Effects of spatial resolution on the performance and interpretation of marine ecosystem models

Abstract Simplifying models by using coarse spatial resolution can be desirable because it reduces structural, computational and data requirements and can make model interpretation easier. However, spatially simplified models may be incapable of reproducing important dynamics observed in nature. To consider this issue the effect of spatial structure on the output of two trophic ecosystem models (Bay Model 2 (BM2) and the Integrated Generic Bay Ecosystem Model (IGBEM)) was considered using a theoretical approach known as ‘deep–shallow model’ comparison. This involved comparing simulation runs of 1-, 3-, and 8-box versions of the ecosystem models (the ‘shallow’ models) with a 59-box version that was used to represent the real world (the ‘deep’ model). The results indicate that simpler spatial configurations (geometries) can result in less short-term variation, changes in predicted spatial patterns and trophic self-simplification (loss of functional groups), as the opportunity for spatial refuges is reduced. More importantly, models with very little spatial resolution (i.e. 1- and 3-box models) do not capture the effects of changes in nutrient loads or fishing pressure as well as more complex models. The results for the 8-box models used here indicate that some simplification is acceptable, as overall model performance is not overwhelmed by the impacts of trophic self-simplification and a loss of spatial heterogeneity. However, using models with very little spatial resolution (i.e. 1- and 3-box models) can be misleading, as the impacts on system dynamics of the reduced heterogeneity increase.

[1]  J. Wiens Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[2]  John Parslow,et al.  Modelling of nutrient impacts in Port Phillip Bay : a semi-enclosed marine Australian ecosystem , 1999 .

[3]  S. Levin THE PROBLEM OF PATTERN AND SCALE IN ECOLOGY , 1992 .

[4]  C. Johnson,et al.  Selection for restraint in competitive ability in spatial competition systems , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  W. Gurney,et al.  A simple mechanism for population cycles , 1976, Nature.

[6]  Masao Ukita,et al.  A shallow-sea ecological model using an object-oriented programming language , 1991 .

[7]  P. Ruardij,et al.  The European regional seas ecosystem model, a complex marine ecosystem model , 1995 .

[8]  J. G. Baretta-Bekker,et al.  The primary production module in the marine ecosystem model ERSEM II, with emphasis on the light forcing , 1997 .

[9]  Robert M. May,et al.  Species coexistence and self-organizing spatial dynamics , 1994, Nature.

[10]  S. Levin The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[11]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Theory of Island Biogeography , 1969 .

[12]  W. Gurney,et al.  Predator-prey fluctuations in patchy environments , 1978 .

[13]  R. Nisbet,et al.  POPULATION DYNAMICS AND SPATIAL SCALE: EFFECTS OF SYSTEM SIZE ON POPULATION PERSISTENCE , 1999 .

[14]  N. Klomp,et al.  Frontiers in ecology : building the links , 1997 .

[15]  G. Polis,et al.  Food Web Complexity and Community Dynamics , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[16]  J. G. Skellam Random dispersal in theoretical populations , 1951, Biometrika.

[17]  L. Nilsson,et al.  The evolution of flowers with deep corolla tubes , 1988, Nature.

[18]  Nicholas Bax,et al.  Multispecies analysis in Balsfjord, northern Norway: solution and sensitivity analysis of a simple ecosystem model , 1990 .

[19]  P. Chesson General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. , 2000, Theoretical population biology.

[20]  C. Huffaker Experimental studies on predation : dispersion factors and predator-prey oscillations , 1958 .

[21]  R. May Food webs. , 1983, Science.

[22]  John Parslow,et al.  Biogeochemical marine ecosystem models II: the effect of physiological detail on model performance , 2004 .

[23]  S. J. Walker Coupled hydrodynamic and transport models of Port Phillip Bay, a semi-enclosed bay in south-eastern Australia , 1999 .

[24]  Elizabeth A. Fulton,et al.  The effects of model structure and complexity on the behaviour and performance of marine ecosystem models , 2001 .

[25]  Günther Radach,et al.  Ecological modelling of the North Sea , 1991 .

[26]  Alexander G. Murray,et al.  The use of simple models in the design and calibration of a dynamic 2D model of a semi-enclosed Australian bay , 2001 .

[27]  Charles M. Newman,et al.  Dynamic Basis of Food Web Organization , 1988 .

[28]  J. Connell The Influence of Interspecific Competition and Other Factors on the Distribution of the Barnacle Chthamalus Stellatus , 1961 .

[29]  Graeme E. Batley,et al.  Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study Final Report , 1996 .

[30]  Craig R. Johnson Self-organizing in spatial competition systems , 1997 .

[31]  Salim Djenidi,et al.  Coupled physical, chemical and biological models , 1998 .

[32]  Timothy H. Keitt Population dynamics in ecological space and time , 1997, Complex..

[33]  Elizabeth A. Fulton,et al.  Biogeochemical marine ecosystem models I: IGBEM—a model of marine bay ecosystems , 2004 .

[34]  S. Jørgensen Models in Ecology , 1975 .

[35]  J. Roughgarden,et al.  Recruitment dynamics in complex life cycles. , 1988, Science.

[36]  Mathew A. Leibold,et al.  A Graphical Model of Keystone Predators in Food Webs: Trophic Regulation of Abundance, Incidence, and Diversity Patterns in Communities , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[37]  T. Keitt Stability and Complexity on a Lattice: Coexistence of Species in an Individual-Based Food Web Model , 1997 .

[38]  R. Paine Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[39]  R. May,et al.  Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems , 1976, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.