Comparison of three modelling frameworks for aquatic ecosystems: practical aspects and applicability
-
Published:2022-10
Issue:3
Volume:23
Page:439-451
-
ISSN:1585-8553
-
Container-title:Community Ecology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:COMMUNITY ECOLOGY
Author:
Patonai Katalin, Fábián Virág AdriennORCID
Abstract
AbstractFreshwater ecosystems are under multiple stressors and it is crucial to find methods to better describe, manage, and sustain aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystem modelling has become an important tool in integrating trophic relationships into food webs, assessing important nodes using network analysis, and making predictions via simulations. Fortunately, several modelling techniques exist, but the question is which approach is relevant and applicable when? In this study, we compare three modelling frameworks (Ecopath, Loop Analysis in R, STELLA software) using a case study of a small aquatic network (8 nodes). The choice of framework depends on the research question and data availability. We approach this topic from a methodological aspect by describing the data requirements and by comparing the applicability and limitations of each modelling approach. Each modelling framework has its specific focus, but some functionalities and outcomes can be compared. The predictions of Loop Analysis as compared to Ecopath’s Mixed Trophic Impact plot are in good agreement at the top and bottom trophic levels, but the middle trophic levels are less similar. This suggests that further comparisons are needed of networks of varying resolution and size. Generally, when data are limiting, Loop Analysis can provide qualitative predictions, while the other two methods provide quantitative results, yet rely on more data.
Funder
ELKH Centre for Ecological Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Ecology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference67 articles.
1. Adebola, T., & de Mutsert, K. (2019). Comparative network analyses for Nigerian coastal waters using two ecopath models developed for the years 1985 and 2000. Fisheries Research, 213, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.12.028 2. Belgrano, A., Scharler, U. M., Dunne, J., & Ulanowicz, R. E. (Eds.). (2005). Aquatic food webs: an ecosystem approach. London: Oxford University Press. 3. Berlow, E. L., Neutel, A.-M., Cohen, J. E., de Ruiter, P. C., Ebenman, Bo., Emmerson, M., Fox, J. W., Vincent, A. A., Jansen, J. I., Jones, G. D., Kokkoris, D. O., Logofet, A. J., McKane, J. M., & Montoya, O. P. (2004). Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities. Journal of Animal Ecology, 73(3), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00833.x 4. Bernát, G., Boross, N., Somogyi, B., Vörös, L., László, G., & Boros, G. (2020). Oligotrophication of Lake Balaton over a 20-year period and its implications for the relationship between phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass. Hydrobiologia, 847(19), 3999–4013. 5. Bíró, P. (2002). A Balaton halállományának hosszúidejű változásai. Állattani Közlemények., 87, 63–77.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|