@article{MooijBredervelddeKleinetal.2014,
  author    = {Mooij, Wolf M. and Brederveld, Robert J. and de Klein, Jeroen J. M. and DeAngelis, Don L. and Downing, Andrea S. and Faber, Michiel and Gerla, Daan J. and Hipsey, Matthew R. and Janse, Jan H. and Janssen, Annette B. G. and Jeuken, Michel and Kooi, Bob W. and Lischke, Betty and Petzoldt, Thomas and Postma, Leo and Schep, Sebastiaan A. and Scholten, Huub and Teurlincx, Sven and Thiange, Christophe and Trolle, Dennis and van Dam, Anne A. and van Gerven, Luuk P. A. and van Nes, Egbert H. and Kuiper, Jan J.},
  title     = {Serving many at once: How a database approach can create unity in dynamical ecosystem modelling},
  series = {Environmental modelling \& software with environment data news},
  volume    = {61},
  journal   = {Environmental modelling \& software with environment data news},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {1364-8152},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.04.004},
  pages     = {266 -- 273},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Simulation modelling in ecology is a field that is becoming increasingly compartmentalized. Here we propose a Database Approach To Modelling (DATM) to create unity in dynamical ecosystem modelling with differential equations. In this approach the storage of ecological knowledge is independent of the language and platform in which the model will be run. To create an instance of the model, the information in the database is translated and augmented with the language and platform specifics. This process is automated so that a new instance can be created each time the database is updated. We describe the approach using the simple Lotka-Volterra model and the complex ecosystem model for shallow lakes PCLake, which we automatically implement in the frameworks OSIRIS, GRIND for MATLAB, ACSL, R, DUFLOW and DELWAQ. A clear advantage of working in a database is the overview it provides. The simplicity of the approach only adds to its elegance. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MooijTrolleJeppesenetal.2010,
  author    = {Mooij, Wolf M. and Trolle, Dennis and Jeppesen, Erik and Arhonditsis, George B. and Belolipetsky, Pavel V. and Chitamwebwa, Deonatus B. R. and Degermendzhy, Andrey G. and DeAngelis, Donald L. and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont and Downing, Andrea S. and Elliott, J. Alex and Fragoso Jr, Carlos Ruberto and Gaedke, Ursula and Genova, Svetlana N. and Gulati, Ramesh D. and H{\aa}kanson, Lars and Hamilton, David P. and Hipsey, Matthew R. and 't Hoen, Jochem and H{\"u}lsmann, Stephan and Los, F. Hans and Makler-Pick, Vardit and Petzoldt, Thomas and Prokopkin, Igor G. and Rinke, Karsten and Schep, Sebastiaan A. and Tominaga, Koji and Van Dam, Anne A. and Van Nes, Egbert H. and Wells, Scott A. and Janse, Jan H.},
  title     = {Challenges and opportunities for integrating lake ecosystem modelling approaches},
  series = {Aquatic ecology},
  volume    = {44},
  journal   = {Aquatic ecology},
  publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V.},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1573-5125},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10452-010-9339-3},
  pages     = {633 -- 667},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {A large number and wide variety of lake ecosystem models have been developed and published during the past four decades. We identify two challenges for making further progress in this field. One such challenge is to avoid developing more models largely following the concept of others ('reinventing the wheel'). The other challenge is to avoid focusing on only one type of model, while ignoring new and diverse approaches that have become available ('having tunnel vision'). In this paper, we aim at improving the awareness of existing models and knowledge of concurrent approaches in lake ecosystem modelling, without covering all possible model tools and avenues. First, we present a broad variety of modelling approaches. To illustrate these approaches, we give brief descriptions of rather arbitrarily selected sets of specific models. We deal with static models (steady state and regression models), complex dynamic models (CAEDYM, CE-QUAL-W2, Delft 3D-ECO, LakeMab, LakeWeb, MyLake, PCLake, PROTECH, SALMO), structurally dynamic models and minimal dynamic models. We also discuss a group of approaches that could all be classified as individual based: super-individual models (Piscator, Charisma), physiologically structured models, stage-structured models and traitbased models. We briefly mention genetic algorithms, neural networks, Kalman filters and fuzzy logic. Thereafter, we zoom in, as an in-depth example, on the multi-decadal development and application of the lake ecosystem model PCLake and related models (PCLake Metamodel, Lake Shira Model, IPH-TRIM3D-PCLake). In the discussion, we argue that while the historical development of each approach and model is understandable given its 'leading principle', there are many opportunities for combining approaches. We take the point of view that a single 'right' approach does not exist and should not be strived for. Instead, multiple modelling approaches, applied concurrently to a given problem, can help develop an integrative view on the functioning of lake ecosystems. We end with a set of specific recommendations that may be of help in the further development of lake ecosystem models.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MooijTrolleJeppesenetal.2010,
  author    = {Mooij, Wolf M. and Trolle, Dennis and Jeppesen, Erik and Arhonditsis, George B. and Belolipetsky, Pavel V. and Chitamwebwa, Deonatus B. R. and Degermendzhy, Andrey G. and DeAngelis, Donald L. and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont and Downing, Andrea S. and Elliott, J. Alex and Fragoso Jr., Carlos Ruberto and Gaedke, Ursula and Genova, Svetlana N. and Gulati, Ramesh D. and H{\aa}kanson, Lars and Hamilton, David P. and Hipsey, Matthew R. and 't Hoen, Jochem and H{\"u}lsmann, Stephan and Los, F. Hans and Makler-Pick, Vardit and Petzoldt, Thomas and Prokopkin, Igor G. and Rinke, Karsten and Schep, Sebastiaan A. and Tominaga, Koji and Van Dam, Anne A. and Van Nes, Egbert H. and Wells, Scott A. and Janse, Jan H.},
  title     = {Challenges and opportunities for integrating lake ecosystem modelling approaches},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {1326},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42983},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-429839},
  pages     = {35},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {A large number and wide variety of lake ecosystem models have been developed and published during the past four decades. We identify two challenges for making further progress in this field. One such challenge is to avoid developing more models largely following the concept of others ('reinventing the wheel'). The other challenge is to avoid focusing on only one type of model, while ignoring new and diverse approaches that have become available ('having tunnel vision'). In this paper, we aim at improving the awareness of existing models and knowledge of concurrent approaches in lake ecosystem modelling, without covering all possible model tools and avenues. First, we present a broad variety of modelling approaches. To illustrate these approaches, we give brief descriptions of rather arbitrarily selected sets of specific models. We deal with static models (steady state and regression models), complex dynamic models (CAEDYM, CE-QUAL-W2, Delft 3D-ECO, LakeMab, LakeWeb, MyLake, PCLake, PROTECH, SALMO), structurally dynamic models and minimal dynamic models. We also discuss a group of approaches that could all be classified as individual based: super-individual models (Piscator, Charisma), physiologically structured models, stage-structured models and traitbased models. We briefly mention genetic algorithms, neural networks, Kalman filters and fuzzy logic. Thereafter, we zoom in, as an in-depth example, on the multi-decadal development and application of the lake ecosystem model PCLake and related models (PCLake Metamodel, Lake Shira Model, IPH-TRIM3D-PCLake). In the discussion, we argue that while the historical development of each approach and model is understandable given its 'leading principle', there are many opportunities for combining approaches. We take the point of view that a single 'right' approach does not exist and should not be strived for. Instead, multiple modelling approaches, applied concurrently to a given problem, can help develop an integrative view on the functioning of lake ecosystems. We end with a set of specific recommendations that may be of help in the further development of lake ecosystem models.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{vanGervenBredervelddeKleinetal.2015,
  author    = {van Gerven, Luuk P. A. and Brederveld, Robert J. and de Klein, Jeroen J. M. and DeAngelis, Don L. and Downing, Andrea S. and Faber, Michiel and Gerla, Daan J. and Janse, Jan H. and Janssen, Annette B. G. and Jeuken, Michel and Kooi, Bob W. and Kuiper, Jan J. and Lischke, Betty and Liu, Sien and Petzoldt, Thomas and Schep, Sebastiaan A. and Teurlincx, Sven and Thiange, Christophe and Trolle, Dennis and van Nes, Egbert H. and Mooij, Wolf M.},
  title     = {Advantages of concurrent use of multiple software frameworks in water quality modelling using a database approach},
  series = {Fundamental and applied limnology : official journal of the International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology},
  volume    = {186},
  journal   = {Fundamental and applied limnology : official journal of the International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology},
  number    = {1-2},
  publisher = {Schweizerbart},
  address   = {Stuttgart},
  issn      = {1863-9135},
  doi       = {10.1127/fal/2015/0631},
  pages     = {5 -- 20},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Water quality modelling deals with multidisciplinary questions ranging from fundamental to applied. Addressing this broad range of questions requires multiple analysis techniques and therefore multiple frameworks. Through the recently developed database approach to modelling (DATM), it has become possible to run a model in multiple software frameworks without much overhead. Here we apply DATM to the ecosystem model for ditches PCDitch and its twin model for shallow lakes PCLake. Using DATM, we run these models in six frameworks (ACSL, DELWAQ, DUFLOW, GRIND for MATLAB, OSIRIS and R), and report on the possible model analyses with tools provided by each framework. We conclude that the dynamic link between frameworks and models resulting from DATM has the following main advantages: it allows one to use the framework one is familiar with for most model analyses and eases switching between frameworks for complementary model analyses, including the switch between a 0-D and 1-D to 3-D setting. Moreover, the strength of each framework - including runtime performance - can now be easily exploited. We envision that a community-based further development of the concept can contribute to the future development of water quality modelling, not only by addressing multidisciplinary questions but also by facilitating the exchange of models and process formulations within the community of water quality modellers.},
  language  = {en}
}