Advertisement

Tools for Design and Analysis of Experiments

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

The experiments discussed in the previous two section of this book have been explicitly designed to examine how ecosystem dynamics vary with scale. The results of these experiments clearly lead to the conclusion that scaling choices can profoundly affect experimental outcome.

Most mesocosm experiments are conducted in a single size and shape system and are designed to address questions other than the effects of scale—for instance, the effects of nutrients, toxins, or species manipulations on ecological dynamics. This section addresses rules, tools, and considerations relevant to design and interpretation that are available to all researchers to ensure that experiments conducted in mesocosms adequately account for the effects of scale.

Specifically, this section of the book considers (1) statistical considerations and the implications of variability in nature for experiments, (2) dimensional analysis as a tool for designing and interpreting experimental ecosystems, and (3) simulation...

Keywords

Repeated Measure Design Mesocosm Experiment Dimensional Approach Ecological Dynamic Light Gradient 
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.

References

  1. Adey, W.H. and Loveland. K. 1998. Dynamic Aquaria: Building Living Ecosystems, 2nd edition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Baretta-Bekker, J.G., Riemann, B. Baretta and J.W. Koch Rasmussen. E. 1994. Testing the microbial loop concept by comparing mesocosm data with results from a dynamical simulation model. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 106:187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartleson, R.D., Kemp and 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 Modeling 185:483–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, G.M., Glibert and P.M. Chen. C.-C. 1999. Dimension effects of enclosures on ecological processes in pelagic systems. Limnology and Oceanography 44:1331–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyers, R.J. and Odum. H.T. 1993. Ecological Microcosms. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonner, J.T. 1965. Size and Cycle: An Essay on the Structure of Biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. Brinkman, A.G., Philippart and C.J.M. Holtrop. G. 1994. Mesocosms and ecosystem modeling. Vie et Milieu 44:29–37.Google Scholar
  8. Brockmann, U. 1990. Pelagic mesocosms: II. Process studies. Pages LalliC.M. Enclosed Experimental Marine Ecosystems: A Review and Recommendations p. 81–108 Springer-Verlag, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, S.R. 1996. Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:667–680.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, C.-C. 1998. Wall effects in estuarine mesocosms: Scaling experiments and simulation models. PhD dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, C.-C. and W.M. Kemp. 2004. Periphyton communities in experimental marine ecosystems: Scaling the effects of removal from container walls. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 271:27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, C.-C., Petersen and 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
  13. Crowder, M.J. and Hand. D.J. 1990. Analysis of Repeated Measures. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  14. Crowley, P.H. 1978. Effective size and the persistence of ecosystems. Oecologia 35:185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doering, P.H., Oviatt, C.A. Nowicki, B.L. Klos and E.G. Reed. L.W. 1995. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of primary production in a simulated estuarine gradient. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 124:271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duarte, C.M., Masó and M. Merino. M. 1992. The relationship between mesoscale phytoplankton heterogeneity and hydrographic variability. Deep-Sea Research 39:45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Estrada, M., Alcaraz and M. Marrasé. C. 1987. Effect of reversed light gradients on the phytoplankton composition in marine microcosms. Investigación Pesquera 51:443–458.Google Scholar
  18. Gause, G.F. 1934. The Struggle for Existence. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gervais, F., Hintze and T. Behrendt. H. 1999. An incubator for the simulation of a fluctuating light climate in studies of planktonic primary productivity. International Review of Hydrobiology 84:49–60.Google Scholar
  20. Hastings, A. 1990. Spatial heterogeneity and ecological models. Ecology 71:426–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Have, A. 1990. Microslides as microcosms for the study of ciliate communities. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 109:129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill, J. and Wiegert. R.G. 1980. Microcosms in ecological modeling. Pages Giesy, Jr.J.P. Microcosms in Ecological Research. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.138–163Google Scholar
  23. Huffaker, C.B. 1958. Experimental studies on predation: Dispersion factors and predator-prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27:343–383.Google Scholar
  24. Kemp, W.M., Lewis, M.R. Cunningham, J.J. Stevenson and J.C. Boynton. W.R. 1980. Microcosms, macrophytes, and hierarchies: Environmental research in the Chesapeake Bay. Pages Giesy, Jr.J.P. Microcosms in Ecological Research. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.911–936Google Scholar
  25. King, D.L. 1980. Some cautions in applying results from aquatic microcosms. Pages Giesy, Jr.J.P. Microcosms in Ecological Research. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.164–191Google Scholar
  26. Lawton, J.H. 1995. Ecological experiments with model systems. Science 269:328–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis, M.R., Cullen and J.J. Platt. T. 1984. Relationships between vertical mixing and photoadaptation of phytoplankton: Similarity criteria. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 15:141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luckinbill, L.S. 1973. Coexistence in laboratory populations of Paramecium aurelia. and its predator Didinium nasutum Ecology 54:1320–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luckinbill, L.S. 1974. The effects of space and enrichment on a predator-prey system. Ecology 55:1142–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Margalef, R. 1967. Laboratory analogues of estuarine plankton systems. Pages LauffG. Estuaries. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington D.C. 515–521Google Scholar
  31. Naeem, S. and Li. S. 1998. Consumer species richness and autotrophic biomass. Ecology 79:2603–2615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nixon, S.W., Alonso, D. Pilson and M.E.Q. Buckley. B.A. 1980. Turbulent mixing in aquatic mesocosms. Pages Giesy, Jr.J.P. Microcosms in Ecological Research. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.818–849Google Scholar
  33. Nixon, S.W., Oviatt, C.A. Kremer and J.N. Perez. K. 1979. The use of numerical models and laboratory microcosms in estuarine ecosystem analysis – simulations of a winter phytoplankton bloom. Pages DameR.F. Marsh-Estuarine Systems Simulation. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. SC. 165–188Google Scholar
  34. Pandey, G., Lovejoy and S. Schertzer. D. 1998. Multifractal analysis of daily river flows including extremes for basins of five to two million square kilometres, one day to 75 years. Journal of Hydrology 208:62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parsons, T.R. 1990. The use of mathematical models in conjunction with mesocosm ecosystem research. LalliC.M. Enclosed Experimental Marine Ecosystems: A Review and Recommendations p. 197–210. Springer-Verlag, NY.Google Scholar
  36. Peeters, J.C.H., Arts, F. Escaravage, V. Haas, H.A. de Jong, J.E.A. van Loon, R. Moest and B. van der Put. A. 1993. Studies on light climate, mixing and reproducibility of ecosystem variables in mesocosms: Consequences for the design. Pages Peeters, J.C.H. Joordens, J.C.A. Smaal and A.C. Nienhuis (eds.). P.H. The Impact of Marine Eutrophication on Phytoplankton and Benthic Suspension Feeders: Results of a Mesocosm Pilot Study. Middelburg, Netherlands.7–23Report No. DGW-93.039, NIOO-CEMO-654Google Scholar
  37. Petersen, J.E., Chen and C.-C. Kemp. W.M. 1997. Scaling aquatic primary productivity: Experiments under nutrient- and light-limited conditions. Ecology 78:2326–2338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petersen, J.E., Cornwell and J.C. Kemp. W.M. 1999. Implicit scaling in the design of experimental aquatic ecosystems. Oikos 85:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petersen, J.E. and Englund. G. 2005. Dimensional approaches to designing better experimental ecosystems: A practitioners guide with examples. Oecologia 145:216–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petersen, J.E. and Hastings. A. 2001. Dimensional approaches to scaling experimental ecosystems: Designing mousetraps to catch elephants. American Naturalist 157:324–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. Sundberg and K.L. Suttles. S.E. 2003. Multiscale experiments in coastal ecology: Improving realism and advancing theory. BioScience 53:1181–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Platt, T. and Denman. K.L. 1975. Spectral analysis in ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 6:189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sanford, L.P. 1997. Turbulent mixing in experimental ecosystem studies. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 161:265–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schindler, D.W. 1998. Replication versus realism: The need for ecosystemscale experiments. Ecosystems 1:323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sheldon, R.W., Prakash and A. Sutcliffe Jr, . W.H. 1972. The size distribution of particles in the ocean. Limnology and Oceanography 17:327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tilman, D. 1989. Ecological experimentation: Strengths and conceptual problems. Pages Likens (ed.).G.E. Long-Term Studies in Ecology. Springer-Verlag, NY. 136–157Google Scholar
  47. Turpin, D.H. and Harrison. P.J. 1979. Limiting nutrient patchiness and its role in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 39:151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vallino, J.J. 2000. Improving marine ecosystem models: Use of data assimilation and mesocosm experiments. Journal of Marine Research 58:117–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zelenke ,J. and C.J., Madden. 1996. Simulation model of biogeochemical processes in marsh mesocosms Report to U.S. EPA, Annapolis, MD.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