Management Applications

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

Scientific results from enclosed experimental ecosystems can be particularly useful for management applications. Mesocosm results have the advantage of being controlled, replicated experiments that simulate essential features of nature. Furthermore, mesocosms can be used to develop explicit scaling relationships between laboratory and field observations, thereby enhancing quantitative interpretation of results from scientific experiments conducted in laboratory or field settings. By being intermediate in spatial, temporal, and complexity scales between strictly controlled laboratory experiments and field observations, mesocosm results can provide context for interpreting laboratory and field results.

Mesocosms can explore ecosystem responses to human perturbation and result in information relevant to management applications. This information can lead to paradigm shifts in the way scientists approach environmental problems. For example, the MERL tanks at the University of Rhode Island...


Total Suspended Solid Nutrient Enrichment Tidal Marsh Sediment Resuspension Harmful Algal Bloom 
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. Anderson, D.A.,Glibert, and P.M.Burkholder. J.M. 2002. Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25: 562–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley, J.F.A. 1998. Habitat use and trophic status as determinants of hydrophobic organic contaminant bioaccumulation within shallow systems. PhD Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 318 pp.Google 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 Ecol. Model. 185: 483–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, G.M.,Glibert, P.M.Lomas, and M.W.Burford. M.1997. Organic nitrogen uptake and growth by the Chrysophyte Aureococcus anophagefferens during a brown tide event. Mar. Biol. 129: 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bergeron, C.M. 2005. The impact of sediment resuspension on mercury cycling and the bioaccumulation of methylmercury into benthic and pelagic organisms. MS Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  7. Berman, T., and Bronk. D.A. 2003. Dissolved organic nitrogen: A dynamic participant in aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic microbial ecology 31:279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bianchi, T.S. 2007. Biogeochemistry of Estuaries. Oxford University Press, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Borum, J.1985. Development of epiphytic communities on eelgrass (Zostera marina L..) along a nutrient gradient in a Danish estuary Marine Biology 87: 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bricker, S., Longstaff, B.Dennison, W.Jones, A.Boicourt, K.Wicks, and C.Woerner. J.2007. Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries: A decade of change. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Sliver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Bromilow, R.H.,de Carvalho, R.F.Evans, and A.A.Nicholls. P.H. 2006. Behavior of pesticides in sediment/water systems in outdoor mesocosms. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B 41: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brooks, M.T. 2004. Trophic complexity, transfer efficiency and microbial interactions in pelagic ecosystems: A modeling study. MS Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  13. Caddy, J.F. 1993. Towards a comparative evaluation of human impact on fishery ecosystems of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 1: 57–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cerco, C., and Moore. K.2001. System-wide submerged aquatic vegetation model for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 24: 522–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cosper, E.M.,Dennison, W.C.Carpenter, E.J.Bricelj, V.M.Mitchell, J.G.Kuenstner, S.H.Colflesh, and D.Dewey. M.1987. Recurrent and persistent brown tide blooms perturb coastal marine ecosystem. Estuaries 10: (4)284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Leiva Moreno, J.I.,Agostini, V.N.Caddy, and J.F.Carocci. F.2000. Is the pelagic-demersal ratio from fishery landings a useful proxy for nutrient availability? A preliminary data exploration for the semi-enclosed seas around Europe. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57: 1091–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennison, W.C.,Orth, R.J.Moore, K.A.Stevenson, J.C.Carter, V.Kollar, S.Bergstrom, and P.W.Batiuk. R.A. 1993. Assessing water-quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. Bioscience 43: (2)86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Torro, D.M.,McGrath, J.A.Hansen, D.J.Berry, W.J.Paquin, P.R.Mathew, R.Wu, and K.B.Santore. R.C. 2005. Predicting sediment metal toxicity using a sediment biotic ligand model: Methodology and initial application. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24: 2410–2427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duarte, C.1995. Submerged aquatic vegetation in relation to different nutrient regimes. Ophelia 41: 87–112.Google Scholar
  20. Dugdale, R.C., and Goering. J.J. 1967. Uptake of new and regenerated forms of nitrogen in primary production. Liminol. Oceanogr. 12: (2)196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. EPA. 2000. Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake 2000. Google Scholar
  22. EPA. 2004. The incidence and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United States. USEPA Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C, Report # EPA-823-R-04-007.Google Scholar
  23. Gacia, E., and Duarte. C.2001. Sediment retention by a Mediterranean Posidonia ocanica meadow: The balance between deposition and resuspension. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 52: 505–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glibert, P.M., and Capone. D.G. 1993. Mineralization and assimilation in aquatic, sediment, and wetland systems. Pages in Knowles and R.Blackburn (eds.). T.H.Nitrogen Isotope Techniques. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.243–272Google Scholar
  25. Glibert, P.M., and C. Heil. 2005. Use of urea fertilizers and the implications for increasing harmful algal blooms in the coastal zone. Pages 539–544 in Contributed papers, the 3rd International Nitrogen Conference, Science Press USA Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Glibert, P.M.,Heil, C.A.Hollander, D.Revilla, M.Hoare, A.Alexander, and J.Murasko. S.2004. Evidence for dissolved organic nitrogen and phosphorus uptake during a cyanobacterial bloom in Florida Bay. Marine Ecological Progress Series. 280: 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glibert, P.M., and Legrand. C.2006. The diverse nutrient strategies of HABs: Focus on osmotrophy. Pages Graneli and E.Turner (eds.). J.Ecology of Harmful Algae. Springer, Heidelberg.163–176 inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glibert, P.M.,Seitzinger, S.Heil, C.A.Burkholder, J.M.Parrow, M.W.Codispoti, and L.A.Kelly. V.2005. The role of eutrophication in the global proliferation of harmful algal blooms: New perspectives and new approaches. Oceanography 18: (2)198–209.Google Scholar
  29. Glibert, P.M.,Harrison, J.Heil, and C.Seitzinger. S.2006. Escalating worldwide use of urea – A global change contributing to coastal eutrophication. Biogeochemistry 77: 441–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hagy, J.D. 2002. Eutrophcation, hypoxia and trophic transfer efficiency in Chesapeake Bay. PhD Thesis University of Maryland, College Park, MD.PhD ThesisGoogle Scholar
  31. Hallagraeff, G.M. 1993. A review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global increase. Phycologia 32: 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hengst, A.M. 2007. Restoration ecology of Potamogeton perfoliatus. in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay: The nursery bed effectUniversity of Maryland, College Park, MD.MS ThesisGoogle Scholar
  33. Hillbricht-Illkowska, A.1977. Trophic relations and energy flow in pelagic plankton. Polish Ecological Studies. 3: 3–98.Google Scholar
  34. Kemp, W.M. 2000. Seagrass ecology and management: An introduction. PagesBortone (ed.). S.Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management. CRC Publ., Boca Raton, FL.1–8 inGoogle Scholar
  35. Kemp, W.M.,Boynton, W.R.Stevenson, J.C.Twilley, and R.R.Means. J.C. 1983. The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Marine Technical Society Journal. 17: 78–89.Google Scholar
  36. Kemp, W.M.,Brooks, and M.T.Hood. R.R. 2001. Nutrient enrichment, habitat variability and trophic transfer efficiency in simple models of pelagic ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 223: 73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.Stevenson, and J.C.Wilcox. D.2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic in Chesapeake Bay: Water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries 27: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kemp, W.M.,Boynton, W.Adolf, J.Boesch, D.Boicourt, W.Brush, G.Cornwell, J.Fisher, T.Glibert, P.Hagy, J.Harding, L.Houde, E.Kimmel, D.Miller, W.D.Newell, R.I.E.Roman, M.Smith, and E.Stevenson. J.C. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 303: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim, E.-H.2004. The importance of physical mixing and sediment chemistry in mercury and methylmercury biogeochemical cycling and bioaccumulation within shallow estuaries. PhD Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  40. Kim, E.-H.,Mason, R.P.Porter, and E.T.Soulen. H.L. 2004. The effect of resuspension on the fate of total mercury and methylmercury in a shallow estuarine ecosystem. Marine Chemistry. 86: 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim, E.-H.,Mason, R.P.Porter, and E.T.Soulen. H.L. 2006. The impact of resuspension on sediment mercury dynamics, and methylmercury production and fate: A mesocosm study. Marine Chemistry. 102: 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, E.-H., R.P. Mason, and C.M. Bergeron. 2008. A modeling study on methylmercury bioaccumulation and its controlling factors. Ecological Modeling. 218:267–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kirk, J.T.O.1994. Light and Photosynthesis in Aquatic Ecosystems. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Landry, M.R. 1977. A review of important concepts in the trophic organization of pelagic ecosystems. Helgolander wis Meeresunters 30: 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Langston, W.J.,Burt, and G.R.Pope. N.D. 1999. Bioavailability of metals in sediments of the Dogger Bank (central North Sea): A mesocosm study. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 48: 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Luo, J., and Brandt. S.B. 1993. Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli. production and consumption in mid-Chesapeake Bay based on a bioenergetics model and acoustic measures of fish abundance Marine Ecological Progress Series. 98: 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Madden, C.J., and Kemp. W.M. 1996. Ecosystem model of an estuarine submersed plant community: Calibration and simulation of eutrophication responses. Estuaries 19: (2B)457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Madsen, K.N.,Nilsson, and P.Sundback. K.1993. The influence of benthic microalgae on the stability of a subtidal sediment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 170: 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Malone, T.C.,Ducklow, H.W.Peele, and E.R.Pike. S.1991. Picoplankton carbon flux in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 78: 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Malone, T.C., D.J. Conley, P.M. Glibert, L.W. HardingJr., and K. Sellner. 1996. Scales of nutrient limited phytoplankton productivity: The Chesapeake Bay example. Estuaries 19: 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mason, R.P. 2002. The bioaccumulation of mercury, methylmercury and other toxic elements into pelagic and benthic organisms. Pages Newman, M.C.Roberts, and M.H.Hale (eds.). R.C.Coastal and Estuarine Risk Assessment. CRC/Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL.127–149 inGoogle Scholar
  52. Melton, J.H. 2002. Environmental quality and restoration of mesohaline submerged aquatic vegetation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.MS ThesisGoogle Scholar
  53. Naeem, S., Lindsey, J.Sharon, P.Lawton, and J.H.Woodfin.R.M.1994. Declining biodiversity can alter performance of ecosystems. Nature 368: 734–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Naeem, S., Hakansson, K.Lawton, J.H.Crawley, and M.J.Thompson. L.J. 1996. Biodiversity and plant productivity in a model assemblage of plant species. Oikos 76: 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nagel, J.2007. Plant-sediment interactions and biogeochemical cycling for seagrass communities in Chesapeake and Florida Bays PhD Thesis. University of Maryland, College, Park, MD.Google Scholar
  56. Newell, R.I.E.1988. Ecological changes in Chesapeake Bay: Are they the result of overharvesting the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica Pages?Lynch and M.P.Krome (eds.). E.C.Understanding the Estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay Research. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication 129 (CBP/TRS 24/88), Gloucester, UK.536–546 inGoogle Scholar
  57. Nixon, S.W., and Buckley. B.A. 2002. “A strikingly rich zone” – Nutrient enrichment and secondary production in coastal marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25: 782–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Orihel, D.M.,Paterson, M.J.Gilmour, C.C.Bodaly, R.A.Blanchfield, P.J.Hintelmann, H.Harris, and R.C.Rudd. J.W.M.2006. Effect of loading rate on the fate of mercury in littoral mesocosms. Environmental Science and Technology. 40: 5992–6000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oviatt, C.A. 1994. Biological considerations in marine enclosure experiments: Challenges and revelations. Oceanography 7: 45–51.Google Scholar
  60. Pauly, D., Christensen, V.Dalsgaard, J.Froese, and R.Torres. F.1998. Fishing down the food chain. Science 279: 860–863.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Point, V.A.,Newell, R.I.E.Cornwell, and J.C.Owens. M.S. 2002. Influence of simulated bivalve biodeposition and microphytobenthos on sediment nitrogen dynamics: A laboratory study. Liminology and Oceanography. 47: 1367–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Porter, E.T. 1999. Physical and biological scaling of benthic-pelagic coupling in experimental ecosystem studies. PhD Thesis. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  63. Porter, E.T.,J.C. Cornwell, and L.P. Sanford. and R.I.E. Newell 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
  64. Porter, E.T.,Sanford, L.P.Gust, and G.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 Series. 271: 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Romdhane, M.S.,Eilertsen, H.C.Yahia, and O.K.D.Yahia.M.N.D.1998. Toxic dinoflagellate blooms in Tunisian lagoons: Causes and consequences for aquaculture. Pages Reguera, B.Blance, J.Fernandez, and M.L.Wyatt (eds.). T.Harmful Algae. Xunta de Galicia and Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.80–83 inGoogle Scholar
  66. Schneider, A.R. 2005. PCB desorption from resuspended Hudson River sediment. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  67. Schneider,A.R.,Porter, and E.T.Baker. J.E. 2007. Polychlorinated biphenyl release from resuspended Hudson River sediment. Environmental Science and Technology. 41 (4)1097.–1103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schulte, K.2003. Spatial structure and heterogeneity in beds of the seagrass Ruppia maritima. and comparison to ecological variablesUniversity of Maryland, College Park, MD.MS ThesisGoogle Scholar
  69. Short, F.T.,Burdick, and D.Kaldy. J.E. 1995. Mesocosm experiments quantify the effects of eutrophication on eelgrass, Zostera marina. Limonology and Oceanography. 40: 740–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Short, F.T., andWyllie-Echeverria. S.1996. Natural and human-induced disturbance of seagrasses. Environmental Conservation. 23: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smayda, T.J. 1997. Harmful algal blooms: Their ecophysiology and general relevance to phytoplankton blooms in the sea. Limonology and Oceanography. 42: 1137–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stankelis, R.M.,Naylor, and M.Boynton. W.R. 2003. Submerged aquatic vegetation in the mesohaline region of the Patuxent estuary: Past, present and future status. Estuaries 26: (2A)186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sturgis, R.B., and Murray. L.1997. Scaling of nutrient inputs to submersed plant communities: Temporal and spatial variations. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 152: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tilman, D.1977. Resource competition between planktonic algae: An experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58: 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tomasko, D.A.,Dawes, and C.J.Hall. M.O. 1996. The effects of anthropogenic nutrient enrichment on Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum.) in Sarasota Bay, Florida Estuaries 19: (2B)448–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Twilley, R.R.,Kemp, W.M.Staver, K.W.Stevenson, and J.C.Boynton. W.R. 1985. Nutrient enrichment of estuarine submersed vascular plant communities: I. Algal growth and effects on production of plants and associated communities. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 23: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yamamoto, T.2003. The Seto Inland Sea – Eutrophic or oligotrophic? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 47: 37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zedler, J.B., and Callaway. J.C. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: Do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology. 7: 69–73.CrossRefGoogle 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