01877nas a2200205   4500008004100000020001400041245013700055210007100192260000900263300001400272520116900286653002101455653002201476653003201498653002701530653003301557100002301590700001701613856004101630       2016                        eng d  a1755-263X00aWhere are Ecology and Biodiversity in Social–Ecological Systems Research? A Review of Research Methods and Applied Recommendations0 aWhere are Ecology and Biodiversity in Social–Ecological Systems   c2016  an/a - n/a3 aUnderstanding social–ecological systems (SES) is critical for effective sustainability and biodiversity conservation initiatives. We systematically reviewed SES research to examine whether and how it integrates ecological and social domains and generates decision-relevant recommendations. We aim to inform SES research methods and improve the relevance of SES research. Of 120 SES articles, two-thirds included an ecological variable while all but one included a social variable. Biodiversity was a less common ecological variable than resource productivity, land cover, and abiotic measures. We found six diverse social–ecological linking methods: modeling (9%), causal loop diagrams (18%), quantitative correlations (8%), separate quantitative measures (13%), indicators (14%), and rich description (37%). Policy recommendations addressing social–ecological dynamics were more likely in articles including both ecological and social variables, suggesting the importance of research approach for policy and practice application. Further integration of ecology and biodiversity is needed to support governance, policy, and management for SES sustainability.10aApplied research10ainterdisciplinary10asocial–ecological systems10asustainability science10asystematic literature review1 aRissman, Adena, R.1 aGillon, Sean  uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.1225002025nas a2200145   4500008004100000022001400041245012000055210006900175300000900244490000600253520153700259100002001796700002201816856004101838       2014                        eng d  a2044-204100aWater quality implications from three decades of phosphorus loads and trophic dynamics in the Yahara chain of lakes0 aWater quality implications from three decades of phosphorus load  a1-140 v43 aTrophic responses to phosphorus (P) loads spanning 29-33 years were assessed for the eutrophic Yahara chain of lakes: Mendota (area = 39.6 km(2), mean depth = 12.7 m, flushing rate = 0.23 yr(-1)); Monona (13.7 km(2), 8.3 m, 1.3 yr(-1)); Waubesa (8.5 km(2), 4.7 m, 4.3 yr(-1)); and Kegonsa (13.0 km(2), 5.1 m, 3.0 yr(-1)). During extended drought periods with low P loads, summer (Jul-Aug) total P (TP) concentrations declined substantially in all 4 lakes, with Mendota achieving mesotrophic conditions (<0.024 mg L-1). In years when P loads were high due to major runoff events, summer TP in the lakes was high (especially in shallower Waubesa and Kegonsa); in some summers dissolved inorganic P was elevated, indicating algae growth was not P limited. Summer TP returned to normal levels following both low and high load years, signifying the lakes were responsive to P load changes. The proportion of P input loads passed via a lake's outlet to the next lake downstream increased as flushing rates increased. Because Monona, Waubesa, and Kegonsa received 60, 83, and 76% of their surface water P load from the respective upstream lake's outlet, reducing P loads in Mendota's large watershed was predicted to produce significant water quality benefits downstream. Modeling indicated a significant grazing effect of Daphnia on summer TP and Secchi transparency readings for Mendota and Monona. Finally, using drought loads as targets, our study established P loading reductions needed to improve water quality in all 4 Yahara lakes.1 aLathrop, R., C.1 aCarpenter, S., R.  uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5268/iw-4.1.68002563nas a2200181   4500008004100000245015600041210006900197490000600266520193100272100001502203700002202218700001702240700001602257700001602273700001302289700001702302856006202319       2013                        eng d00aWhat is the influence on water quality in temperate eutrophic lakes of a reduction of planktivorous and benthivorous fish? A systematic review protocol0 aWhat is the influence on water quality in temperate eutrophic la0 v23 aBACKGROUND:In lakes that have become eutrophic due to sewage discharges or nutrient runoff from land, problems such as algal blooms and oxygen deficiency often persist even when nutrient supplies have been reduced. One reason is that phosphorus stored in the sediments can exchange with the water. There are indications that the high abundance of phytoplankton, turbid water and lack of submerged vegetation seen in many eutrophic lakes may represent a semi-stable state. For that reason, a shift back to more natural clear-water conditions could be difficult to achieve.In some cases, though, temporary mitigation of eutrophication-related problems has been accomplished through biomanipulation: stocks of zooplanktivorous fish have been reduced by intensive fishing, leading to increased populations of phytoplankton-feeding zooplankton. Moreover, reduction of benthivorous fish may result in lower phosphorus fluxes from the sediments. An alternative to reducing the dominance of planktivores and benthivores by fishing is to stock lakes with piscivorous fish. These two approaches have often been used in combination.The implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive has recently led to more stringent demands for measures against eutrophication, and a systematic review could clarify whether biomanipulation is efficient as a measure of that kind.METHODS:The review will examine primary field studies of how large-scale biomanipulation has affected water quality and community structure in eutrophic lakes or reservoirs in temperate regions. Such studies can be based on comparison between conditions before and after manipulation, on comparison between treated and non-treated water bodies, or both. Relevant outcomes include Secchi depth, concentrations of oxygen, nutrients, suspended solids and chlorophyll, abundance and composition of phytoplankton, zooplankton and fish, and coverage of submerged macrophytes.1 aBernes, C.1 aCarpenter, S., R.1 aGardmark, A.1 aLarsson, P.1 aPersson, L.1 aSkov, C.1 aVan Donk, E.  uhttp://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/2/1/9