Designing Experimental Ecosystem Studies

  • J.E. Petersen
  • W.M. Kemp
  • V.S. Kennedy
  • W.C. Dennison
  • P. Kangas

Mesocosms are used for conducting controlled experiments at the level of whole ecosystems or ecological subsystems. Each mesocosm must be designed to answer the particular research question of interest.

There is no single best design that will suit all research objectives. However, experimental ecosystems should be constructed to include organisms and environmental conditions relevant for addressing specific research questions. Experience suggests that there are a host of issues, questions, and decisions that must be considered in the design of any enclosed experimental aquatic ecosystem. Our objective in this section is to provide a guide for those involved in designing and interpreting the results of mesocosm experiments.

Issues of scale (i.e. space, time, and ecological complexity) are a critical consideration in the design of mesocosm research, and thus scale provides a central theme for this book. The processes, organisms, and habitats under investigation determine the appropriate...


Gross Primary Production Trophic Cascade Container Wall Periphyton Community Gypsum Dissolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baker, J., R. Mason, J.C. Cornwell, J. Ashley, J. Halka and J. Hill. 1997. Final report to Maryland department of the environment, Ref. No. UMCES [CBL]:97–142.Google Scholar
  2. Bartleson, R.D., Kemp W.M. Stevenson. J.C. 2005 Use of a simulation model to examine effects of nutrient loading and grazing on Potamogeton perfoliatus L. communities in microcosms. Ecological Modelling 185:483–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, G.M., Glibert P.M. Chen. C.-C. 1999 Dimension effects of enclosures on ecological processes in pelagic systems. Limnology and Oceanography 44:1331–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boynton, W.R., Garber, J.H. Summers R. Kemp. W.M. 1995 Inputs, transformations, and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries 18:(1B)285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brownlee, P.C. Jacobs. F. 1987. Mesozooplankton and microzooplankton in the Chesapeake Bay. in Majumdar, S.K. Hall, L.W.Jr. Austin H.M. Containment problems and management of living Chesapeake Bay resources: 217–269 Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Easton.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S.R. 1996. Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:667–680.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S.R., Kitchell J.F. Hodgson. J.R. 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35:634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, C.-C. Kemp. W.M. 2004. Periphyton communities in experimental marine ecosystems: Scaling the effects of removal from container walls. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 271:27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, C.-C., Petersen J.E. Kemp. W.M. 1997. Spatial and temporal scaling of periphyton growth on walls of estuarine mesocosms. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 155:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, C.-C., Petersen J.E. Kemp. W.M. 2000. Nutrient uptake in experimental estuarine ecosystems: Scaling and partitioning rates. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 200:103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J.E. Tilman. D. 1996. Biosphere 2 and biodiversity: The lessons so far. Science 274:1150–1151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Confer, J.L. 1972. Interrelations among plankton, attached algae and phosphorus cycle in artificial open systems. Ecological Monographs 42:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooke, G.D. 1967. The pattern of autotrophic succession in laboratory microcosms. BioScience 17:717–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornelisen, C.D. Thomas. F.I.M. 2006. Water flow enhances ammonium and nitrate uptake in a seagrass community. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 312:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornwell, J.C. Unpublished data. MEERC report, U.S.E.P.A. Star Program.Google Scholar
  16. Cowan, J.L.W. Boynton. W.R. 1996. Sediment-water oxygen and nutrient exchanges along the longitudinal axis of Chesapeake Bay: Seasonal patterns, controlling factors and ecological significance. Estuaries 19:562–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crawford, S.M. Sanford. L.P. 2001. Boundary shear velocities and fluxes in the MEERC experimental ecosystems. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 210:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Lafontaine, Y. Leggett. W.C. 1987. Effect of container size on estimates of mortality and predation rates in experiments with macrozooplankton and larval fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:1534–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dudzik, M., Harte, J. Jassby, A. Lapan, E. Levy D. Rees. J. 1979. Some considerations in the design of aquatic microcosms for plankton studies. International Journal of Environmental Studies 13:125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eppley, R.W., Koeller P. Wallace, G.T.Jr. 1978. Stirring influences the phytoplankton species composition within enclosed columns of coastal sea water. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 32:219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Estrada, M., Alcaraz M. Marrasé. C. 1987. Effects of turbulence on the composition of phytoplankton assemblages in marine microcosms. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 38:267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fee, E.J. Hecky.R.E.1992.Introduction to the northwest Ontario lake size series (NOLSS). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences49:2434–2444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fonseca,M.S.Kenworthy.W.J.1987.Effects of current on photosynthesis and distribution of seagrasses. Aquatic Botany27:59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fukuda,M.K.Lick.W.1980.The Entrainment of Cohesive Sediments in Freshwater. Journal of Geophysical Research85:(C5)2813–2824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gallagher,J.L.Daiber.F.G.1973.Diel rhythms in edaphic community metabolism in a Delaware salt marsh. Ecology54:1160–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grice,G.D.ReeveM.R.1982.Marine Mesocosms: Biological and Chemical Research in Experimental Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, NY.Google Scholar
  27. Gust,G.Mueller.V.1997.Interfacial hydrodynamics and entrainment functions of currently used erosion devices. Burt,N.ParkerW.R.WattsJ.Cohesive Sediments. John Wiley and Sons,New York.149–174Google Scholar
  28. Harding,L.W., Jr.,MalloneeM.E.Perry.E.S.2002.Toward a predictive understanding of primary productivity in a temperate, partially stratified estuary. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science55:437–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harte,J.,Levy,D.ReesJ.Saegebarth.E.1980.Making microcosms an effective assessment tool.Giesy,J.P.Jr. (ed.). Microcosms in Ecological Research. National Technical Information Service, Springfield,VA.105–137Google Scholar
  30. Heath,M.R.Houde.E.D.2001.Evaluating and modeling foraging performance of planktivorous and piscivorous fish: Effects of containment and issues of scale. Gardner,R.H.Kemp,W.M.KennedyV.S.PetersenJ.E.Scaling Relations in Experimental Ecology. Columbia University Press,New York.191–250Google Scholar
  31. Houde, E.D . Unpublished data. MEERC report, U.S.E.P.A. Star report.Google Scholar
  32. Huettel,M.Rusch.A.2000.Transport and degradation of phytoplankton in permeable sediment. Limnology and Oceanography45:534–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kadlec,R.H.Knight.R.L.1995.Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers,Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  34. Kemp, W.M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, G. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E. Koch, J. Landwehr, K. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson and D. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: Water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries 27:363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kemp,W.M.Boynton.W.R.1984.Spatial and temporal coupling of nutrient inputs to estuarine primary production: The role of particulate transport and decomposition. Bulletin of Marine Science35:522–535.Google Scholar
  36. Kemp,W.M.,Batiuk,R.Bartleson,R.Bergstrom,P.Carter,V.Gallegos,G.Hunley,W.Karrh,L.Koch,E.Landwehr,J.Moore,K.Murray,L.Naylor,M.Rybicki,N.StevensonJ.C.Wilcox.D.2004.Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: Water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries27:363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kemp,W.M.,Boynton,W.R.Adolf,J.E.Boesch,D.F.Boicourt,W.C.Brush,G.Cornwell,J.C.Fisher,T.R.Glibert,P.M.Hagy,J.D.Harding,L.W.Houde,E.D.Kimmel,D.G.Miller,W.D.Newell,R.I.E.Roman,M.R.SmithE.M.Stevenson.J.C.2005.Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology-Progressive Series303:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kemp,W.M.,Lewis,M.R.Cunningham,J.J.StevensonJ.C.Boynton.W.R.1980.Microcosms, macrophytes, and hierarchies: Environmental research in the Chesapeake Bay.Giesy,J.P.Jr. (ed.). Microcosms in Ecological Research p. 911–936. National Technical Information Service, Springfield,VA.Google Scholar
  39. Kemp,W.M.,PetersenJ.E.Gardner.R.H.2001.Scale-dependence and the problem of extrapolation: Implications for experimental and natural coastal ecosystems.Gardner,R.H.Kemp,W.M.KennedyV.S.PetersenJ.E.Scaling Relations in Experimental Ecology p. 3–57. Columbia University Press,NY.Google Scholar
  40. Kemp,W.M.,Twilley,R.R.Stevenson,J.C.BoyntonW.R.Means.J.C.1983.The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Marine Technology Society Journal17:78–89.Google Scholar
  41. Kerhin, R.T., P.J. Blakeslee, N. Zoltan and R. Cuthbertson. 1988. The surficial sediments of the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland: Physical characteristics and sediment budget. Report of Investigation 48, Maryland Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  42. Kitchens,W.M.1979.Development of a salt marsh microecosystem. International Journal of Environmental Studies13:109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuiper,J.1981.Fate and effects of mercury in marine plankton communities in experimental enclosures. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety5:106–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis,M.R.Platt.T.1982.Scales of variability in estuarine ecosystems.Kennedy (ed.).V.S.Estuarine Comparisons. p. 3–20 Academic Press, NY.Google Scholar
  45. Luckett,C.,Adey,W.H.MorrisseyJ.Spoon.D.M.1996.Coral reef mesocosms and microcosms – successes, problems and the future of laboratory models. Ecological Engineering6:57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Luckinbill,L.S.1973.Coexistence in laboratory populations of Paramecium aurelia and its predator Didinium nasutum. Ecology54:1320–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Madsen,T.V.Søndergaard.M.1983.The effects of current velocity on the photosynthesis of Callitriche stagnalis scop. Aquatic Botany15:187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marvin-DiPasquale,M.C.Capone.D.G.1998.Benthic sulfate reduction along the Chesapeake Bay central channel. I. Spatial trends and controls. Marine Ecology-Progress Series168:213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merrell,K.S.1996.The effects of flow and mixing on Vallisneria and its associated community in experimental mesocosms. MS Thesis. University of Maryland,College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  50. Mowitt,W.P.1999.Scale-dependence of bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) growth and top-down control by anchovies of plankton communities in estuarine mesocosms. MS Thesis. University of Maryland,College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  51. Mowitt,W.P.,Houde,E.D.HinkleD.C.Sanford.A.2006.Growth of planktivorous bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli, top-down control, and scale-dependence in estuarine mesocosms. Marine Ecology-Progress Series308:255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Muffley,B.W.2002.Scale-dependent predatory effects of the Atlantic silversides, Menidia menidia, and lobate ctenophore, Mnemiopsis leidyi, on plankton communities in estuarine mesocosms. MS Thesis. University of Maryland,College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  53. Murray,L.,Sturgis,R.B.Bartleson,R.D.SevernW.Kemp.W.M.2000.Scaling submersed plant community responses to experimental nutrient enrichment.Bortone (ed.).S.A.Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management. p. 241–257. CRC Press,NY.Google Scholar
  54. Naeem,S.Li.S.1997.Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature390:507–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Neckles,H.A.,WetzelR.L.Orth.R.J.1993.Relative effects of nutrient enrichment and grazing on epiphyte-macrophyte (Zostera marina L.) dynamics. Oecologia93:285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neundorfer,J.V.Kemp.W.M.1993.Nitrogen versus phosphorus enrichment of brackish waters: Responses of the submersed plant Potamogeton perfoliatus and its associated algal community. Marine Ecology-Progress Series94:71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nixon,S.W.1969.A synthetic microcosm. Limnology and Oceanography14:142–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nixon,S.W.Oviatt.C.A.1973.Ecology of a New England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs43:463–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Odum,E.P.1961.The role of tidal marshes in estuarine production. Conservationist15:12–15.Google Scholar
  60. Øiestad,V.1990.Specific application of meso- and macrocosms for solving problems in fisheries research.Lalli (ed.).C.M.Enclosed Experimental Marine Ecosystems: A Review and Recommendations p. 411–418. Springer. NY. . Springer-Verlag,New York.136–154Google Scholar
  61. Parsons,T.R.1982.The future of controlled ecosystem enclosure experiments.GriceG.D.ReeveM.R.Marine Mesocosms: Biological and Chemical Research in Experimental Ecosystems p. 411–418. Springer-Verlag, NY.Google Scholar
  62. Petersen,J.E.,ChenC.-C.Kemp.W.M.1997.Scaling aquatic primary productivity: Experiments under nutrient- and light-limited conditions. Ecology78:2326–2338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Petersen,J.E.,CornwellJ.C.Kemp.W.M.1999.Implicit scaling in the design of experimental aquatic ecosystems. Oikos85:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Petersen,J.E.,Kemp,W.M.Bartleson,R.Boynton,W.R.Chen,C.-C.Cornwell,J.C.Gardner,R.H.Hinkle,D.C.Houde,E.D.Malone,T.C.Mowitt,W.P.Murray,L.Sanford,L.P.Stevenson,J.C.SundbergK.L.Suttles.S.E.2003.Multiscale experiments in coastal ecology: Improving realism and advancing theory. BioScience53:1181–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Petersen,J.E.,SanfordL.P.Kemp.W.M.1998.Coastal plankton responses to turbulent mixing in experimental ecosystems. Marine Ecology-Progress Series171:23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Porter,E.T.1999.Physical and biological scaling of benthic-pelagic coupling in experimental ecosystem studies. PhD Dissertation. University of Maryland,College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  67. Porter, E.T., Cornwell, J.C. SanfordL. P. Newell. R.I.E. 2004a. Effect of oysters Crassostrea virginica and bottom shear velocity on benthic-pelagic coupling and estuarine water quality. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 271:61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Porter,E.T.,OwensM.S.Cornwell.J.C.2006.Effect of manipulation on the biogeochemistry of experimental sediment systems. Journal of Coastal Research22:1539–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Porter,E.T.,Sanford,L.P.GustG.Porter.F.S.2004b.Combined water-column mixing and benthic boundary-layer flow in mesocosms: Key for realistic benthic-pelagic coupling studies. Marine Ecology-Progress Series271:43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Porter,E.T.,SanfordL.P.Suttles.S.E.2000.Gypsum dissolution is not a universal integrator of “water motion”. Limnology and Oceanography45:145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Purcell,J.E.,BåmstedtU.Båmstedt.A.1999.Prey, feeding rates, and asexual reproduction rates of the introduced oligohaline hydrozoan Moerisia lyonsi. Marine Biology134:317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reeve,M.R.,GriceG.D.Harris.R.P.1982.The CEPEX approach and its implications for future studies in plankton ecology. GriceG.D.ReeveM.R. (eds.).Marine Mesocosms: Biological and Chemical Research in Experimental Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag,New York.389–398Google Scholar
  73. Resetarits,W.J., Jr.Fauth.J.E.1998.From cattle tanks to Carolina bays: The utility of model systems for understanding natural communities.Resetarits,W.J.Jr.BernardoJ.Experimental Ecology: Issues and Perspectives. Oxford University Press,New York.133–151Google Scholar
  74. Ringelberg,J.Kersting.K.1978. Properties of an aquatic microecosystem: I. General introduction to the prototypes. Archiv für Hydrobiologie83:47–68.Google Scholar
  75. Roman, M.R. Unpublished data . MEERC report, U.S.E.P.A. Star report.Google Scholar
  76. Roman,M.,Zhang,X.McGilliardC.Boicourt.W.2005.Seasonal and annual variability in the spatial patterns of plankton biomass in Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography50:480–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Roush,W.1995.When rigor meets reality. Science269:313–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sanford,L.P.1997.Turbulent mixing in experimental ecosystem studies. Marine Ecology-Progress Series161:265–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sanford,L.P.Crawford.S.M.2000. Mass transfer versus kinetic control of uptake across solid-water boundaries. Limnology and Oceanography45:1180–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Santschi,P.H.,Nyffeler,U.AndersonR.Schiff.S.1984.The enclosure as a tool for the assessment of transport and effects of pollutants in lakes.White (ed.).H.H.Concepts in Marine Pollution Measurements p. 549–562. Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  81. Schindler,D.W.1998.Replication versus realism: The need for ecosystem-scale experiments. Ecosystems1:323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schindler,D.E.Scheuerell.M.D.2002.Habitat coupling in lake ecosystems. Oikos98:177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schmitz, J.P. 2000. Meso-scale community organization and response to burning in mesocosms and a field salt marsh. MS Thesis. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  84. Short, F.T., Burdick D.M. Kaldy J.E.III. 1995. Mesocosm experiments quantify the effects of eutrophication on eelgrass, Zostera marina. Limnology and Oceanography 40:740–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steele, J.H. Gamble. J.C. 1982. Predator control in enclosures.Grice G.D. Reeves M.R. (eds.).Marine Mesocosms: Biological and Chemical Research in Experimental Ecosystems p. 227–237. Springer-Verlag, NY.Google Scholar
  86. Sturgis,R.B.Murray.L.1997.Scaling of nutrient inputs to submersed plant communities: Temporal and spatial variations. Marine Ecology-Progress Series152:89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tatterson,G.B.1991.Fluid Mixing and Gas Dispersion in Agitated Tanks. McGraw-Hill,New York.Google Scholar
  88. Twilley,R.R.,Kemp,W.M.Staver,K.W.StevensonJ.C.Boynton.W.R.1985.Nutrient enrichment of estuarine submersed vascular plant communities. 1. Algal growth and effects on production of plants and associated communities. Marine Ecology-Progress Series23:179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wiens, J.A. 2001. Understanding the problem of scale in experimental ecology. Gardner, R.H. Kemp, W.M. Kennedy V.S. Petersen J.E. Scaling Relations in Experimental Ecology p. 61–88. Columbia University Press,NY.Google Scholar
  90. Zelenke, J. 1999. Tidal freshwater marshes as nutrient sinks: Nutrient burial and denitrification. PhD Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  91. Zieman,J.C.,Macko,S.A.Mills.A.L.1984.Role of seagrasses and mangroves in estuarine food webs: Temporal and spatial changes in stable isotope composition and amino acid content during decomposition. Bulletin of Marine Science35:380–392.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.E. Petersen
  • W.M. Kemp
  • V.S. Kennedy
  • W.C. Dennison
  • P. Kangas

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations