Zooplankton Mortality and the Dynamical Behaviour of Plankton Population Models

Edwards, Andrew M.; Brindley, J.

doi:10.1006/bulm.1998.0082

Cited by 210 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The maximum phytoplankton growth rate approximately belongs to the range 0.1< 0 r < 4 1/day (Edwards and Brindley, 1999). The system's carrying capacity K is rather hard to be estimated.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscript 11mentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergence of Holling type III zooplankton functional response: Bringing together field evidence and mathematical modelling

Морозов

2010

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food-web population models are rather sensitive to parameterization of functional response in predation terms. Theoretical studies would predict enhancing of ecosystems' stability for a functional response of sigmoid type (Holling type III). The choice of a correct type of response is especially important for modelling outcome of grazing control of algal blooms by zooplankton in nutrient-rich ecosystems. Extensive experiments on zooplankton feeding in laboratories show non-sigmoid nature of response for most herbivorous zooplankton species.As a consequence, there is a strong opinion in the literature that the implementation of Holling III type grazing in plankton models is biologically meaningless. I argue, however, that such an 'evident' claim might be wrong and sigmoid functional responses in real plankton communities would emerge more often than it was suggested earlier. Especially, this concerns plankton models without vertical resolution, which ignore heterogeneity in species vertical distribution. By having conducted extensive literature search of data on zooplankton feeding in situ, I show that vertical heterogeneity in food distribution as well as active food searching behaviour of zooplankton can modify the type of functional response. A c c e p t e d m a n u s c r i p t 2In particular, the rate of food intake by the whole zooplankton population in the column, as a function of total amount of food, often exhibits a sigmoid behaviour, instead of a nonsigmoid one postulated previously based upon laboratory experiments. This conceptual discrepancy is due to the ability of zooplankton to feed mostly in layers with high algal density. I propose a generic model explaining the observed alteration of type between the overall and the local functional responses. I show that emergence of Holling type III in plankton systems is due to mechanisms different from those well known in the ecological literature (e.g. food search learning, existence of alternative food, refuge for prey).

show abstract

“…The maximum phytoplankton growth rate approximately belongs to the range 0.1< 0 r < 4 1/day (Edwards and Brindley, 1999). The system's carrying capacity K is rather hard to be estimated.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscript 11mentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergence of Holling type III zooplankton functional response: Bringing together field evidence and mathematical modelling

Морозов

2010

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several researchers have considered how the form of parts of models of marine systems (such as grazing and mortality) affect their dynamics (Steele & Henderson 1992, Edwards & Brindley 1999, Murray & Parslow 1999b, Gao et al 2000, but only a few have considered how the structure of entire models influences their behaviour (Hoch & Garreau 1998, Nihoul 1998a, Nihoul & Djenidi 1998, Yool 1998, Tett & Wilson 2000, Murray 2001. The work of Hoch & Garreau (1998) and Nihoul's body of research (Nihoul 1998a,b, Nihoul & Delhex 1998, Nihoul & Djenidi 1998, although primarily concerned with complexity from a hydrodynamic standpoint, should be of interest to all ecosystem modellers.…”

Section: Marine Ecosystem Models: 'Deep-shallow' Model Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The other main aspect of model formulation that has received explicit attention is the form of model closure (Steele & Henderson 1992, Edwards & Brindley 1999, Murray & Parslow 1999b. Model closure refers to the form of the mortality term applied to the topmost group(s) explicitly included in the model.…”

Section: Model Closurementioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of complexity on marine ecosystem models

Fulton¹,

Smith²,

Johnson³

2003

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

283

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem rather than species management has become an explicit part of policies that feature in international treaties and national legislation. Many of the tools that will be needed to fulfil the requirements of these policies are still in an early stage of development. One such tool is trophic ecosystem modelling. These models have been put forward to aid system-level understanding and provide insight into the potential impacts of human activities. Despite this, there are many gaps in knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. In particular, little is known about the effect of the level of detail in a model on its performance. There has been some consideration of the effects of model formulation, as well as the effects of the physical, biological and chemical scope of multispecies and ecosystem models on their performance. A review of existing research indicates that there is a humped relationship between model detail and performance for these models, and that there are some guiding principles to consider during model development. This review gives some insight into which model structures and assumptions are likely to aid understanding and management, and which may be unnecessary. Further, it provides some understanding of whether some models can capture properties of real systems that other models cannot. The main recommendation is that the use of a single 'ultimate' ecosystem model is ill-advised, while the comparative and confirmatory use of multiple 'minimum-realistic' models is strongly recommended.

show abstract

“…Ryabchenko et al, 1997;Edwards and Brindley, 1999), which would result in oscillations of μ i . Our preliminary analysis, however,…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The system parameters are considered to vary within the following ranges found in the literature: 0.05 < i r < 2 1/day (Edwards and Brindley, 2001); 50<K<100 ȝg C l -1 (Franks, 2001) (Hansen et al, 1997;Edwards and Brindley, 1999). Note that the…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a correct description of zooplankton feeding in models: Taking into account food-mediated unsynchronized vertical migration

Морозов

Арашкевич

2010

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex nature of foraging behaviour of zooplankton makes it difficult to describe adequately zooplankton grazing in models with vertical space. In mean-field models (based on systems of PDEs or coupled ODEs), zooplankton feeding at a given depth is normally computed as the product of the local functional response and the zooplankton density at this depth. Such simplification is often at odds with field observations which show the absence of clear relationship between intake rates of organisms and the ambient food density. The observed discrepancy is generic and is often caused by fast non-synchronous vertical migration of organisms with different nutrition status. In this paper, we suggest a simple way of incorporating unsynchronized short-term vertical migration of zooplankton into the mean-field modelling framework. We compute grazing of zooplankton in each layer depending on feeding activity of organisms in the layer. We take into account grazing impact of animals which are in the active phase of foraging cycle at the given moment of time but neglect the impact of animals which are in the non-active phase of the cycle (e.g. digesting food). Unsynchronized vertical migration determines the vertical distribution of actively feeding animals in layers depending on vertical distribution of food. In this paper, we compare two generic plankton models: (i) a model based on 'classical' grazing approach and (ii) a model incorporating food-mediated unsynchronized vertical migration of zooplankton. We show that including unsynchronized food-mediated migration would make the behaviour of a plankton model more realistic. This would imply a significant enhancement of ecosystem's stability and some additional mechanisms of regulation of algal blooms. In the system with food-mediated unsynchronized vertical migration, the control of phytoplankton by herbivorous becomes possible even for very large concentrations of nutrients in the water (formally, when the system's carrying capacity tends to infinity).

show abstract

Zooplankton Mortality and the Dynamical Behaviour of Plankton Population Models

Cited by 210 publications

References 39 publications

Emergence of Holling type III zooplankton functional response: Bringing together field evidence and mathematical modelling

Emergence of Holling type III zooplankton functional response: Bringing together field evidence and mathematical modelling

Effect of complexity on marine ecosystem models

Towards a correct description of zooplankton feeding in models: Taking into account food-mediated unsynchronized vertical migration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About