TROPHIC NETWORK MODELS AND PREDICTION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES ACCUMULATION IN FOOD WEBS
The term food web or trophic network defines a set of interconnected food chains by which energy and materials circulate within an ecosystem. The classical food web could be divided into two broad categories: the grazing web, which typically begins with green plants, algae, or photosynthesizing plankton, and the detrital web, which begins with organic debris. In a grazing web, materials typically pass from plants to herbivores to flesh eaters. In a detrital web, materials pass from plant and animal matter to decomposers as fungi and bacteria, then to detritivores, and then to their predators. In water ecosystems, the classical food web is represented by the planktonic and benthic food webs, which are interconnected. Additionally, the “microbial loop” represents an alternative pathway of carbon flowthat leads from bacteria to protozoa to metazoa, with dissolved organic matter (DOM) being utilized as substrate by the bacteria, which include nanoplankton (2–20 μm in size) and picoplankton (0.2–2 μm in size).
KeywordsBiomass Migration Toxicity Mercury Respiration
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Christensen, Walters, and Pauly, 2005. Ecopath with Ecosim: A User’s Guide, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
- Koelmans, A.A., A. van der Heide, L.M. Knijff, and R.H. Aalderink, 2001. Integrated modelling of eutrophication and organic contaminant fate and effects in aquatic ecosystems: A review, Water Resources, 35, 3517–3536.Google Scholar
- Lee, H., 1992. Chapter 12: Models, muddles, and mud: Predicting bioaccumulation of sediment associated pollutants, edited by G.A. Burton, Jr., Sediment Toxicity Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 267–393.Google Scholar
- MacDonald, C.R., C.D. Metcalfe, G.C. Balch, and T.L. Metcalfe, 1993. Distribution of PCB congeners in seven lake systems: Interactions between sediment and food-web transport, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 12, 1991–2003.Google Scholar
- Muir, D., B. Braune, B. DeMarch, R. Norstrom, R. Wagemann, M. Gamberg, K. Poole, R. Addison, D. Bright, M. Dodd, W. Dushenko, J. Earner, M. Evans, B. Elkin, S. Grundy, B. Hargrave, C. Hebert, R. Johnstone, K. Kidd, B. Koenig, L. Lockhart, J. Payne, J. Peddle, and K. Reimer, 1997. Chapter 3: Ecosystem Uptake and Effects, edited by F. Jensen, K. Adare, and R. Shearer, Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa, No. 19, 1–294.Google Scholar
- Norstrom, R.J., A.E. McKinnon, A.S.W. DeFreitas, 1976. A bioenergetics-based model for pollutant accumulation by fish—Simulation of PCB and methylmercury residue levels in Ottawa River yellow perch (Perca flavescens), J. Fisheries Res. Board Canada, 33, 348–267.Google Scholar
- Polovina, J.J., 1984b. An overview of the ECOPATH model, Fishbyte, 2, 5–7.Google Scholar
- Rowan, D.J., and J.B. Rasmussen, 1992. Why don’t Great Lakes fish reflect environmental concentrations of organic contaminants? An analysis of between-lake variability in the ecological partitioning of PCBs and DDT, J. Great Lakes Res., 18 (4), 724–741.Google Scholar
- Shaw, G.R., and D.W. Connelt, 1986. Chapter 6: Factors controlling bioaccumulation of PCBs, edited by J.S. Waid, PCBs and the Environment, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 121–134.Google Scholar
- Walters, C., V. Christensen, and D. Pauly, 1997. Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance assessments Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 7, 139–172.Google Scholar
- Winberg, G.G., 1956. Rate of metabolism and food requirements of fishes, Transl. Fish Res. Board Canada, 194, 1–253.Google Scholar