Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T17:01:48.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Linking population, community and ecosystem ecology within mainstream ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Andy Fenton  and
Matthew Spencer
Edited by
David G. Raffaelli  and
Christopher L. J. Frid
Andy Fenton
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool
Matthew Spencer
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool
David G. Raffaelli
Affiliation:
University of York
Christopher L. J. Frid
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Queensland
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Charles Darwin's tangled bank provides one of the best-known early descriptions of an ecosystem:

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner…

This description highlights much of the complexity of ecosystems, comprising various biotic components (plants, vertebrates and invertebrates), abiotic factors (soil) and environmental conditions (humidity). Even though this list comprises only a fraction of the likely diversity within the ecosystem, and Darwin has combined many individual species into single groups (plants, birds, insects), the stated inter-dependencies emphasise the large number of potential direct and indirect interactions that may occur among the various components, and between them and the environment.

Understanding the functioning of ecosystems, determining the factors underlying their structure and predicting their responses to perturbations are major challenges that have formed the lifeblood of population, community and ecosystem ecology for decades. Given the daunting task of addressing these issues empirically, mathematical models have played a vital role in this research. By simplifying the complexity of an ecosystem, formalising hypotheses and often producing testable predictions, mathematical models can provide invaluable insights into the processes shaping ecosystems and, from an applied perspective, inform the development of management policies (e.g. species conservation, land management, harvesting regimes).

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecosystem Ecology
A New Synthesis
 , pp. 19 - 39
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, P. 1996. Dynamics and interactions in food webs with adaptive foragers. In: Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics (Ed. by Polis, G. and Winemiller, K. O.), pp. 113–21: Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
Allen, J. I., Blackford, J. C. and Radford, P. J. 1998. An 1-D vertically resolved modelling study of the ecosystem dynamics of the middle and southern Adriatic Sea. Journal of Marine Systems, 18, 265–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. I., Somerfield, P. J. and Siddorn, J. 2002. Primary and bacterial production in the Mediterranean Sea: a modelling study. Journal of Marine Systems, 33, 473–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baretta, J. W., Ebenhoh, W. and Ruardij, P. 1995. The European Regional Seas Ecosystem Model, a complex marine ecosystem model. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 33, 233–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barettabekker, J. G., Baretta, J. W. and Rasmussen, E. K. 1995. The microbial food-web in the European Regional Seas Ecosystem Model. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 33, 363–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, E. A., Case, T. J. and Gilpin, M. E. 1984. Perturbation experiments in community ecology: theory and practice. Ecology, 65, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlow, E. L., Neutel, A. M., Cohen, J. E., Ruiter, P. C., Ebenman, B., Emmerson, M., Fox, J. W., Jansen, V. A. A., Jones, J. I., Kokkoris, G. D., Logofet, D. O., McKane, A. J., Montoya, J. M. and Petchey, O. 2004. Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities. Journal of Animal Ecology, 73, 585–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, P. J. and Doksum, K. A. 2001. Mathematical statistics, Volume 1: Basic ideas and selected topics. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 2nd Edition.Google Scholar
Blackford, J. C., Allen, J. I. and Gilbert, F. J. 2004. Ecosystem dynamics at six contrasting sites: a generic modelling study. Journal of Marine Systems, 52, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackford, J. C. and Burkill, P. H. 2002. Planktonic community structure and carbon cycling in the Arabian Sea as a result of monsoonal forcing: the application of a generic model. Journal of Marine Systems, 36, 239–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozdogan, H. 1987. Model Selection and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, B. W., O'Grady, J. J., Chapman, A. P., Burgman, M. A., Akcakaya, H. R. and Frankham, R. 2000. Predictive accuracy of population viability analysis in conservation biology. Nature, 404, 385–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckland, S. T., Newman, K. B., Thomas, L. and Koesters, N. B. 2004. State-space models for the dynamics of wild animal populations. Ecological Modelling, 171, 157–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, H. 2001. Matrix population models: Construction, analysis and interpretation. Sinauer Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. 2nd Edition.Google Scholar
Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. 1992. ECOPATH II: a software for balancing steady state ecosystem models and calculating network characteristics. Ecological Modelling, 61, 169–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, V. and Walters, C. J. 2004. ECOPATH with ECOSIM: methods, capabilities and limitations. Ecological Modelling, 172, 109–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder, A. A., Smol, J. P., Dalrymple, R., Gilbert, R., Mathers, A. and Price, J. 1996. Rates of natural and anthropogenic change in shoreline habitats in the Kingston Basin, Lake Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, 121–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. J., Jenkinson, L. S., Lawton, J. H., Shorrocks, B. and Wood, S. 1998. Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature, 391, 783–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiter, P. C., Neutel, A. M. and Moore, J. C. 1995. Energetics, patterns of interaction strengths, and stability in real ecosystems. Science, 269, 1257–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeAngelis, D. L. 1992. Dynamics of nutrient cycling and foodwebs. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, S. and Cabido, M. 1997. Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change. Journal of Vegetation Science, 8, 463–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S. and Tilman, D. 2006. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. Plos Biology, 4, 1300–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffy, J. E. 2002. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection. Oikos, 99, 201–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebenman, B. and Jonsson, T. 2005. Using community viability analysis to identify fragile systems and keystone species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 568–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elton, C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen and Co., London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 2001. Taking variation of evolutionary rates between sites into account in inferring phylogenies. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 53, 447–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frederiksen, M., Wanless, S., Rothery, P. and Wilson, L. J. 2004. The role of industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 1129–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, E. A., Smith, A. D. M. and Johnson, C. R. 2003. Effect of complexity on marine ecosystem models. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 253, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, E. A. 2004. Biogeochemical marine ecosystem models I: IGBEM – a model of marine bay ecosystems. Ecological Modelling, 174, 267–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haputhantri, S. S. K., Villanueva, M. C. S. and Moreau, J. 2008. Trophic interactions in the coastal ecosystem of Sri Lanka: An ECOPATH preliminary approach. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 76, 304–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W. 1995. Comparing predator-prey models to Luckinbill's experiment with Didinium and Paramecium. Ecology, 76, 357–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, A. C. 1989. Forecasting, structural time series models and the Kalman filter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hawkins, C. P. and MacMahon, J. A. 1989. Guilds: the multiple meanings of a concept. Annual Review of Entomology, 34, 423–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heymans, J. J. and Baird, D. 2000. Network analysis of the northern Benguela ecosystem by means of NETWRK and ECOPATH. Ecological Modelling, 131, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higham, D. J. 2001. An algorithmic introduction to numerical simulation of stochastic differential equations. Siam Review, 43, 525–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Jansen, V. A. A. and Kokkoris, G. D. 2003. Complexity and stability revisited. Ecology Letters, 6, 498–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffree, C. E. and Jeffree, E. P. 1996. Redistribution of the potential geographical ranges of Mistletoe and Colorado Beetle in Europe in response to the temperature component of climate change. Functional Ecology, 10, 562–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. G. and Lawton, J. H. 1995. Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, B. E., Briggs, C. J., Murdoch, W. W., Turchin, P., Ellner, S. P., McCauley, E., Nisbet, R. M. and Wood, S. N. 1999. Why do populations cycle? A synthesis of statistical and mechanistic modeling approaches. Ecology, 80, 1789–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S. A., Grenfell, B., Hastings, A. and Perelson, A. S. 1997. Mathematical and computational challenges in population biology and ecosystems science. Science, 275, 334–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Livingston, P. A. and Jurado-Molina, J. 2000. A multispecies virtual population analysis of the eastern Bering Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 294–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loreau, M. 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos, 91, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, D. and Walters, C. J. 1981. Measurement errors and uncertainty in parameter estimates for stock and recruitment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38, 711–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. 1955. Fluctuations of animal populations, and a measure of community stability. Ecology, 36, 533–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, K. G. 1995. An overview of the multispecies VPA – theory and applications. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 5, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. M. 1974. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton University Press Princeton.Google Scholar
McCann, K., Hastings, A. and Huxel, G. R. 1998. Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature, 395, 794–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E. and Westoby, M. 2006. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 178–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montoya, J. M., Rodriguez, M. A. and Hawkins, B. A. 2003. Food web complexity and higher-level ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 6, 587–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, W. W., Kendall, B. E., Nisbet, R. M., Briggs, C. J., McCauley, E. and Bolser, R. 2002. Single-species models for many-species food webs. Nature, 417, 541–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, T. 2000. Towards a 3D-ecosystem model of the Baltic Sea. Journal of Marine Systems, 25, 405–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neutel, A. M., Heesterbeek, J. A. P. and Ruiter, P. C. 2002. Stability in real food webs: Weak links in long loops. Science, 296, 1120–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauly, D., Christensen, V. and Walters, C. 2000. ECOPATH, ECOSIM, and ECOSPACE as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petihakis, G., Smith, C. J., Triantafyllou, G., Sourlantzis, G., Papadopoulou, K. N., Pollani, A. and Korres, G. 2007. Scenario testing of fisheries management strategies using a high resolution ERSEM-POM ecosystem model. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, 1627–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimm, S. L. 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature, 307, 321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proulx, S. R., Promislow, D. E. L. and Phillips, P. C. 2005. Network thinking in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 345–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pueyo, S., He, F. and Zillio, T. 2007. The maximum entropy formalism and the idiosyncratic theory of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 10, 1017–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raffaelli, D. 2002. Ecology: From Elton to mathematics and back again. Science, 296, 1035–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, D. J. and Randolph, S. E. 1993. Distribution of tsetse and ticks in Africa: past, present and future. Parasitology Today, 9, 266–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooney, N., McCann, K., Gellner, G. and Moore, J. C. 2006. Structural asymmetry and the stability of diverse food webs. Nature, 442, 265–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitz, O. J. 1997. Press perturbations and the predictability of ecological interactions in a food web. Ecology, 78, 55–69.Google Scholar
Scott, D. and Poynter, M. 1991. Upper temperature limits for trout in New Zealand and climate change. Hydrobiologia, 222, 147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvert, W. L. 1981. Principles of ecosystem modelling. In: Analysis of marine ecosystems (Ed. by Longhurst, A. R.), pp. 651–76: Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. and Dayan, T. 1991. The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 22, 115–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thuiller, W. 2007. Biodiversity: Climate change and the ecologist. Nature, 448, 550–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vichi, M., Pinardi, N., Zavatarelli, M., Matteucci, G., Marcaccio, M., Bergamini, M. C. and Frascari, F. 1998. One-dimensional ecosystem model tests in the Po Prodelta area (Northern Adriatic Sea). Environmental Modelling & Software, 13, 471–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waggoner, P. E. and Stephens, G. R. 1970. Transition probabilities for a forest. Nature, 225, 1160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, C. J. and Ludwig, D. 1981. Effects of measurement errors on the assessment of stock-recruitment relationships. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38, 704–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, S. and Goldman, N. 2001. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 18, 691–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wootton, J. T. 1994a. The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 25, 443–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T. 1994b. Predicting direct and indirect effects: an integrated approach using experiments and path analysis. Ecology, 75, 151–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T. 2001. Prediction in complex communities: Analysis of empirically derived Markov models. Ecology, 82, 580–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yodzis, P. 1988. The indeterminacy of ecological interactions as perceived through perturbation experiments. Ecology, 69, 508–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yodzis, P. 1989. Introduction to theoretical ecology. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Yodzis, P. 1995. Food webs and perturbation experiments: theory and practice. In: Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics (Ed. by Polis, G. and Winemiller, K. O.), pp. 192–200: Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
Yodzis, P. and Winemiller, K. O. 1999. In search of operational trophospecies in a tropical aquatic food web. Oikos, 87, 327–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×