Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 144 of the 144 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic literature review of forecasting and predictive models for cyanobacteria blooms in freshwater lakes

Open access
Rousso, Benny Zuse, Bertone, Edoardo, Stewart, Rodney, Hamilton, David P.·2020·Water Research

Abstract

Cyanobacteria harmful blooms (CyanoHABs) in lakes and reservoirs represent a major risk for water authorities globally due to their toxicity and economic impacts. Anticipating bloom occurrence and understanding the main drivers of CyanoHABs are needed to optimize water resources management. An extensive review of the application of CyanoHABs forecasting and predictive models was performed, and a summary of the current state of knowledge, limitations and research opportunities on this topic is provided through analysis of case studies. Two modelling approaches were used to achieve CyanoHABs anticipation; process-based (PB) and data-driven (DD) models. The objective of the model was a determining factor for the choice of modelling approach. PB models were more frequently used to predict future scenarios whereas DD models were employed for short-term forecasts. Each modelling approach presented multiple variations that may be applied for more specific, targeted purposes. Most models reviewed were site-specific. The monitoring methodologies, including data frequency, uncertainty and precision, were identified as a major limitation to improve model performance. A lack of standardization of both model output and performance metrics was observed. CyanoHAB modelling is an interdisciplinary topic and communication between disciplines should be improved to facilitate model comparisons. These shortcomings can hinder the adoption of modelling tools by practitioners. We suggest that water managers should focus on generalising models for lakes with similar characteristics and where possible use high frequency monitoring for model development and validation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2020.115959

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 144 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rousso, B. Z., Bertone, E., Stewart, R., & Hamilton, D. P.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
182
Pages
115959
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3027646416
Cited by
294
References
144
FWCI
3.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic literature review of forecasting and predictive models for cyanobacteria blooms in freshwater lakes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115959
The paper
Rousso, B. Z., Bertone, E., Stewart, R., & Hamilton, D. P. (2020). A systematic literature review of forecasting and predictive models for cyanobacteria blooms in freshwater lakes. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115959

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.