Concern is widely being published that the occurrence of toxic cyanobacteria is increasing in consequence of climate change and eutrophication, substantially threatening human health. Here, we review evidence and pertinent publications to explore in which types of waterbodies climate change is likely to exacerbate cyanobacterial blooms; whether controlling blooms and toxin concentrations requires a balanced approach of reducing not only the concentrations of phosphorus (P) but also those of nitrogen (N); how trophic and climatic changes affect health risks caused by toxic cyanobacteria. We propose the following for further discussion: (i) Climate change is likely to promote blooms in some waterbodies—not in those with low concentrations of P or N stringently limiting biomass, and more so in shallow than in stratified waterbodies. Particularly in the latter, it can work both ways—rendering conditions for cyanobacterial proliferation more favourable or less favourable. (ii) While N emissions to the environment need to be reduced for a number of reasons, controlling blooms can definitely be successful by reducing only P, provided concentrations of P can be brought down to levels sufficiently low to stringently limit biomass. Not the N:P ratio, but the absolute concentration of the limiting nutrient determines the maximum possible biomass of phytoplankton and thus of cyanobacteria. The absolute concentrations of N or P show which of the two nutrients is currently limiting biomass. N can be the nutrient of choice to reduce if achieving sufficiently low concentrations has chances of success. (iii) Where trophic and climate change cause longer, stronger and more frequent blooms, they increase risks of exposure, and health risks depend on the amount by which concentrations exceed those of current WHO cyanotoxin guideline values for the respective exposure situation. Where trophic change reduces phytoplankton biomass in the epilimnion, thus increasing transparency, cyanobacterial species composition may shift to those that reside on benthic surfaces or in the metalimnion, changing risks of exposure. We conclude that studying how environmental changes affect the genotype composition of cyanobacterial populations is a relatively new and exciting research field, holding promises for understanding the biological function of the wide range of metabolites found in cyanobacteria, of which only a small fraction is toxic to humans. Overall, management needs case-by-case assessments focusing on the impacts of environmental change on the respective waterbody, rather than generalisations.

Colin Reynolds exquisitely consolidated our understanding of driving forces shaping phytoplankton communities and those setting the upper limit to biomass yield, with limitation typically shifting from light in winter to phosphorus in spring. Nonetheless, co-limitation is frequently postulated from enhanced growth responses to enrichments with both N and P or from N:P ranging around the Redfield ratio, concluding a need to reduce both N and P in order to mitigate eutrophication. Here, we review the current understanding of limitation through N and P and of co-limitation. We conclude that Reynolds is still correct: (i) Liebig’s law of the minimum holds and reducing P is sufficient, provided concentrations achieved are low enough; (ii) analyses of nutrient limitation need to exclude evidently non-limiting situations, i.e. where soluble P exceeds 3–10 µg/l, dissolved N exceeds 100–130 µg/l and total P and N support high biomass levels with self-shading causing light limitation; (iii) additionally decreasing N to limiting concentrations may be useful in specific situations (e.g. shallow waterbodies with high internal P and pronounced denitrification); (iv) management decisions require local, situation-specific assessments. The value of research on stoichiometry and co-limitation lies in promoting our understanding of phytoplankton ecophysiology and community ecology.

Sustainable management of lakes requires us to overcome ecological, economic, and social challenges. These challenges can be addressed by focusing on achieving ecological improvement within a multifaceted, co‐beneficial context. In‐lake restoration measures may promote more rapid ecosystem responses than is feasible with catchment measures alone, even if multiple interventions are needed. In particular, we identify restoration methods that support the overarching societal target of a circular economy through the use of nutrients, sediments, or biomass that are removed from a lake, in agriculture, as food, or for biogas production. In this emerging field of sustainable restoration techniques, we show examples, discuss benefits and pitfalls, and flag areas for further research and development. Each lake should be assessed individually to ensure that restoration approaches will effectively address lake‐specific problems, do not harm the target lake or downstream ecosystems, are cost‐effective, promote delivery of valuable ecosystem services, minimize conflicts in public interests, and eliminate the necessity for repeated interventions. Achieving optimal, sustainable results from lake restoration relies on multidisciplinary research and close interactions between environmental, social, political, and economic sectors.This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Water Quality Water and Life > Stresses and Pressures on Ecosystems Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness

Lake Tegel is an extreme case of restoration: inflow treatment reduced its main external phosphorus (TP) load 40-fold, sharply focused in time, and low-P water flushed the lake volume ≈ 4 times per year. We analysed 35 years of data for the time TP concentrations took to decline from ≈ 700 to 20–30 µg/l, biota to respond and cyanobacteria to become negligible. The internal load proved of minor relevance. After 10 years, TP reached 35–40 µg/l, phytoplankton biomass abruptly declined by 50% and cyanobacteria no longer dominated; yet 10 years later at TP < 20–30 µg/l they were below quantifiable levels. 20–25 years after load reduction, the lake was stably mesotrophic, macrophytes had returned down to 6–8 m, and vivianite now forms, binding P insolubly in the sediment. Bottom-up control of phytoplankton through TP proved decisive. Five intermittent years with a higher external P load caused some ‘re-eutrophication’, delaying recovery by 5 years. While some restoration responses required undercutting thresholds, particularly that of phytoplankton biomass to TP, resilience and hysteresis proved irrelevant. Future research needs to focus on the littoral zone, and for predicting time spans for recovery more generally, meta-analyses should address P load reduction in combination with flushing rates.

Many water utilities are at least occasionally affected by unpleasant taste and odour (T&O) in drinking water. For decades, aesthetic water quality has been of secondary concern to water producers, with water safety being the primary focus. However, there has been a recent shift towards prioritising consumer satisfaction, encompassing not only services, but also water quality, including T&O issues, which can negatively impact the supplier's reputation. Starting to address a T&O problem until consumers' complaints become massive is too late and puts water producers under great stress to take effective action in a timely manner. Rather, a preventive approach is necessary. The most effective approach is to include T&O as a hazard to assess and manage in the context of developing a water safety plan (WSP) for the supply system. The development of a WSP provides an excellent platform for including the stakeholders needed to control the source of T&O events, as this often requires multistakeholder cooperation. Our review provides a comprehensive guide to addressing T&O occurrences and shows how this can be included in the framework of WSP development. It identifies supporting tools and illustrates the information given with a number of examples from water suppliers' practice.