Adding rigor to ecological network models by evaluating a set of pre-balance diagnostics: A plea for PREBAL

The widespread use of ecological network models (e.g., Ecopath, Econetwrk, and related energy budget models) has been laudable for several reasons, chief of which is providing an easy-to-use set of modeling tools that can present an ecosystem context for improved understanding and management of living marine resources (LMR). Yet the ease-of-use of these models has led to two challenges. First, the veritable explosion of the use and application of these network models has resulted in recognition that the content and use of such models has spanned a range of quality. Second, as these models and their application have become more widespread, they are increasingly being used in a LMR management context. Thus review panels and other evaluators of these models would benefit from a set of rigorous and standard criteria from which the basis for all network models and related applications for any given system (i.e., the initial, static energy budget) can be evaluated. To this end, as one suggestion for improving network models in general, here I propose a series of pre-balance (PREBAL) diagnostics. These PREBAL diagnostics can be done, now, in simple spreadsheets before any balancing or tuning is executed. Examples of these PREBAL diagnostics include biomasses, biomass ratios, vital rates, vital rate ratios, total production, and total removals (and slopes thereof) across the taxa and trophic levels in any given energy budget. I assert that there are some general ecological and fishery principles that can be used in conjunction with PREBAL diagnostics to identify issues of model structure and data quality before balancing and dynamic applications are executed. I humbly present this PREBAL information as a simple yet general approach that could be easily implemented, could be considered for further incorporation into these model packages, and as such would ultimately result in a straightforward way to evaluate (and perhaps identify areas for improving) initial conditions in food web modeling efforts.

[1]  L. Slobodkin Energy in Animal Ecology , 1962 .

[2]  Robert E. Ulanowicz,et al.  Quantitative methods for ecological network analysi , 2004, Comput. Biol. Chem..

[3]  H. Odum Efficiencies, Size of Organisms, and Community Structure , 1956 .

[4]  John H. Steele,et al.  A comparison of terrestrial and marine ecological systems , 1985, Nature.

[5]  M. Graham The fish gate , 1943 .

[6]  Tim D. Smith Scaling Fisheries: The Science of Measuring the Effects of Fishing, 1855-1955 , 1994, Polar Record.

[7]  S. Jennings,et al.  Linking size-based and trophic analyses of benthic community structure , 2002 .

[8]  G. Winberg,et al.  Rate of Metabolism and Food Requirements of Fishes , 1962 .

[9]  Rodrigo H. Bustamante,et al.  Maintenance of an Exceptional Intertidal Grazer Biomass in South Africa: Subsidy by Subtidal Kelps , 1995 .

[10]  G. Bianchi,et al.  The ecosystem approach to fisheries , 2008 .

[11]  Robert E. Ulanowicz,et al.  A package for the analysis of ecosystem flow networks , 1991 .

[12]  R. W. Sheldon,et al.  The Size Distribution of Particles in the OCEAN1 , 1972 .

[13]  Robert E. Ulanowicz,et al.  Aquatic food webs : an ecosystem approach , 2005 .

[14]  R. Christian,et al.  Uncertainty and the Use of Network Analysis for Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management , 2006 .

[15]  Daniel Pauly,et al.  Food consumption by tropical and temperate fish populations: some generalizations , 2006 .

[16]  Villy Christensen,et al.  Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems , 1993 .

[17]  Marta Coll,et al.  Novel index for quantification of ecosystem effects of fishing as removal of secondary production , 2008 .

[18]  D. Pauly,et al.  Primary production required to sustain global fisheries , 1995, Nature.

[19]  Jason S. Link,et al.  Does food web theory work for marine ecosystems , 2002 .

[20]  R. Margalef,et al.  On Certain Unifying Principles in Ecology , 1963, The American Naturalist.

[21]  J. Link,et al.  Food-web theory in marine ecosystems , 2005 .

[22]  S. Fromm,et al.  Documentation for the Energy Modeling and Analysis eXercise (EMAX) , 2006 .

[23]  R. Law,et al.  How does abundance scale with body size in coupled size-structured food webs? , 2009, The Journal of animal ecology.

[24]  Nathaniel K. Newlands,et al.  Automated parameter optimization for Ecopath ecosystem models , 2004 .

[25]  Eugene P. Odum,et al.  Trends Expected in Stressed Ecosystems , 1985 .

[26]  T. Brey,et al.  Population dynamics of marine benthic invertebrates in Antarctic and subantarctic environments: are there unique adaptations? , 1993, Antarctic Science.

[27]  Raymond L. Lindeman The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology , 1942 .

[28]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries , 2000 .

[29]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. , 2006, Ecology.

[30]  Johanna J. Heymans,et al.  Network analysis of the northern Benguela ecosystem by means of netwrk and ecopath , 2000 .

[31]  E. Fulton,et al.  Effect of complexity on marine ecosystem models , 2003 .

[32]  André E. Punt,et al.  Which ecological indicators can robustly detect effects of fishing , 2005 .

[33]  R. Peters The Ecological Implications of Body Size , 1983 .

[34]  Roger I. C. Hansell,et al.  Measuring perturbation in a complicated, thermodynamic world , 1999 .

[35]  S. Jennings,et al.  Life–history correlates of maximum population growth rates in marine fishes , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  S. Jennings,et al.  Weak cross‐species relationships between body size and trophic level belie powerful size‐based trophic structuring in fish communities , 2001 .

[37]  J. Link,et al.  The Northeast U.S. continental shelf Energy Modeling and Analysis exercise (EMAX): Ecological network model development and basic ecosystem metrics , 2008 .

[38]  P. Auster Compensation and recovery of feeding guilds in a northwest Atlantic shelf fish community , 2009 .

[39]  D. Pauly On the interrelationships between natural mortality, growth parameters, and mean environmental temperature in 175 fish stocks , 1980 .

[40]  Éva E Plagányi,et al.  Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries , 2007 .

[41]  Lorne A. Greig,et al.  Percid Habitat: The River Analogy , 1977 .

[42]  Jason S. Link,et al.  Response of balanced network models to large-scale perturbation: Implications for evaluating the role of small pelagics in the Gulf of Maine , 2009 .

[43]  T. Platt,et al.  Oceanic Primary Production: Estimation by Remote Sensing at Local and Regional Scales , 1988, Science.

[44]  Stefano Allesina,et al.  Steady state of ecosystem flow networks: a comparison between balancing procedures , 2003 .

[45]  S. Jennings,et al.  Abundance-body mass relationships in size-structured food webs , 2003 .

[46]  Structure of the Body-Size Spectrum of the Biomass in Aquatic Ecosystems: A Consequence of Allometry in Predator–Prey Interactions , 1993 .

[47]  C. Walters,et al.  Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance assessments , 1997, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[48]  J. Link Translating ecosystem indicators into decision criteria , 2005 .