus Source for Phytoplankton in (Sub)Tropical Chinese Reservoirs? Water Res. 2020, 180, 115841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Starling, F.; Lazzaro, X.; Cavalcanti, C.; Moreira, R. Contribution of Omnivorous Tilapia to Eutrophication of a Shallow Tropical Reservoir: Evidence from a Fish Kill. Freshwater Biol. 2002, 47, 2443–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Beklioglu, M.; Tan, C.O. Restoration of a Shallow Mediterranean Lake by Biomanipulation Complicated by Drought. Fund. Appl. Limnol. 2008, 171, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yin, C.; He, W.; Guo, L.; Gong, L.; Yang, Y.; Yang, J.; Ni, L.; Chen, Y.; Jeppesen, E. Can Top-down Effects of Planktivorous Fish Removal Be Used to Mitigate Cyanobacterial Blooms in Large Subtropical Highland Lakes? Water Res. 2022, 218, 118483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rondel, C.; Arfi, R.; Corbin, D.; Le Bihan, F.; Ndour, E.H.; Lazzaro, X. A Cyanobacterial Bloom Prevents Fish Trophic Cascades. Freshwater Biol. 2008, 53, 637–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sroczyńska, K.; Barroso, G.; Chícharo, L. In Situ Effective Clearance Rate Measurement of Mangrove Oysters (Crassostrea rhizophorae) in a Tropical Estuary in Brazil. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2012, 12, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wu, Y.; Liu, J.; Yang, L.; Chen, H.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, N. Allelopathic Control of Cyanobacterial Blooms by Periphyton Biofilms. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13, 604–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sharip, Z.; Razak, S.B.A.; Noordin, N.; Yusoff, F.M. Application of an Effective Microorganism Product as a Cyanobacterial Control and Water Quality Improvement Measure in Putrajaya Lake, Malaysia. Earth Syst. Environ. 2019, 4, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Moseman, S.M. Opposite Diel Patterns of Nitrogen Fixation Associated with Salt Marsh Plant Species (Spartina foliosa and Salicornia virginica) in Southern California. Marine Ecol. 2007, 28, 276–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Akao, S.; Hosoi, Y.; Fujiwara, T. Utilization of Water Chestnut for Reclamation of Water Environment and Control of Cyanobacterial Blooms. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 21, 2249–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Han, P.; Kumar, P.; Ong, B.-L. Remediation of Nutrient-Rich Waters Using the Terrestrial Plant, Pandanus amaryllifolius Roxb. J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 26, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, J.; Xie, Z.; Jiang, X.; Wang, Z. Control of Cyanobacterial Blooms via Synergistic Effects of Pulmonates and Submerged Plants. CLEAN–Soil Air Water 2015, 43, 330–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Du, X.; Song, D.; Wang, H.; Yang, J.; Liu, H.; Huo, T. The Combined Effects of Filter-Feeding Bivalves (Cristaria plicata) and Submerged Macrophytes (Hydrilla verticillata) on Phytoplankton Assemblages in Nutrient-Enriched Freshwater Mesocosms. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1069593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tazart, Z.; Manganelli, M.; Scardala, S.; Buratti, F.M.; Di Gregorio, F.N.; Douma, M.; Mouhri, K.; Testai, E.; Loudiki, M. Remediation Strategies to Control Toxic Cyanobacterial Blooms: Effects of Macrophyte Aqueous Extracts on Microcystis aeruginosa (Growth, Toxin Production and Oxidative Stress Response) and on Bacterial Ectoenzymatic Activities. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Vörös, L. Effective Control of Nuisance Cyanobacterial Blooms by Biomanipulation. Egypt. J. Phycol. 2000, 1, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mazzeo, N.; Iglesias, C.; Teixeira-de Mello, F.; Borthagaray, A.; Fosalba, C.; Ballabio, R.; Larrea, D.; Vilches, J.; García, S.; Pacheco, J.P.; et al. Trophic Cascade Effects of Hoplias malabaricus (Characiformes, Erythrinidae) in Subtropical Lakes Food Webs: A Mesocosm Approach. Hydrobiologia 2010, 644, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gu, J.; Jin, H.; He, H.; Ning, X.; Yu, J.; Tan, B.; Jeppesen, E.; Li, K. Effects of Small-Sized Crucian Carp (Carassius carassius) on the Growth of Submerged Macrophytes: Implications for Shallow Lake Restoration. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 567–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. He, H.; Hu, E.; Yu, J.; Luo, X.; Li, K.; Jeppesen, E.; Liu, Z. Does Turbidity Induced by Carassius carassius Limit Phytoplankton Growth? A Mesocosm Study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 24, 5012–5018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Shen, R.; Gu, X.; Chen, H.; Mao, Z.; Zeng, Q.; Jeppesen, E. Combining Bivalve (Corbicula fluminea) and Filter-Feeding Fish (Aristichthys nobilis) Enhances the Bioremediation Effect of Algae: An Outdoor Mesocosm Study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pani, S.; Wanganeo, A. Algal Management of Lakes through Biomanipulation-a Case Study of a Tropical Lake. Ecol. Environ. Conser. 2005, 11, 61. [Google Scholar]
  85. Fernández, R.; Nandini, S.; Sarma, S.S.S. A Comparative Study on the Ability of Tropical Micro-Crustaceans to Feed and Grow on Cyanobacterial Diets. J. Plankton Res. 2012, 34, 719–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Marroni, S.; Mazzeo, N.; Pacheco, J.P.; Clemente, J.; Iglesias, C. Interactions between Bivalves and Zooplankton: Competition or Intraguild Predation? Implications for Biomanipulation in Subtropical Shallow Lakes. Mar. Freshwater Res. 2016, 68, 1036–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhang, L.; Mei, X.; Tang, Y.; Razlutskij, V.; Peterka, J.; Taylor, W.D.; Naselli-Flores, L.; Liu, Z.; Tong, C.; Zhang, X. Effects of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) on Phytoplankton Community Structure and Water Quality: A Short-Term Mesocosm Study. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2022, 423, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kim, B.; Hwang, S.; Kim, Y.; Hwang, S.; Takamura, N.; Han, M. Effects of Biological Control Agents on Nuisance Cyanobacterial and Diatom Blooms in Freshwater Systems. Microbes Environ. 2007, 22, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mohamed, Z.A.; Elnour, R.O.; Alamri, S.; Hashem, M. Paramecium jenningsi Effectively Grazes on Toxic Raphidiopsis raciborskii and Degrades Cylindrospermopsin: Implications for Control Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2023, 23, 614–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Weragoda, S.K.; Jinadasa, K.B.S.N.; Zhang, D.Q.; Gersberg, R.M.; Tan, S.K.; Tanaka, N.; Jern, N.W. Tropical Application of Floating Treatment Wetlands. Wetlands 2012, 32, 955–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zainuddin, Z.; Lalung, J.; Yusof, T.; Rafatullah, M.; Ismail, N. Biological Control of Cyanobacterial Bloom by Leaf Biomass. Desal. Water Treat. 2021, 219, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, Y.; Li, M.; Dong, J.; Yang, H.; Van Zwieten, L.; Lu, H.; Alshameri, A.; Zhan, Z.; Chen, X.; Jiang, X.; et al. A Critical Review of Methods for Analyzing Freshwater Eutrophication. Water 2021, 13, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Havens, K.E.; Paerl, H.W. Climate Change at a Crossroad for Control of Harmful Algal Blooms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 12605–12606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Paerl, H.W.; Gardner, W.S.; Havens, K.E.; Joyner, A.R.; McCarthy, M.J.; Newell, S.E.; Qin, B.; Scott, J.T. Mitigating Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms in Aquatic Ecosystems Impacted by Climate Change and Anthropogenic Nutrients. Harmful Algae 2016, 54, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Park, J.; Church, J.; Son, Y.; Kim, K.-T.; Lee, W.H. Recent Advances in Ultrasonic Treatment: Challenges and Field Applications for Controlling Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). Ultrason. Sonochem. 2017, 38, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Peng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, M.; Shi, X.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Kong, Y. Inactivation of Harmful Anabaena flos-Aquae by Ultrasound Irradiation: Cell Disruption Mechanism and Enhanced Coagulation. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 69, 105254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rajasekhar, P.; Fan, L.; Nguyen, T.; Roddick, F.A. A Review of the Use of Sonication to Control Cyanobacterial Blooms. Water Res. 2012, 46, 4319–4329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lürling, M.; Tolman, Y. Beating the Blues: Is There Any Music in Fighting Cyanobacteria with Ultrasound? Water Res. 2014, 66, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Skinner, M.M.; Moore, B.C.; Swanson, M.E. Hypolimnetic Oxygenation in Twin Lakes, WA. Part II: Feeding Ecology of a Mixed Cold- and Warm-water Fish Community. Lake Reser. Manag. 2014, 30, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jilbert, T.; Couture, R.M.; Huser, B.J.; Salonen, K. Restoration of Eutrophic Lakes: Current Practices and Future Challenges. Hydrobiologia 2020, 847, 4343–4357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lürling, M.; Mucci, M. Mitigating Eutrophication Nuisance: In-Lake Measures Are Becoming Inevitable in Eutrophic Waters in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 2020, 847, 4447–4467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. McNeary, W.W.; Erickson, L.E. Sustainable Management of Algae in Eutrophic Ecosystems. J. Environ. Prot. 2013, 4, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Visser, P.M.; Ibelings, B.W.; Bormans, M.; Huisman, J. Artificial Mixing to Control Cyanobacterial Blooms: A Review. Aquat. Ecol. 2016, 50, 423–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Matthijs, H.C.P.; Jančula, D.; Visser, P.M.; Maršálek, B. Existing and Emerging Cyanocidal Compounds: New Perspectives for Cyanobacterial Bloom Mitigation. Aquatic Ecol. 2016, 50, 443–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Shen, X.; Zhang, H.; He, X.; Shi, H.; Stephan, C.; Jiang, H.; Wan, C.; Eichholz, T. Evaluating the Treatment Effectiveness of Copper-Based Algaecides on Toxic Algae Microcystis aeruginosa Using Single Cell-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2019, 411, 5531–5543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zamir Bin Alam, M.; Otaki, M.; Furumai, H.; Ohgaki, S. Direct and Indirect Inactivation of Microcystis aeruginosa by UV-Radiation. Water Res. 2001, 35, 1008–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Pang, C.; Fan, X.; Zhou, J.; Wu, S. Optimal Dosing Time of Acid Algaecide for Restraining Algal Growth. Water Sci. Eng. 2013, 6, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Schuurmans, J.M.; Brinkmann, B.W.; Makower, A.K.; Dittmann, E.; Huisman, J.; Matthijs, H.C.P. Microcystin Interferes with Defense against High Oxidative Stress in Harmful Cyanobacteria. Harmful Algae 2018, 78, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Santos, A.A.; Guedes, D.O.; Barros, M.U.G.; Oliveira, S.; Pacheco, A.B.F.; Azevedo, S.M.F.O.; Magalhães, V.F.; Pestana, C.J.; Edwards, C.; Lawton, L.A.; et al. Effect of Hydrogen Peroxide on Natural Phytoplankton and Bacterioplankton in a Drinking Water Reservoir: Mesocosm-Scale Study. Water Res. 2021, 197, 117069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fan, F.; Shi, X.; Zhang, M.; Liu, C.; Chen, K. Comparison of Algal Harvest and Hydrogen Peroxide Treatment in Mitigating Cyanobacterial Blooms via an in Situ Mesocosm Experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Huo, X.; Chang, D.-W.; Tseng, J.-H.; Burch, M.D.; Lin, T.-F. Exposure of Microcystis aeruginosa to Hydrogen Peroxide under Light: Kinetic Modeling of Cell Rupture and Simultaneous Microcystin Degradation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 5502–5510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Zhao, Z.; Sun, W.; Ray, M.B.; Ray, A.K.; Huang, T.; Chen, J. Optimization and Modeling of Coagulation-Flocculation to Remove Algae and Organic Matter from Surface Water by Response Surface Methodology. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2019, 13, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Melnikova, A.A.; Komova, A.V.; Vasilev, R.A.; Namsaraev, Z.B.; Gorin, K.V. Flocculation-Based Methods of Microalgae Removal from the Eutrophic Pond Enrichment Culture. Water Supp. 2021, 21, 4254–4262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Beklioğlu, M.; Bucak, T.; Coppens, J.; Bezirci, G.; Tavşanoğlu, Ü.N.; Çakıroğlu, A.Í.; Levi, E.E.; Erdoğan, Ş.; Filiz, N.; Özkan, K.; et al. Restoration of Eutrophic Lakes with Fluctuating Water Levels: A 20-Year Monitoring Study of Two Inter-Connected Lakes. Water 2017, 9, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Iglesias, C.; Mazzeo, N.; Meerhoff, M.; Lacerot, G.; Clemente, J.M.; Scasso, F.; Kruk, C.; Goyenola, G.; García-Alonso, J.; Amsinck, S.L.; et al. High Predation is of Key Importance for Dominance of Small-Bodied Zooplankton in Warm Shallow Lakes: Evidence from Lakes, Fish Exclosures and Surface Sediments. Hydrobiologia 2017, 667, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yi, C.; Guo, L.; Ni, L.; Luo, C. Silver Carp Exhibited an Enhanced Ability of Biomanipulation to Control Cyanobacteria Cloom Compared to Bighead Carp in Hypereutrophic Lake Taihu Mesocosms. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 89, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Miranda, L.E. Reservoir Fish Habitat Management; Lightning Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  118. Tammeorg, O.; Chorus, I.; Spears, B.; Nõges, P.; Nürnberg, G.K.; Tammeorg, P.; Søndergaard, M.; Jeppesen, E.; Paerl, H.; Huser, B.; et al. Sustainable lake restoration: From challenges to solutions. WIREs Water 2024, 11, e1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Thiemer, K.; Immerzeel, B.; Schneider, S.; Sebola, K.; Coetzee, J.; Baldo, M.; Thiebaut, G.; Hilt, S.; Köhler, J.; Harpenslager, S.F.; et al. Drivers of Perceived Nuisance Growth by Aquatic Plants. Environ. Manag. 2023, 71, 1024–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Poikane, S.; Kelly, M.; Free, G.; Carvalho, L.; Hamilton, D.P.; Katsanou, K.; Lurling, M.; Warner, S.; Spears, B.M.; Irvine, K.A. Global Assessment of Lake Restoration in Practice: New Insights and Future Perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 158, 111330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Spivak, A.C.; Vanni, M.J.; Mette, E.M. Moving on Up: Can Results from Simple Aquatic Mesocosm Experiments Be Applied Across Broad Spatial Scales? Freshw. Biol. 2011, 56, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 07755 g001
Figure 1. Diagram illustrating the study design, selection criteria, and data analysis process.
Figure 1. Diagram illustrating the study design, selection criteria, and data analysis process.
Sustainability 17 07755 g001
Sustainability 17 07755 g002
Figure 2. (A) Cumulative number of published articles on eutrophication control strategies in tropical and subtropical areas from 2000 to 2024. (B) Number of articles by keywords.
Figure 2. (A) Cumulative number of published articles on eutrophication control strategies in tropical and subtropical areas from 2000 to 2024. (B) Number of articles by keywords.
Sustainability 17 07755 g002
Sustainability 17 07755 g003
Figure 3. (A) Number of studies by continental region, (B) physical methods for eutrophication control in tropical and subtropical lakes, (C) chemical methods for eutrophication control in tropical and subtropical lakes and (D) Biological groups used in eutrophication control strategies.
Figure 3. (A) Number of studies by continental region, (B) physical methods for eutrophication control in tropical and subtropical lakes, (C) chemical methods for eutrophication control in tropical and subtropical lakes and (D) Biological groups used in eutrophication control strategies.
Sustainability 17 07755 g003
Table 1. Physical and chemical strategies applied in laboratory, shallow, and deep lakes.
Table 1. Physical and chemical strategies applied in laboratory, shallow, and deep lakes.
StrategiesMain FindingsLimitationsReferences
Bloom barrier/
Shallow lake		Phytoplankton reduction [13]
Sonication/
Shallow lake		Nutrients, chlorophyll-a, and cyanobacteria reduction [14]
Sonication/
Laboratory		Cyanobacteria reductionCyanobacteria regrowth with low frequencies[15]
Electrolysis/
Laboratory		Cyanobacteria inactivation [16]
Shading/
Laboratory		Cyanobacteria reductionCyanobacteria were replaced by chlorophytes[17]
Mechanical mixing/
Deep lakes		Phytoplankton reductionNutrient load increases and algal blooms appear after mixing[18,19]
Dredging/
Deep lakes		Nutrients, phytoplankton, and chlorophyll a reduction [20]
Reactive oxygen species/
Shallow lakes		Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a reductionPhytoplankton regrowth,
replaced toxic cyanobacteria with non-toxic cyanobacteria		[21,22,23]
Reactive oxygen species/
Laboratory		Phytoplankton and phycocyanins reductionH2O2 was not efficient[24,25]
Peptides/
Laboratory		Phytoplankton reduction [26,27]
Allelochemicals/
Laboratory		Cyanobacteria reductionOnly short inhibition
(10 days)		[28]
Coagulants and flocculants/
Shallow lakes		Nutrients, chlorophyll-a, turbidity, POM, and microcystin reductionPlanosol and iron chloride were ineffective, and the nutrients were reloaded[29,30]
Coagulants and flocculants/
Laboratory		Nutrients and cyanobacteria reduction by sedimentationHigh cyanobacteria abundance reduces coagulant effects[31,32,33,34]
Coagulants and flocculants/
Deep lakes		Nutrients, phytoplankton, and chlorophyll a reduction, sinking of cyanobacteriaTurbidity increases, replaced by algal groups, and cyanobacteria appear after treatment[35,36,37]
Table 2. Biological strategies applied in shallow lakes.
Table 2. Biological strategies applied in shallow lakes.
StrategiesMain FindingsLimitationsReferences
Submerged, floating, and emergent macrophytesTurbidity, nutrients, and phytoplankton reductionChlorophytes replaced Cyanobacteria
DO decrease
Falling leaves increase nutrients		[37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]
Submerged macrophytes and extractsCyanobacteria reductionMacrophyte extracts did not affect chlorophytes[45]
Macrophytes and the removal of omnivorous fishNutrients and phytoplankton reduction,
Increase in transparency and cladocerans		During the summer, cyanobacterial toxic blooms increase[40,46,47,48]
Zooplankton and submerged macrophytesCyanobacteria reductionZooplankton did not decrease cyanobacteria biomass[6]
Filtering, omnivorous, and piscivorous fishNutrients, phytoplankton, and cyanotoxins reductionChlorophytes and small phytoplankton increased[49,50,51]
Omnivorous fish and macroinvertebratesPhytoplankton reductionOmnivorous fish increase phytoplankton biomass[52]
ZooplanktonPhytoplankton reduction [53]
Macroalgae and bivalvesNutrients, POM, and phytoplankton reductionNegative effects on feeding rates due to high food concentration[54,55]
CiliatesCyanobacteria biomass reductionLarge colonies reduced ciliates’ feeding[56]
Woody debrisChlorophyll-a reduction [57]
Periphyton cultureCyanobacteria and cyanotoxin reduction [58]
Table 3. Biological strategies applied in deep lakes.
Table 3. Biological strategies applied in deep lakes.
StrategiesMain FindingsLimitationsReferences
Introduction of macrophyte leaves N and P reduction up to 2–2.8% and 0.12–0.16% [59]
Submerged, floating, and emergent macrophytesReductions of up to 94.6% in cyanobacteria, chlorophyll a, and TN were observed, along with increased water transparency (Secchi depth > 120 cm) and an up to 8-fold increase in green algaePhytoplankton increased, and chlorophytes replaced cyanobacteria [60,61,62,63]
Filtering fish Chlorophyll a was reduced by up to 82%, and phytoplankton decreased by 60–80%It only works for a while[64,65]
Omnivorous fish removal Chlorophyll a and TP were reduced by up to 33% and 34%, respectively, while macrophyte coverage increased by 50–90% [66,67]
Planktivorous fish removalPhytoplankton reduction and an increase in zooplankton [68]
Planktivorous and omnivorous fish removalPhytoplankton increased by 200%; N and P increased by less than 9%Excess of nutrients and phytoplankton reduces cascade effects[69]
BivalvesChlorophyll a reduction up to 55–37% [70]
Periphyton biofilmsElimination of 99% of M. aeruginosa [71]
Bacteria, fungi, and yeastCyanobacteria were reduced by up to 61%, followed by an increase of over 50%It only works for a while[72]
Table 4. Biological strategies applied in laboratory settings.
Table 4. Biological strategies applied in laboratory settings.
StrategiesMain FindingsLimitationsReferences
Emergent, floating macrophytes and terrestrial plantsUp to 100% of nutrient reduction and 50% of phytoplankton inhibition [73,74,75]
Submerged macrophytes and mollusksNutrient reduction up to 40% and chlorophyll a reduction between 76 and 90%Mollusks increase nutrients[76,77]
Macrophyte extractsCyanotoxin reduction and up to 100% of cyanobacteria decreaseLow extract concentration increased the cyanobacteria[78]
Filtering, planktivorous, benthivorous, and piscivorous fishTransparency (Secchi depth > 50 cm) and zooplankton abundance increased by up to 85%: chlo-a was reduced by up to 89% and phytoplankton biomass decreased by 15%Lower digestion of chlorophytes and mucilaginous algae. Nutrients, phytoplankton, and periphyton increase due to fecal nutrients[79,80,81,82]
Bivalves and filtering fishReductions of up to 42–34% in TN, 66–35% in TP, and 84% in Chlorophyll a. Fish abundance rose by up to 600%, while phytoplankton declined by 93% before rebounding to 400% above initial levelsWith fish, increased nutrients and chlorophyll a, and Microcystis sp. were dominant[83]
Zooplankton and bivalvesPhytoplankton reduction up to 60–85% [84,85,86]
Fish removalPhytoplankton reduction up to 50% [87]
Bacteria and ciliatesCyanobacteria reduction and inhibition up to 80%Cyanotoxins were not reduced[88,89]
Floating islandsN and P reduction up to 80% and 90% respectively [90]
Adherent carrier diatomsCyanobacteria reduction up to, and Nitzschia increased to 70%No effects on different groups of algae[15]
Leaves of terrestrial plantsCyanobacteria reduction [91]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Espinosa-Rodríguez, C.A.; Montes-Campos, L.J.; Rivera-De la Parra, L.; Pérez-Morales, A.; Lugo-Vázquez, A. Strategies for Eutrophication Control in Tropical and Subtropical Lakes. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177755

AMA Style

Espinosa-Rodríguez CA, Montes-Campos LJ, Rivera-De la Parra L, Pérez-Morales A, Lugo-Vázquez A. Strategies for Eutrophication Control in Tropical and Subtropical Lakes. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177755

Chicago/Turabian Style

Espinosa-Rodríguez, Cristian Alberto, Luz Jazmin Montes-Campos, Ligia Rivera-De la Parra, Alfredo Pérez-Morales, and Alfonso Lugo-Vázquez. 2025. "Strategies for Eutrophication Control in Tropical and Subtropical Lakes" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 7755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177755

APA Style

Espinosa-Rodríguez, C. A., Montes-Campos, L. J., Rivera-De la Parra, L., Pérez-Morales, A., & Lugo-Vázquez, A. (2025). Strategies for Eutrophication Control in Tropical and Subtropical Lakes. Sustainability, 17(17), 7755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177755

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop