Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Exploring, Exploiting and Evolving Diversity of Aquatic Ecosystem Models: a Community Perspective

  Here, we present a community perspective on how to explore, exploit and evolve the diversity in aquatic ecosystem models. These models play an important role in understanding the functioning of aquatic ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Exploring, Exploiting and Evolving Diversity of Aquatic Ecosystem Models: a Community Perspective Author: Janssen, Annette B.G., Arhonditsis, George B., Beusen, Arthur, Bolding, Karsten, Bruce, Louise, Bruggeman, Jorn, Couture, Raoul-Marie, Downing, Andrea S., Elliott, J. Alex, Frassl, Marieke A., Gal, Gideon, Gerla, Daan J., Hipsey, Matthew R., Hu, Fenjuan, Ives, Stephen C., Janse, Jan H., Jeppesen, Erik, Jöhnk, Klaus D., Kneis, David, Kong, Xiangzhen, Kuiper, Jan J., Lehmann, Moritz K., Lemmen, Carsten, Özkundakci, Deniz, Petzoldt, Thomas, Rinke, Karsten, Robson, Barbara J., Sachse, René, Schep, Sebastiaan A., Schmid, Martin, Scholten, Huub, Teurlincx, Sven, Trolle, Dennis, Troost, Tineke A., Van Dam, Anne A., Van Gerven, Luuk P.A., Weijerman, Mariska, Wells, Scott A., Mooij, Wolf M. Year: 2015 Here, we present a community perspective on how to explore, exploit and evolve the diversity in aquatic ecosystem models. These models play an important role in understanding the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, filling in observation gaps and developing effective strategies for water quality management. In this spirit, numerous models have been developed since the 1970s. We set off to explore model diversity by making an inventory among 42 aquatic ecosystem modellers, by categorizing the resulting set of models and by analysing them for diversity. We then focus on how to exploit model diversity by comparing and combining different aspects of existing models. Finally, we discuss how model diversity came about in the past and could evolve in the future. Throughout our study, we use analogies from biodiversity research to analyse and interpret model diversity. We recommend to make models publicly available through open-source policies, to standardize documentation and technical implementation of models, and to compare models through ensemble modelling and interdisciplinary approaches. We end with our perspective on how the field of aquatic ecosystem modelling might develop in the next 5–10 years. To strive for clarity and to improve readability for non-modellers, we include a glossary. Title: Exploring, Exploiting and Evolving Diversity of Aquatic Ecosystem Models: a Community Perspective Author: Janssen, Annette B.G., Arhonditsis, George B., Beusen, Arthur, Bolding, Karsten, Bruce, Louise, Bruggeman, Jorn, Couture, Raoul-Marie, Downing, Andrea S., Elliott, J. Alex, Frassl, Marieke A., Gal, Gideon, Gerla, Daan J., Hipsey, Matthew R., Hu, Fenjuan, Ives, Stephen C., Janse, Jan H., Jeppesen, Erik, Jöhnk, Klaus D., Kneis, David, Kong, Xiangzhen, Kuiper, Jan J., Lehmann, Moritz K., Lemmen, Carsten, Özkundakci, Deniz, Petzoldt, Thomas, Rinke, Karsten, Robson, Barbara J., Sachse, René, Schep, Sebastiaan A., Schmid, Martin, Scholten, Huub, Teurlincx, Sven, Trolle, Dennis, Troost, Tineke A., Van Dam, Anne A., Van Gerven, Luuk P.A., Weijerman, Mariska, Wells, Scott A., Mooij, Wolf M. Year: 2015 Here, we present a community perspective on how to explore, exploit and evolve the diversity in aquatic ecosystem models. These models play an important role in understanding the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, filling in observation gaps and developing effective strategies for water quality management. In this spirit, numerous models have been developed since the 1970s. We set off to explore model diversity by making an inventory among 42 aquatic ecosystem modellers, by categorizing the resulting set of models and by analysing them for diversity. We then focus on how to exploit model diversity by comparing and combining different aspects of existing models. Finally, we discuss how model diversity came about in the past and could evolve in the future. Throughout our study, we use analogies from biodiversity research to analyse and interpret model diversity. We recommend to make models publicly available through open-source policies, to standardize documentation and technical implementation of models, and to compare models through ensemble modelling and interdisciplinary approaches. We end with our perspective on how the field of aquatic ecosystem modelling might develop in the next 5–10 years. To strive for clarity and to improve readability for non-modellers, we include a glossary. Close

• 2. [Article] Increased Harbor Porpoise Mortality in the Pacific Northwest, USA: Understanding When Higher Levels May be Normal

  In 2006, a marked increase in harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena strandings were reported in the Pacific Northwest of the USA, resulting in the declaration of an unusual mortality event (UME) for Washington ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Increased Harbor Porpoise Mortality in the Pacific Northwest, USA: Understanding When Higher Levels May be Normal Author: Higgins, Jessica L., Raverty, Stephen A., Norman, Stephanie A., Calambokidis, John, Gaydos, Joseph K., Duffield, Deborah A., Lambourn, Dyanna M., Rice, James M., Hanson, Brad, Wilkinson, Kristin, Jeffries, Steven J., Norberg, Brent, Barre, Lynne Year: 2015 In 2006, a marked increase in harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena strandings were reported in the Pacific Northwest of the USA, resulting in the declaration of an unusual mortality event (UME) for Washington and Oregon to facilitate investigation into potential causes. The UME was in place during all of 2006 and 2007, and a total of 114 porpoises stranded during this period. Responders examined 95 porpoises; of these, detailed necropsies were conducted on 75 animals. Here we review the findings related to this event and how these compared to the years immediately before and after the UME. Relatively equal numbers among sexes and age classes were represented, and mortalities were attributed to a variety of specific causes, most of which were categorized as trauma or infectious disease. Continued monitoring of strandings during 4 yr following the UME showed no decrease in occurrence. The lack of a single major cause of mortality or evidence of a significant change or event, combined with high levels of strandings over several post- UME years, demonstrated that this was not an actual mortality event but was likely the result of a combination of factors, including: (1) a growing population of harbor porpoises; (2) expansion of harbor porpoises into previously sparsely populated areas in Washington’s inland waters; and (3) a more well established stranding network that resulted in better reporting and response. This finding would not have been possible without the integrated response and investigation undertaken by the stranding network. Title: Increased Harbor Porpoise Mortality in the Pacific Northwest, USA: Understanding When Higher Levels May be Normal Author: Higgins, Jessica L., Raverty, Stephen A., Norman, Stephanie A., Calambokidis, John, Gaydos, Joseph K., Duffield, Deborah A., Lambourn, Dyanna M., Rice, James M., Hanson, Brad, Wilkinson, Kristin, Jeffries, Steven J., Norberg, Brent, Barre, Lynne Year: 2015 In 2006, a marked increase in harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena strandings were reported in the Pacific Northwest of the USA, resulting in the declaration of an unusual mortality event (UME) for Washington and Oregon to facilitate investigation into potential causes. The UME was in place during all of 2006 and 2007, and a total of 114 porpoises stranded during this period. Responders examined 95 porpoises; of these, detailed necropsies were conducted on 75 animals. Here we review the findings related to this event and how these compared to the years immediately before and after the UME. Relatively equal numbers among sexes and age classes were represented, and mortalities were attributed to a variety of specific causes, most of which were categorized as trauma or infectious disease. Continued monitoring of strandings during 4 yr following the UME showed no decrease in occurrence. The lack of a single major cause of mortality or evidence of a significant change or event, combined with high levels of strandings over several post- UME years, demonstrated that this was not an actual mortality event but was likely the result of a combination of factors, including: (1) a growing population of harbor porpoises; (2) expansion of harbor porpoises into previously sparsely populated areas in Washington’s inland waters; and (3) a more well established stranding network that resulted in better reporting and response. This finding would not have been possible without the integrated response and investigation undertaken by the stranding network. Close