Advertisement

Enhanced lake-eutrophication model combined with a fish sub-model using a microcosm experiment

  • Xia Li
  • Lina HaoEmail author
  • Likun Yang
  • Guojin Li
  • Ruiqi Nan
Research Article
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

Eutrophication models are effective tools for assessing aquatic environments. The lake ecosystem consists of at least three trophic levels: phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish. However, only a few studies have included fish sub-models in existing eutrophication models. In addition, no specific value or range is available for certain parameters of the fish sub-model. In the present study, a lake microcosm experimental system was established to determine the range of fish sub-model parameters. A three-trophic-level eutrophication model was established by combining the fish sub-model and eutrophication model. The Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo and genetic algorithm method was used to calibrate the parameters of the eutrophication model. The results show that the maximum relative errors were due to phosphate (5.31%), the minimum relative error was due to nitrate (1.94%), and the relative error of dissolved oxygen, ammonia N, zooplankton, and chlorophyll ranged from 3 to 4%. Compared with the two-trophic-level eutrophication model, the relative errors of ammonia nitrogen (4.17%), phosphate (− 5.31%), and nitrate (1.94%) in the three-trophic-level eutrophication model were lower than those in the two-trophic-level eutrophication model, indicating that the three-trophic-level eutrophication model can obtain highly accurate simulation results and provide a better understanding of eutrophication models for future use.

Keywords

Eutrophication model Fish sub-model Microcosm experiment Three-trophic-level model Urban lake MCMC-GA 

Notes

Funding information

This project was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 51409189).

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was performed in strict accordance with the NIH guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals (NIH Publication No. 85-23 Rev. 1985) and was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Tianjin University of Technology.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_4069_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.2 mb)
ESM 1 (DOC 1205 kb)

References

  1. Afshar A, Saadatpour M, Marino MA (2012) Development of a complex system dynamic eutrophication model: application to Karkheh Reservoir. Environ Eng Sci 29:373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anagnostou E, Gianni A, Zacharias I (2017) Ecological modeling and eutrophication—a review. Nat Resour Model 30:e12130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arhonditsis GB, Brett MT, DeGasperi CL et al (2007) Eutrophication risk assessment using Bayesian calibration of process-based models: application to a mesotrophic lake. Ecol Model 208:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arhonditsis GB, Papantou D, Zhang W, Perhar G, Massos E, Shi M (2008) Bayesian calibration of mechanistic aquatic biogeochemical models and benefits for environmental management. J Mar Syst 73:8–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartleson RD, Kemp WM, Stevenson JC (2005) Use of a simulation model to examine effects of nutrient loading and grazing on potamogeton perfoliatus communities in microcos. Ecol Model 185:483–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierman VJ, Kaur J, DePinto JV et al (2005) Modeling the role of zebra mussels in the proliferation of blue-green algae in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. J Great Lakes Res 31:32–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borsuk ME, Stow CA, Reckhow KH (2004) A Bayesian network of eutrophication models for synthesis, prediction, and uncertainty analysis. Ecol Model 173:219–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brett MT, Arhonditsis GB (2005) Eutrophication model for Lake Washington (USA): part I. Model description and sensitivity analysis. Ecol Model 187:140–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown C, Hoyer M, Bachmann R, Canfield D (2000) Nutrient-chlorophyll relationships: an evaluation of empirical nutrient-chlorophyll models using Florida and north-temperate lake data. Fish Aquat Sci 57:1574–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger DF, Hamilton DP, Pilditch CA (2008) Modelling the relative importance of internal and external nutrient loads on water column nutrient concentrations and phytoplankton biomass in a shallow polymictic lake. Ecol Model 211:411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cui Y, Zhu G, Li H, Luo L, Cheng X, Jin Y, Trolle D (2016) Modeling the response of phytoplankton to reduced external nutrient load in a subtropical Chinese reservoir using DYRESM-CAEDYM. Lake Reservoir Manage 32:146–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang ZN (1988) Comparison of two methods for determining freshwater cladoceran biomass. Chinese J Zoology 23:29–31 (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  13. Fasham M, Ducklow HW, McKelvie SM (1990) A nitrogen-based model of plankton dynamics in the oceanic mixed layer. J Mar Res 48:591–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. He H, Hui J, Jeppesen E et al (2018) Fish-mediated plankton responses to increased temperature in subtropical aquatic mesocosm ecosystems: Implications for lake management. Water Res 144:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang XF, Chen XM, Wu CT et al (1984) Study on the change of zooplankton quantity and biomass in east lake of Wuhan. Acta Hydrbiologcal Sinica 8:346–358 (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  16. Imboden DM (1974) Phosphorus model of lake eutrophication: P model of lake eutrophication. Limnol Oceanogr 19:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janse JH (1997) A model of nutrient dynamics in shallow lakes in relation to multiple stable states. Hydrobiologia 342:1–8Google Scholar
  18. Jorgensen SE, Mejer H, Friis M (1978) Examination of a Lake model. Ecol Model 4:253–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koichi T, Kisaburo N (2009) Evaluation of biological water purification functions of inland lakes using an aquatic ecosystem model. Ecol Model 220:2255–2271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leardi R (2000) Application of genetic algorithm-PLS for feature selection in spectral data sets. Chemometr 14:643–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li L, Yakupitiyage A (2003) A model for food nutrient dynamics of semi-intensive pond fish culture. Aquac Eng 27:9–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li Y, Liu Y, Zhao L, Hastings A, Guo H (2015) Exploring change of internal nutrients cycling in a shallow lake: a dynamic nutrient driven phytoplankton model. Ecol Model 313:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malve O, Laine M, Haario H, Kirkkala T, Sarvala J (2007) Bayesian modelling of algal mass occurrences—using adaptive MCMC methods with a lake water quality model. Environ Model Softw 22:966–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKee D, Atkinson D, Collings SE, Eaton JW, Gill AB, Harvey I, Hatton K, Heyes T, Wilson D, Moss B (2003) Response of freshwater microcosm communities to nutrients, fish, and elevated temperature during winter and summer. Limnol Oceanogr 48(2):707–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulderij G, Mau B, van Donk E, Gross EM (2007) Allelopathic activity of stratiotes aloides on phytoplankton—towards identification of allelopathic substances. Hydrobiologia 584:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peng YK, Liu L, Jiang LJ et al (2017) The roles of cyanobacterial bloom in nitrogen removal. Sci Total Environ 609:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perhar G, Arhonditsis GB, Brett MT (2012) Modelling the role of highly unsaturated fatty acids in planktonic food web processes: a mechanistic approach. Environ Rev 20:155–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perhar G, Arhonditsis GB, Brett MT (2013) Modeling zooplankton growth in Lake Washington: a mechanistic approach to physiology in a eutrophication model. Ecol Model 258:101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pilar H, Robert B. Ambrose, D P et al (1997) Modeling eutrophication kinetics in reservoir microcosms. Water Res 31:2511–2519Google Scholar
  30. Ramin M, Labencki T, Boyd D, Trolle D, Arhonditsis GB (2012) A Bayesian synthesis of predictions from different models for setting water quality criteria. Ecol Model 242:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reynolds CS, Irish AE, Elliott JA (2001) The ecological basis for simulating phytoplankton responses to environmental change (PROTECH). Ecol Model 140:271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rigosi A, Fleenor W, Rueda F (2010) State-of-the-art and recent progress in phytoplankton succession modelling. Environ Rev 18:423–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ristau K, Faupel M, Traunspurger W (2013) Effects of nutrient enrichment on the trophic structure and species composition of freshwater nematodes—a microcosm study. FRESHW SCI 32:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roth BM, Kaplan IC, Sass GG, Johnson PT, Marburg AE, Yannarell AC, Havlicek TD, Willis TV, Turner MG, Carpenter SR (2007) Linking terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems: the role of woody habitat in lake food webs. Ecol Model 203:439–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shan K, Li L, Wang XX et al (2014) Modelling ecosystem structure and trophic interactions in a typical cyanobacterial bloom-dominated shallow Lake Dianchi, China. Ecol Model 291:82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith VH, Tilman GD, Nekola JC (1999) Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. J Environ Pollut 100:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tian RC, Vézina AF, Starr M, Saucier F (2001) Seasonal dynamics of coastal ecosystems and export production at high latitudes: a modeling study. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1845–1859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ulrika M, Roberta S, Francesco P, Rocco T, Antonello P (2013) A model for high-altitude alpine lake ecosystems and the effect of introduced fish. Ecol Model 251:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vollenweider RA (1975) Input-output models with special reference to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweiz Z Für Hydrol 37:53–84Google Scholar
  40. Yang LK, Peng S, Sun JM et al (2016a) A case study of an enhanced eutrophication model with stoichiometric zooplankton growth sub-model calibrated by Bayesian method. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:8398–8409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang LK, Zhao XH, Peng S et al (2016b) Water quality assessment analysis by using combination of Bayesian and genetic algorithm approach in an urban lake, China. Ecol Model 33:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang LK, Peng S, Zhao X et al (2017) Development of a two-dimensional eutrophication model in an urban lake (China) and the application of uncertainty analysis. Ecol Model 345:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang WT, Arhonditsis GB (2009) A Bayesian hierarchical framework for calibrating aquatic biogeochemical models. Ecol Model 220:2142–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang J, Jorgensen SE, Mahler H (2004) Examination of structurally dynamic eutrophication model. Ecol Model 173:313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang X, Liang F, Yu B, Zong Z (2011) Explicitly integrating parameter, input, and structure uncertainties into Bayesian neural networks for probabilistic hydrologic forecasting. J Hydrol 409:696–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhen W (2017) Internal cycling, not external loading, decides the nutrient l imitation in eutrophic lake: a dynamic model with temporal Bayesian hierarchical inference. Water Res 116:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental Science and Safety EngineeringTianjin University of TechnologyTianjinChina
  2. 2.CAUPD Beijing Planning & Design Consultants Co.BeijingChina
  3. 3.Tianjin Municipal Engineering Design &Research InstituteTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations