@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}
}
@article{WeithoffRochaGaedke2015,
  author    = {Weithoff, Guntram and Rocha, Marcia R. and Gaedke, Ursula},
  title     = {Comparing seasonal dynamics of functional and taxonomic diversity reveals the driving forces underlying phytoplankton community structure},
  series = {Freshwater biology},
  volume    = {60},
  journal   = {Freshwater biology},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0046-5070},
  doi       = {10.1111/fwb.12527},
  pages     = {758 -- 767},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {In most biodiversity studies, taxonomic diversity is the measure for the multiplicity of species and is often considered to represent functional diversity. However, trends in taxonomic diversity and functional diversity may differ, for example, when many functionally similar but taxonomically different species co-occur in a community. The differences between these diversity measures are of particular interest in diversity research for understanding diversity patterns and their underlying mechanisms. We analysed a temporally highly resolved 20-year time series of lake phytoplankton to determine whether taxonomic diversity and functional diversity exhibit similar or contrasting seasonal patterns. We also calculated the functional mean of the community in n-dimensional trait space for each sampling day to gain further insights into the seasonal dynamics of the functional properties of the community. We found an overall weak positive relationship between taxonomic diversity and functional diversity with a distinct seasonal pattern. The two diversity measures showed synchronous behaviour from early spring to mid-summer and a more complex and diverging relationship from autumn to late winter. The functional mean of the community exhibited a recurrent annual pattern with the most prominent changes before and after the clear-water phase. From late autumn to winter, the functional mean of the community and functional diversity were relatively constant while taxonomic diversity declined, suggesting competitive exclusion during this period. A further decline in taxonomic diversity concomitant with increasing functional diversity in late winter to early spring is seen as a result of niche diversification together with competitive exclusion. Under these conditions, several different sets of traits are suitable to thrive, but within one set of functional traits only one, or very few, morphotypes can persist. Taxonomic diversity alone is a weak descriptor of trait diversity in phytoplankton. However, the combined analysis of taxonomic diversity and functional diversity, along with the functional mean of the community, allows for deeper insights into temporal patterns of community assembly and niche diversification.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BauerVosKlauschiesetal.2014,
  author    = {Bauer, Barbara and Vos, Matthijs and Klauschies, Toni and Gaedke, Ursula},
  title     = {Diversity, functional similarity, and top-down control drive synchronization and the reliability of ecosystem function},
  series = {The American naturalist : a bi-monthly journal devoted to the advancement and correlation of the biological sciences},
  volume    = {183},
  journal   = {The American naturalist : a bi-monthly journal devoted to the advancement and correlation of the biological sciences},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Univ. of Chicago Press},
  address   = {Chicago},
  issn      = {0003-0147},
  doi       = {10.1086/674906},
  pages     = {394 -- 409},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The concept that diversity promotes reliability of ecosystem function depends on the pattern that community-level biomass shows lower temporal variability than species-level biomasses. However, this pattern is not universal, as it relies on compensatory or independent species dynamics. When in contrast within--trophic level synchronization occurs, variability of community biomass will approach population-level variability. Current knowledge fails to integrate how species richness, functional distance between species, and the relative importance of predation and competition combine to drive synchronization at different trophic levels. Here we clarify these mechanisms. Intense competition promotes compensatory dynamics in prey, but predators may at the same time increasingly synchronize, under increasing species richness and functional similarity. In contrast, predators and prey both show perfect synchronization under strong top-down control, which is promoted by a combination of low functional distance and high net growth potential of predators. Under such conditions, community-level biomass variability peaks, with major negative consequences for reliability of ecosystem function.},
  language  = {en}
}