Intraguild Predation Dynamics in a Lake Ecosystem Based on a Coupled Hydrodynamic-Ecological Model: The Example of Lake Kinneret (Israel)

The food web of Lake Kinneret contains intraguild predation (IGP). Predatory invertebrates and planktivorous fish both feed on herbivorous zooplankton, while the planktivorous fish also feed on the predatory invertebrates. In this study, a complex mechanistic hydrodynamic-ecological model, coupled to a bioenergetics-based fish population model (DYCD-FISH), was employed with the aim of revealing IGP dynamics. The results indicate that the predation pressure of predatory zooplankton on herbivorous zooplankton varies widely, depending on the season. At the time of its annual peak, it is 10–20 times higher than the fish predation pressure. When the number of fish was significantly higher, as occurs in the lake after atypical meteorological years, the effect was a shift from a bottom-up controlled ecosystem, to the top-down control of planktivorous fish and a significant reduction of predatory and herbivorous zooplankton biomass. Yet, seasonally, the decrease in predatory-zooplankton biomass was followed by a decrease in their predation pressure on herbivorous zooplankton, leading to an increase of herbivorous zooplankton biomass to an extent similar to the base level. The analysis demonstrates the emergence of non-equilibrium IGP dynamics due to intra-annual and inter-annual changes in the physico-chemical characteristics of the lake, and suggests that IGP dynamics should be considered in food web models in order to more accurately capture mass transfer and trophic interactions

A community-based framework for aquatic ecosystem models

Here, we communicate a point of departure in the development of aquatic ecosystem models, namely a new community-based framework, which supports an enhanced and transparent union between the collective expertise that exists in the communities of traditional ecologists and model developers. Through a literature survey, we document the growing importance of numerical aquatic ecosystem models while also noting the difficulties, up until now, of the aquatic scientific community to make significant advances in these models during the past two decades. Through a common forum for aquatic ecosystem modellers we aim to (i) advance collaboration within the aquatic ecosystem modelling community, (ii) enable increased use of models for research, policy and ecosystem-based management, (iii) facilitate a collective framework using common (standardised) code to ensure that model development is incremental, (iv) increase the transparency of model structure, assumptions and techniques, (v) achieve a greater understanding of aquatic ecosystem functioning, (vi) increase the reliability of predictions by aquatic ecosystem models, (vii) stimulate model inter-comparisons including differing model approaches, and (viii) avoid ‘re-inventing the wheel’, thus accelerating improvements to aquatic ecosystem models. We intend to achieve this as a community that fosters interactions amongst ecologists and model developers. Further, we outline scientific topics recently articulated by the scientific community, which lend themselves well to being addressed by integrative modelling approaches and serve to motivate the progress and implementation of an open source model framework

Challenges and opportunities for integrating lake ecosystem modelling approaches

A large number and wide variety of lake ecosystem models have been developed and published during the past four decades. We identify two challenges for making further progress in this field. One such challenge is to avoid developing more models largely following the concept of others (‘reinventing the wheel’). The other challenge is to avoid focusing on only one type of model, while ignoring new and diverse approaches that have become available (‘having tunnel vision’). In this paper, we aim at improving the awareness of existing models and knowledge of concurrent approaches in lake ecosystem modelling, without covering all possible model tools and avenues. First, we present a broad variety of modelling approaches. To illustrate these approaches, we give brief descriptions of rather arbitrarily selected sets of specific models. We deal with static models (steady state and regression models), complex dynamic models (CAEDYM, CE-QUAL-W2, Delft 3D-ECO, LakeMab, LakeWeb, MyLake, PCLake, PROTECH, SALMO), structurally dynamic models and minimal dynamic models. We also discuss a group of approaches that could all be classified as individual based: super-individual models (Piscator, Charisma), physiologically structured models, stage-structured models and trait-based models. We briefly mention genetic algorithms, neural networks, Kalman filters and fuzzy logic. Thereafter, we zoom in, as an in-depth example, on the multi-decadal development and application of the lake ecosystem model PCLake and related models (PCLake Metamodel, Lake Shira Model, IPH-TRIM3D-PCLake). In the discussion, we argue that while the historical development of each approach and model is understandable given its ‘leading principle’, there are many opportunities for combining approaches. We take the point of view that a single ‘right’ approach does not exist and should not be strived for. Instead, multiple modelling approaches, applied concurrently to a given problem, can help develop an integrative view on the functioning of lake ecosystems. We end with a set of specific recommendations that may be of help in the further development of lake ecosystem model

A multi-lake comparative analysis of the General Lake Model (GLM): stress-testing across a global observatory network

The modelling community has identified challenges for the integration and assessment of lake models due to the diversity of modelling approaches and lakes. In this study, we develop and assess a one-dimensional lake model and apply it to 32 lakes from a global observatory network. The data set included lakes over broad ranges in latitude, climatic zones, size, residence time, mixing regime and trophic level. Model performance was evaluated using several error assessment metrics, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted for nine parameters that governed the surface heat exchange and mixing efficiency. There was low correlation between input data uncertainty and model performance and predictions of temperature were less sensitive to model parameters than prediction of thermocline depth and Schmidt stability. The study provides guidance to where the general model approach and associated assumptions work, and cases where adjustments to model parameterisations and/or structure are required