, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 155–164 | Cite as

Improving mesocosm data analysis through individual-based modelling of control population dynamics: a case study with mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki)

  • Rémy Beaudouin
  • Vincent Ginot
  • Gilles Monod


Experimental ecosystems such as mesocosms have been developed to improve the ecological relevance of ecotoxicity test. However, in mesocosm studies, the number of replicates is limited by practical and financial constraints. In addition, high levels of biological organization are characterized by a high variability of descriptive variables. This variability and the poor number of replicates have been recognized as a major drawback for detecting significant effects of chemicals in mesocosm studies. In this context, a tool able to predict precisely control mesocosms outputs, to which endpoints in mesocosms exposed to chemicals could be compared should constitute a substantial improvement. We evaluated here a solution which consists in stochastic modelling of the control fish populations to assess the probabilistic distributions of population endpoints. An individual-based approach was selected, because it generates realistic fish length distributions and accounts for both individual and environmental sources of variability. This strategy was applied to mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) populations monitored in lentic mesocosms. We chose the number of founders as a so-called “stressor” because subsequent consequences at the population level could be expected. Using this strategy, we were able to detect more significant and biologically relevant perturbations than using classical methods. We conclude that designing an individual-based model is very promising for improving mesocosm data analysis. This methodology is currently being applied to ecotoxicological issues.


Individual-based model Mesocosm Fish population Ecotoxicity Data analysis 



This study was supported by the “Programme National d’Écotoxicologie” (PNETOX), France. The author acknowledges the support of the French Ministry in charge of Ecology and Sustainable Development for this study, within the framework of Programme 190. We thank G. Bounaut and C. Sévellec for their excellent technical assistance. The authors wish to thank C. Brochot, E. Mombelli, A. Pery, C. Tebby, F. Zeman, so as two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10646_2011_775_MOESM1_ESM.doc (52 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 52 kb)


  1. Beaudouin R, Ginot V, Monod G (2008a) Growth characteristics of eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki in a northern habitat (Brittany, France). J Fish Biol 73:2468–2484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaudouin R, Monod G, Ginot V (2008b) Selecting parameters for calibration via sensitivity analysis: an individual-based model of mosquitofish population dynamics. Ecol Model 218:29–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit HP, Post JR, Barbet AD (2000) Recruitment dynamics and size structure in experimental populations of the mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Copeia 2000:216–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botsford LW, Vondracek B, Wainwright TC, Linden AL, Kope RG, Reed DE, Cech JJ (1987) Population development of the mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, in rice fields. Environ Biol Fishes 20:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Britton RH, Moser ME (1982) Size specific predation by herons and its effect on the sex-ratio of natural populations of the mosquito fish Gambusia affinis Baird & Girard. Oecologia 53:146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabral JA, Marques JC (1999) Life history, population dynamics and production of eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki (Pisces, Poeciliidae), in rice fields of the lower Mondego River Valley, western Portugal. Acta Oecol 20:607–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campton DE, Gall GAE (1988) Responses to selection for body size and age at sexual maturity in the mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Aquaculture 68:221–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Angelis DL, Cox DK, Coutant CC (1979) Cannibalism and size dispersal in young-of-the-year largemouth bass: experiment and model. Ecol Model 8:133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Jong FMW, Mensink BJWG, Smit CE, Montforts MHMM (2005) Evaluation of Ecotoxicological Field Studies for Authorization of Plant Protection Products in Europe. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 11:1157–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drèze V, Gaulay O, Monod G (1998) Development of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis holbrooki) populations in lentic mesocosms. Perspectives for ecotoxicological studies. Bull Fr Pêche Piscic 350–351:465–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dulzetto F (1931) Sviluppo e struttura del gonopodio di Gambusia holbrookii (Grd.). Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli 11:62–85Google Scholar
  12. Forbes VE, Calow P, Sibly RM (2008) The extrapolation problem and how population modeling can help. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1987–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forbes VE, Hommen U, Thorbek P, Heimbach F, Van den Brink P, Wogram J, Thulke HH, Grimm V (2009) Ecological models in support of regulatory risk assessments of pesticides: developing a strategy for the future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:167–172Google Scholar
  14. Giddings JM, Franco PJ, Cushman RM, Hook LA, Southworth GR, Stewart AJ (1984) Effects of chronic exposure to coal-derived oil on freshwater ecosystems: II. experimental ponds. Environ Toxicol Chem 3:465–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press edition, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis DL, Polhill JG, Giske J, Railsback SF (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Model 221:2760–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy JH, Ammann LP, Waller WT, Warren JE, Hosmer AJ, Cairns SH, Johnson PC, Graney RL (1999) Using statistical power to optimize sensitivity of analysis of variance designs for microcosms and mesocosms. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kraufvelin P (1999) Baltic hard bottom mesocosms unplugged: replicability, repeatability and ecological realism examined by non-parametric multivariate techniques. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 240:229–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perez-Bote JL, Lopez MT (2005) Life-history pattern of the introduced eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki (Baird & Girard, 1854), in a Mediterranean-type river: the River Guadiana (SW Iberian Peninsula). Ital J Zool 72:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pyke GH (2005) A review of the biology of Gambusia affinis and G. holbrooki. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 15:339–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanderson H (2002) Pesticide studies-replicability of micro/mesocosms. Environ Sci Pollut R 9:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shaw JL, Kennedy JH (1996) The use of aquatic field mesocosm studies in risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:605–607Google Scholar
  24. Shaw JL, Moore M, Kennedy JH, Hill IR (1994) Design and statistic alanalysis of field aquatic mesocosm studies. In: Graney RL, Kennedy JH, Rodgers JH (eds) Aquatic Mesocosm Studies in Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis, BocaRaton, pp 85–103 Google Scholar
  25. Soubeyrand S, Beaudouin R, Desassis N, Monod G (2007) Model-based estimation of the link between the daily survival probability and a time-varying covariate, application to mosquitofish survival data. Math Biosci 210:508–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tatara CP, Mulvey M, Newman MC (2002) Genetic and demographic responses of mercury-exposed mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) populations: temporal stability and reproductive components of fitness. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:2191–2197Google Scholar
  27. Uchmanski J (1985) Differentiation and frequency distributions of body weights in plants and animals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 310:1–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wainwright TC, Kope RG, Botsford LW, Cech JJ (1984) Implications of laboratory mosquitofish experiments for population development in rice fields. Proc Calif Mosq Vect Contr Assoc 52:110–114Google Scholar
  29. Walters LL, Legner EF (1979) Impact of the desert pupfish, Cyprinodon macularius, and Gambusia affinis affinis on fauna in pond ecosystems. Hilgardia 48:1–18Google Scholar
  30. Zulian E, Bisazza A, Marin G (1995) Variations in male body-size in natural-populations of Gambusia Holbrooki. Ethol Ecol Evol 7:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rémy Beaudouin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vincent Ginot
    • 2
  • Gilles Monod
    • 1
  1. 1.INRA, UR1037 SCRIBERennesFrance
  2. 2.INRA, UR546 BiométrieAvignonFrance
  3. 3.INERIS, Unité METOVerneuil en HalatteFrance

Personalised recommendations