DOCSLIB.ORG

Attachment C3-20: Ecopath with Ecosim (Ewe)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attachment C3-20: Ecopath with Ecosim (Ewe) Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority 150 Terrace Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70802 | [email protected] | www.coastal.la.gov 2017 Coastal Master Plan Attachment C3-20: Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) Report: Final Date: April 2017 Prepared by: Kim de Mutsert (George Mason University), Kristy Lewis (George Mason Universeity), Joe Buszowski (Ecopath Research and Development Consortium), Jeroen Steenbeek (Ecopath Research and Development Consortium), Scott Milroy (University of Southern Mississippi) 2017 Coastal Master Plan: Ecopath with Ecoism (EwE) Coastal Protection Restoration Authority This document was prepared in support of the 2017 Coastal Master Plan being prepared by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA). CPRA was established by the Louisiana Legislature in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita through Act 8 of the First Extraordinary Session of 2005. Act 8 of the First Extraordinary Session of 2005 expanded the membership, duties and responsibilities of CPRA and charged the new authority to develop and implement a comprehensive coastal protection plan, consisting of a master plan (revised every five years) and annual plans. CPRA’s mandate is to develop, implement and enforce a comprehensive coastal protection and restoration master plan. Suggested Citation: De Mutsert, K., Lewis, K.A., Buszowski, J., Steenbeek, J. and Milroy, S. (2017). 2017 Coastal Master Plan Modeling: C3-20: Ecopath with Ecosim. Version Final. (pp. 1-97). Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Page | ii 2017 Coastal Master Plan: Ecopath with Ecoism (EwE) Acknowledgements This document was developed as part of a broader Model Improvement Plan in support of the 2017 Coastal Master Plan under the guidance of the Modeling Decision Team (MDT): The Water Institute of the Gulf - Ehab Meselhe, Alaina Grace, and Denise Reed Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) of Louisiana – Mandy Green, Angelina Freeman, and David Lindquist We would like to acknowledge the following Institutions who provided data, input parameters, or comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript: CPRA The Water Institute of the Gulf Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center Moffatt and Nichol This effort was funded by the CPRA of Louisiana under Cooperative Endeavor Agreement Number 2503-12-58, Task Order No. 03. Page | iii 2017 Coastal Master Plan: Ecopath with Ecoism (EwE) Executive Summary Unlike the 2012 Coastal Master Plan, the 2017 Coastal Master Plan modeling effort includes a fish and shellfish community modeling approach. A spatially explicit ecosystem model was developed in the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software suite to simulate fish biomass distribution through time and space. EwE is an open source ecosystem modeling software consisting of three modules: Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace. Ecopath is a virtual representation of the foodweb of an ecosystem, including flows and pools of biomass within this foodweb. Ecosim then allows for temporal simulations of changes in biomass of groups in the model (which could be species or functional groups) in response to changes in water quality variables (such as nutrient loads and salinity) over time. Lastly, Ecospace allows for spatial and temporal simulations of biomass change of each of the groups in response to spatially and temporally explicit drivers, forcing functions, and habitat characteristics. This feature not only provides information on the spatial distribution of each group in the model, it also improves estimates of total biomass changes of each group over the course of the model run because movement of consumers and spatially explicit habitat characteristics of the system are taken into consideration. Page | iv 2017 Coastal Master Plan: Ecopath with Ecoism (EwE) Table of Contents Coastal Protection Restoration Authority ...................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... x 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 General Description of Ecopath with Ecosim........................................................................................ 1 2.1 Ecopath: Structure and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Ecosim: Structure and Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 3 2.2.1 Foraging Arena Theory ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Calibration and Validation .................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Ecospace: Structure and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 The Habitat Capacity Model ................................................................................................................ 5 2.3.2 Use of GIS in Ecospace ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 Development of Master Plan EwE Model .............................................................................................. 8 3.1 Model Domain ............................................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Biological Data Collection and Preparation ......................................................................................... 9 3.3 Environmental Parameters ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Fishery Data ................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.5 Ecopath with Ecosim ................................................................................................................................ 14 3.5.1 Ecopath Model Development ............................................................................................................ 14 3.5.2 Calibration and Sensitivity Analysis in Ecosim ................................................................................... 16 3.5.3 Preparing the Ecospace Module ....................................................................................................... 19 3.5.4 Oyster Environmental Capacity Layers ............................................................................................. 23 3.5.5 Validation ................................................................................................................................................ 25 3.6 Linking the ICM to EWE ............................................................................................................................ 26 3.7 50-Year Test Simulation Set-Up ............................................................................................................... 26 3.8 Key Model Assumptions and Limitations .............................................................................................. 27 4.0 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Ecopath ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.2 Model Tuning and Testing ....................................................................................................................... 32 4.2.1 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 32 4.2.2 Calibration Results ................................................................................................................................. 32 4.2.3 Validation Results ................................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.4 50-Year Simulation ................................................................................................................................. 38 4.3 Example Output ........................................................................................................................................ 38 5.0 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145:136–162, 2016 © American Fisheries Society 2016 DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2015.1069211 Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations The Ecopath module of EwE is a static, mass-balance ecosystem model that uses two governing equations for each species and age group (Christensen and Walters 2004). The first governing equation describes each species group’s production for a time period, i.e., production (P) is the sum of fishery catch (F), predation (M2), net migration (immigration, I, and emigration, E), biomass accumulation (BA), and mortality from other sources (‘other mortality’, M0): P = F + M2 + (I - E) + BA - M0 The second governing equation is based on the principle of conservation of matter within a group, and is designed to balance the energy flows of a biomass pool, i.e., consumption (C) equals the sum of production (P), respiration (R), and unassimilated food (U): C = P + R + U At a minimum, Ecopath requires inputs of diet composition (DCi,j, where i is predator and j is prey), fishery catch (Yi), and three of the following four parameters for each model group (i): biomass (Bi), production-to-biomass ratio (Pi/Bi), consumption-to-biomass ratio (Qi/Bi), and the ecotrophic efficiency (EEi, the fraction of the production that is used in the system and does not move directly to the detritus pool). Mass-balance principles are then used to estimate the fourth parameter. P/B is the annual production rate of the population in Ecopath. Under equilibrium conditions, the P/B ratio of fish is equivalent to its total annual instantaneous mortality (Z) (Allen 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • New York Ocean Action Plan 2016 – 2026
    NEW YORK OCEAN ACTION PLAN 2016 – 2026 In collaboration with state and federal agencies, municipalities, tribal partners, academic institutions, non- profits, and ocean-based industry and tourism groups. Acknowledgments The preparation of the content within this document was developed by Debra Abercrombie and Karen Chytalo from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and in cooperation and coordination with staff from the New York State Department of State. Funding was provided by the New York State Environmental Protection Fund’s Ocean & Great Lakes Program. Other New York state agencies, federal agencies, estuary programs, the New York Ocean and Great Lakes Coalition, the Shinnecock Indian Nation and ocean-based industry and user groups provided numerous revisions to draft versions of this document which were invaluable. The New York Marine Sciences Consortium provided vital recommendations concerning data and research needs, as well as detailed revisions to earlier drafts. Thank you to all of the members of the public and who participated in the stakeholder focal groups and for also providing comments and revisions. For more information, please contact: Karen Chytalo New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [email protected] 631-444-0430 Cover Page Photo credits, Top row: E. Burke, SBU SoMAS, M. Gove; Bottom row: Wolcott Henry- 2005/Marine Photo Bank, Eleanor Partridge/Marine Photo Bank, Brandon Puckett/Marine Photo Bank. NEW YORK OCEAN ACTION PLAN | 2016 – 2026 i MESSAGE FROM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY The ocean and its significant resources have been at the heart of New York’s richness and economic vitality, since our founding in the 17th Century and continues today.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia Patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout Jeffrey W. Short 1,*, Christine M. Voss 2, Maria L. Vozzo 2,3 , Vincent Guillory 4, Harold J. Geiger 5, James C. Haney 6 and Charles H. Peterson 2 1 JWS Consulting LLC, 19315 Glacier Highway, Juneau, AK 99801, USA 2 Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557, USA; [email protected] (C.M.V.); [email protected] (M.L.V.); [email protected] (C.H.P.) 3 Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia 4 Independent Researcher, 296 Levillage Drive, Larose, LA 70373, USA; [email protected] 5 St. Hubert Research Group, 222 Seward, Suite 205, Juneau, AK 99801, USA; [email protected] 6 Terra Mar Applied Sciences LLC, 123 W. Nye Lane, Suite 129, Carson City, NV 89706, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-907-209-3321 Abstract: Unprecedented recruitment of Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout (DWH). The foregone consumption of Gulf menhaden, after their many predator species were killed by oiling, increased competition among menhaden for food, resulting in poor physiological conditions and low lipid content during 2011 and 2012. Menhaden sampled Citation: Short, J.W.; Voss, C.M.; for length and weight measurements, beginning in 2011, exhibited the poorest condition around Vozzo, M.L.; Guillory, V.; Geiger, H.J.; Barataria Bay, west of the Mississippi River, where recruitment of the 2010 year class was highest.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Ecopath with Ecosim to Explore Nekton Community Response to Freshwater Diversion Into a Louisiana Estuary
    Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem 4:104-116, Science 2012 © American Fisheries Society 2012 ISSN: 1942-5120 online DOI: 10.1080/19425120.2012.672366 ARTICLE Using Ecopath with Ecosim to Explore Nekton Community Response to Freshwater Diversion into a Louisiana Estuary Kim de Mutsert*^ and James H. Cowan Jr. Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA Carl J, Walters Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mali, Vancouver, British Columbia V6TIZ4, Canada C5 ,=3 Abstract Current methods to restore I.ouisiana’s estuaries include the reintroduction of Mississippi River water through freshwater diversions to wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from the main channel. The reduced salinities associated with freshwater input arc likely affecting estuarine nekton, but these effects are poorly described. Ecopath with Ecosim was used to simulate the effects of salinity changes caused by the Caernarvon freshwater diversion on species biomass distributions of estuarine nekton. A base model was first created in Ecopath from 5 years of monitoring data collected prior to the opening of the diversion (1986-1990). The effects of freshwater discharge on food web dynamics and community composition were simulated using a novel application of Ecosim that allows the input of salinity as a forcing function coupled with user-specified salinity tolerance ranges for each biomass pool. The salinity function in Ecosim not only reveals the direct effects of salinity (i.e., increases in species biomass at their optimum salinity and decreases outside the optimal range) but also the indirect effects resulting from trophic interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 5 Ecopath with Ecosim: Linking Fisheries and Ecology
    CHAPTER 5 Ecopath with Ecosim: linking fi sheries and ecology V. Christensen Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada. 1 Why ecosystem modeling in fi sheries? Fifty years ago, fi sheries science emerged as a quantitative discipline with the publication of Ray Beverton and Sidney Holt’s [1] seminal volume On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. This book provided the foundation for how to manage fi sheries and was based on detailed, mathe- matical analyses of the dynamics of individual fi sh populations, of how they grow and how they are affected by fi shing. Fisheries science has developed and matured since then, and remarkably much of what has been achieved are modifi cations and further developments of what Beverton and Holt introduced. Given then that fi sheries science has developed to become one of the most data-rich, quantita- tive fi elds in ecology [2], how well has it fared? We often see fi sheries issues in the headlines and usually in a negative context and there are indeed many threats to the sustainability of ocean resources [3]. Many, judging not the least from newspaper headlines, consider fi sheries manage- ment a usual suspect in connection with fi sheries collapses. This may lead one to suspect that there is a problem with the science, but I hold this to be an erroneous conclusion. It should be stressed that the main problem is not to be found in the computational aspects of the science, but rather in how management advice actually is implemented in praxis [4]. The major force in fi sh- eries throughout the world is excessive fi shing capacity; the days with unexploited resources and untapped oceans are over [5], and the fi shing industry is now relying heavily on subsidies to keep the machinery going [6].
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Fisheries Onto Marine Ecosystems for Regional, Oceanic and Global Integrations
    Large Marine Ecosystems of the World G. Hempel and K. Sherman (Editors) 0 2003 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved 375 Mapping Fisheries onto Marine Ecosystems for Regional, Oceanic and Global Integrations Reg Watson, Daniel Pauly, Villy Christensen,Rainer Froese,Alan Longhurst, Trevor Platt, Shubha Sathyendranath,Kenneth Sherman,John O'Reilly, and Peter Celone ABSTRACT Research on ecosystem-based fisheries management, marine biodiversity conservation,and other marine fields requires appropriate maps of the major natural regions of the oceans,and their ecosystems.A global ocean classification system proposed by T. Platt and S. Sathyendranathand implemented by A.R. Longhurst, defined largely by physical parameters that subdivide the oceansinto four 'biomes' and 57 'biogeochemicalprovinces' (BGCPs),is merged with the systemof 64 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) identified by K. Sherman and colleagues as transboundarygeographic coastaland watershedunits. This arrangementenhances each of the systems,and renders them mutually compatible. LMEs are ecologically defined to serve as a framework for the assessmentand managementof coastal fisheries and environments including watersheds,while the BGCPshave physical definitions, including borders defined by natural features, and extend over open oceanregions. The combined mapping will, for example, allow the computation of GI5-derived properties such as temperature,primary production, and their analysis in relation to fishery abundancedata for any study area in the combinedsystem. A further useful aspectof the integration is that it allows for the quantification, even within the EEZs of various countries, of the distribution of marine features (e.g. primary production, coral reef areas)so far not straightforwardly associatedwith different coastalstates. Applications to shelf,coral reef and oceanicfisheries, and to the mapping of marine biodiversity are briefly discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Fisheries Yields for Georges Bank
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Woods Hole Open Access Server Steele Gifford Collie Fish Res June 2011 Comparing species and ecosystem-based estimates of fisheries yields John Steele1, Dian Gifford2 and Jeremy Collie3 Abstract Three methods are described to estimate potential yields of commercial fish species: (i) single-species calculation of maximum sustainable yields, and two ecosystem-based methods derived from published results for (ii) energy flow and for (iii) community structure. The requirements imposed by food-web fluxes, and by patterns of relative abundance, provide constraints on individual species. These constraints are used to set limits to ecosystem-based yields (EBY); these limits, in turn, provide a comparison with the usual estimates of maximum sustainable yields (MSY). We use data on cod and haddock production from Georges Bank for the decade 1993-2002 to demonstrate these methods. We show that comparisons among the three approaches can be used to demonstrate that ecosystem based estimates of yields complement, rather than supersede, the single-species estimates. The former specify the significant changes required in the rest of the ecosystem to achieve a return to maximum sustainable levels for severely depleted commercial fish stocks. The overall conclusion is that MSY defines changes required in particular stocks, whereas EBY determines the changes required in the rest of the ecosystem to realize these yields. Species specific MSY only has meaning in the context of the prey, predators and competitors that surround it. 1John H Steele: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole MA 02543, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • A06 Gentry SSC Ewe Presentation October 2020
    South Atlantic Region EwE Ecosystem Model Lauren Gentry FWC – FWRI, St. Petersburg October 14, 2020 [email protected] 2020 - Model refinement to group together data-poor species (140 boxes, 700+ species) EwE in a Nutshell Ecopath – ecosystem structure and function as a snapshot in time • Basic input: diets, production and consumption rates, biomasses, landings, discards (alive), discard mortality rates • Mass-balanced model (mass in = mass out) • Predator’s consumption is prey mortality • Trophic groups are connected via diet matrix Starting point for simulations Ecosim – time dynamic simulations to model catch and biomass Input Time series (absolute biomass, relative biomass, landings, etc.) Forcing functions (Chlor. A time series) Steps Use systematic process to calculate vulnerabilities of prey to predators (lowest SS) Modify vulnerabilities/inputs to fit model predictions to time series of special interest Ecospace – ecosystem in space and time • Operates in a raster format • Applies Ecosim model to each cell • Biomass can move between cells in different time steps Diets April 2019 vs Oct 2020 April 2019 October 2020 ~70 diets for 60 species 250 diets for 235 species representing 40 groups representing 129 groups Species proxies for 30 0 Species proxies groups West Florida Shelf model West Florida Shelf model data for 50 groups data for 17 groups (inverts) Best guess data for 20 0 Best guess data groups Diets Primarily from SEAMAP, NOAA, and published literature *Also found single predation events in BBC videos, Okeanos livestreams,
    [Show full text]
  • Using Trophic Models to Assess the Impact of Fishing in the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea Abdelkrim Bentorcha, Didier Gascuel, Sylvie Guénette
    Using trophic models to assess the impact of fishing in the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea Abdelkrim Bentorcha, Didier Gascuel, Sylvie Guénette To cite this version: Abdelkrim Bentorcha, Didier Gascuel, Sylvie Guénette. Using trophic models to assess the impact of fishing in the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea. Aquatic Living Resources, EDP Sciences, 2017,30, pp.7. 10.1051/alr/2017006. hal-01561012 HAL Id: hal-01561012 https://hal-agrocampus-ouest.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01561012 Submitted on 25 Feb 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Aquat. Living Resour. 2017, 30, 7 Aquatic © EDP Sciences 2017 DOI: 10.1051/alr/2017006 Living Resources Available online at: www.alr-journal.org RESEARCH ARTICLE Using trophic models to assess the impact of fishing in the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea Abdelkrim Bentorcha1, Didier Gascuel1,* and Sylvie Guénette2 1 Université Bretagne Loire (UBL), Agrocampus Ouest, UMR985 Ecologie et santé des écosystèmes, 65 rue de Saint Brieuc, CS 84215, 35042 Rennes cedex, France 2 EcOceans, St Andrews, NB, Canada Received 21 July 2016 / Accepted 13 February 2017 Abstract – Using the Bay of Biscay and Celtic Sea area as a case study, we showed how stock-assessments and trophic models can be useful and complementary tools to quantify the fishing impacts on the whole food web and to draw related diagnoses at the scale of marine ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Role and Historical Trends of Large Pelagic Predators in a Subtropical Marine Ecosystem of the South Atlantic
    Rev Fish Biol Fisheries DOI 10.1007/s11160-017-9492-z RESEARCH PAPER Ecological role and historical trends of large pelagic predators in a subtropical marine ecosystem of the South Atlantic Hugo Bornatowski . Ronaldo Angelini . Marta Coll . Rodrigo R. P. Barreto . Alberto F. Amorim Received: 1 February 2017 / Accepted: 25 July 2017 Ó Springer International Publishing AG 2017 Abstract Large pelagic predators occupy high posi- then calibrated the baseline model using catch and tions in food webs and could control lower trophic fishing effort time series from 2001 to 2012. After- level species by direct and indirect ecological inter- wards, we simulated the impact of fishing effort actions. In this study we aimed to test the hypotheses: changes on species and assessed the ecological (1) pelagic predators are keystone species, and their impacts on the pelagic community from 2012 to removals could trigger impacts on the food chain; (2) 2025. Results showed that the model was well fitted to higher landings of pelagic predators could trigger landing data for the majority of groups. The pelagic fishing impacts with time leading to a drop in the mean predators species were classified as keystone species trophic level of catches; and (3) recovery in the pelagic impacting mainly on pelagic community. The ecosys- predators populations, especially for sharks, could be tem was resilient and fisheries seem sustainable at that achieved with fishing effort reduction. We performed time. However, the temporal simulation, from 2001 to a food web approach using an Ecopath with Ecosim 2012, revealed declines in the biomass of three sharks, model to represent the Southeastern and Southern tuna and billfish groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Long-Term Changes of Ecosystem Indexes in Tongoy Bay
    Ecological Indicators 69 (2016) 390–399 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Indicators jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind Assessment of long-term changes of ecosystem indexes in Tongoy Bay (SE Pacific coast): Based on trophic network analysis a,b,∗ a,c d e Jorge González , Marco Ortiz , Fabián Rodríguez-Zaragoza , Robert E. Ulanowicz a Laboratorio de Modelamiento de Sistemas Ecológicos Complejos (LAMSEC), Instituto Antofagasta, Universidad de Antofagasta, Chile b Programa de doctorado en Ciencias aplicadas mención Sistemas marinos costeros, Universidad de Antofagasta, Chile c Instituto de Ciencias naturales Alexander Humboldt, Universidad de Antofagasta, Chile d Laboratorio de Ecosistemas Marinos y Acuicultura (LEMA), Departamento de Ecología, CUCBA, Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico e Department of Zoology, University of Florida, 110 Bartram Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-8525, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Quantitative macroscopic’s indexes have been used to compare three trophic models of the exploited Received 28 July 2015 benthic ecosystem of Tongoy Bay. In this system the primary productivity and benthic invertebrates are Received in revised form 4 April 2016 more important in the cycling of biomass. The models were built with a similar number of compartments Accepted 7 April 2016 for the years 1992, 2002 and 2012, using Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE). Odum and Ulanowicz’s frameworks and ecological network analysis were then used to estimate the levels of maturity, growth and devel- Keywords: opment of the system. Likewise, “keystoneness” indexes – at each time – were also estimated for the Benthic communities models.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Modeling the Global Oceans with The
    CHAPTER 9 MODELING THE GLOBAL OCEANS WITH THE ECOPATH SOFTWARE SUITE: A BRIEF REVIEW AND APPLICATION EXAMPLE1 a,b c Mathieu Colléter, Audrey Valls, Villy Edwards 2010; Thessen and Patterson 2011). The c d,e b Christensen, Marta Coll, Didier Gascuel, open-access principle of sharing information b c Jérôme Guitton, Chiara Piroddi, Jeroen online for free has been increasingly applied c c Steenbeek, Joe Buszowski, and Daniel to publications, but much less to data, mainly a Pauly because of issues with recognition and sense a Sea Around Us, University of British of data ownership (Zeller et al. 2005; Vision Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 2010; Thessen and Patterson, 2011). Although b Université Européenne de Bretagne, incentives for digitization of nondigital mate- Agrocampus Ouest, Rennes, France rials have been growing, existing repositories c Fisheries Centre, University of British have been estimated to represent less than 1% Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada of the data in ecology (Reichman et al. 2011; d Institut de Recherche pour le Thessen and Patterson 2011). Developpement, Sète, France Gathering Information for and e Institut de Ciències del Mar (ICM-CSIC), from Ecopath with Ecosim Models Barcelona, Spain In aquatic ecology, the Ecopath with Ecosim The life sciences have reached a new era, that (EwE) modeling approach has been widely ap- of the “big new biology” (Thessen and Patter- plied to inform ecosystem-based management son 2011). Ecology is following a similar path (e.g., Jarre-Teichmann 1998; Christensen and and has turned into a data-intensive science Walters 2004, 2011; Plaganyi and Butterworth (Michener and Jones 2012).
    [Show full text]