There are two broad approaches to numerical ecological models, i.e. specific and generic. In the specific approach, biological quantities in the model must be observed locally, which is often difficult or/and time-consuming. In contrast, the generic approach does not require local values of biological quantities in the model, these being computed with generic equations. In general, generic equations estimate the biological quantities in models from local values of easily observed environmental variables (e.g. temperature). Generic models have both advantages and drawbacks. On the one hand, there is no need to estimate locally biological quantities in the system, and the same model can be applied to homologous systems. On the other hand, generic models may fit less precisely local situations than specific models. In practice, the two approaches are often combined, e.g. in order to obtain rapidly at least preliminary answers to site-specific questions, generic models may be simplified to fit and explore the local situations. When detailed answers are required, specific models may be constructed using parts of existing generic models, which is an efficient use of knowledge developed by the international community, for resolving local problems.
KeywordsParticulate Organic Carbon Ecological Model Zebra Mussel Coastal Lagoon Bacterial Respiration
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cousins, S. H. 1985. The trophic continuum in marine ecosystems: structure and equations for a predictive model, In R. E. Ulanowicz and T. Platt [eds.], Ecosystem theory for biological oceanography. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 213: 76–93.Google Scholar
- Hansom, J. D., AND J. E. Gordon. 1998. Antarctic environments and resources: A geographical perspective. Longham.Google Scholar
- Moloney, C. L. AND M. I. Lucas. 1991. The size-based dynamics of plankton food webd. II. Simulations of three contrasting southern Benguela food webs. J. Plankton Res. 13: 1039–1092.Google Scholar
- Witte, F., T. Goldschmidt, P. C. Goudswaard, W. Ligtvoet, M. J. P. Van Oijen, AND J. H. Wanink. 1992. Species extinction and concomitant ecological changes in Lake Victoria. Neth. J. Zool. 42: 214–232.Google Scholar
- Gerritsen, J., A. F. Holland, AND D. E. Irvine. 1994. Suspension-feeding bivalves and the fate of primary production: An estuarine model applied to Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 17: 403–416.Google Scholar
- Klepper, O., M. W. M. Van Der Tol, H. Scholten, And P. M. J. Herman. 1994. SMOES: a simulation model for the Oosterschelde ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 282/283: 437–451.Google Scholar
- Remane, A. 1971. Ecology of brackish water. p. 2–210. In A. Remane and C. Schlieper [eds.], Biology of brackish water. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Swinbanks, D. 1988. Plans for giant freshwaterpond opposed by Japansese. Nature 332: 480.Google Scholar
- Wolff, W. J. 1983. Estuarine benthos. p. 151–182. In B. H. Ketchum [ed.], Estuaries and Enclosed Seas. Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Yamamuro, M., J. Hiratsuka, And Y. Ishitobi. 2000. Seasonal change in a filter-feeding bivalve Musculista senhousia population of a eutrophic estuarine lagoon. J. Marine Syst. 26: 117–126.Google Scholar