@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{KlauschiesVasseurGaedke2016, author = {Klauschies, Toni and Vasseur, David A. and Gaedke, Ursula}, title = {Trait adaptation promotes species coexistence in diverse predator and prey communities}, series = {Ecology and evolution}, journal = {Ecology and evolution}, publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons, Inc.}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.2172}, pages = {19}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Species can adjust their traits in response to selection which may strongly influence species coexistence. Nevertheless, current theory mainly assumes distinct and time-invariant trait values. We examined the combined effects of the range and the speed of trait adaptation on species coexistence using an innovative multispecies predator-prey model. It allows for temporal trait changes of all predator and prey species and thus simultaneous coadaptation within and among trophic levels. We show that very small or slow trait adaptation did not facilitate coexistence because the stabilizing niche differences were not sufficient to offset the fitness differences. In contrast, sufficiently large and fast trait adaptation jointly promoted stable or neutrally stable species coexistence. Continuous trait adjustments in response to selection enabled a temporally variable convergence and divergence of species traits; that is, species became temporally more similar (neutral theory) or dissimilar (niche theory) depending on the selection pressure, resulting over time in a balance between niche differences stabilizing coexistence and fitness differences promoting competitive exclusion. Furthermore, coadaptation allowed prey and predator species to cluster into different functional groups. This equalized the fitness of similar species while maintaining sufficient niche differences among functionally different species delaying or preventing competitive exclusion. In contrast to pre- vious studies, the emergent feedback between biomass and trait dynamics enabled supersaturated coexistence for a broad range of potential trait adaptation and parameters. We conclude that accounting for trait adaptation may explain stable and supersaturated species coexistence for a broad range of environmental conditions in natural systems when the absence of such adaptive changes would preclude it. Small trait changes, coincident with those that may occur within many natural populations, greatly enlarged the number of coexisting species.}, language = {en} } @article{BengfortvanVelzenGaedke2017, author = {Bengfort, Michael and van Velzen, Ellen and Gaedke, Ursula}, title = {Slight phenotypic variation in predators and prey causes complex predator-prey oscillations}, series = {Ecological Complexity}, volume = {31}, journal = {Ecological Complexity}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1476-945X}, doi = {10.1016/j.ecocom.2017.06.003}, pages = {115 -- 124}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Predator-prey oscillations are expected to show a 1/4-phase lag between predator and prey. However, observed dynamics of natural or experimental predator-prey systems are often more complex. A striking but hardly studied example are sudden interruptions of classic 1/4-lag cycles with periods of antiphase oscillations, or periods without any regular predator-prey oscillations. These interruptions occur for a limited time before the system reverts to regular 1/4-lag oscillations, thus yielding intermittent cycles. Reasons for this behaviour are often difficult to reveal in experimental systems. Here we test the hypothesis that such complex dynamical behaviour may result from minor trait variation and trait adaptation in both the prey and predator, causing recurrent small changes in attack rates that may be hard to capture by empirical measurements. Using a model structure where the degree of trait variation in the predator can be explicitly controlled, we show that a very limited amount of adaptation resulting in 10-15\% temporal variation in attack rates is already sufficient to generate these intermittent dynamics. Such minor variation may be present in experimental predator-prey systems, and may explain disruptions in regular 1/4-lag oscillations.}, language = {en} } @article{vanVelzenGaedke2018, author = {van Velzen, Ellen and Gaedke, Ursula}, title = {Reversed predator-prey cycles are driven by the amplitude of prey oscillations}, series = {Ecology and evolution}, volume = {8}, journal = {Ecology and evolution}, number = {12}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.4184}, pages = {6317 -- 6329}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Ecoevolutionary feedbacks in predator-prey systems have been shown to qualitatively alter predator-prey dynamics. As a striking example, defense-offense coevolution can reverse predator-prey cycles, so predator peaks precede prey peaks rather than vice versa. However, this has only rarely been shown in either model studies or empirical systems. Here, we investigate whether this rarity is a fundamental feature of reversed cycles by exploring under which conditions they should be found. For this, we first identify potential conditions and parameter ranges most likely to result in reversed cycles by developing a new measure, the effective prey biomass, which combines prey biomass with prey and predator traits, and represents the prey biomass as perceived by the predator. We show that predator dynamics always follow the dynamics of the effective prey biomass with a classic 1/4-phase lag. From this key insight, it follows that in reversed cycles (i.e., -lag), the dynamics of the actual and the effective prey biomass must be in antiphase with each other, that is, the effective prey biomass must be highest when actual prey biomass is lowest, and vice versa. Based on this, we predict that reversed cycles should be found mainly when oscillations in actual prey biomass are small and thus have limited impact on the dynamics of the effective prey biomass, which are mainly driven by trait changes. We then confirm this prediction using numerical simulations of a coevolutionary predator-prey system, varying the amplitude of the oscillations in prey biomass: Reversed cycles are consistently associated with regions of parameter space leading to small-amplitude prey oscillations, offering a specific and highly testable prediction for conditions under which reversed cycles should occur in natural systems.}, language = {en} } @article{MuhlRoelkeZoharyetal.2018, author = {Muhl, Rika M. W. and Roelke, Daniel L. and Zohary, Tamar and Moustaka-Gouni, Maria and Sommer, Ulrich and Borics, Gabor and Gaedke, Ursula and Withrow, Frances G. and Bhattacharyya, Joydeb}, title = {Resisting annihilation}, series = {Ecology letters}, volume = {21}, journal = {Ecology letters}, number = {9}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1461-023X}, doi = {10.1111/ele.13109}, pages = {1390 -- 1400}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Allelopathic species can alter biodiversity. Using simulated assemblages that are characterised by neutrality, lumpy coexistence and intransitivity, we explore relationships between within-assemblage competitive dissimilarities and resistance to allelopathic species. An emergent behaviour from our models is that assemblages are more resistant to allelopathy when members strongly compete exploitatively (high competitive power). We found that neutral assemblages were the most vulnerable to allelopathic species, followed by lumpy and then by intransitive assemblages. We find support for our modeling in real-world time-series data from eight lakes of varied morphometry and trophic state. Our analysis of this data shows that a lake's history of allelopathic phytoplankton species biovolume density and dominance is related to the number of species clusters occurring in the plankton assemblages of those lakes, an emergent trend similar to that of our modeling. We suggest that an assemblage's competitive power determines its allelopathy resistance.}, language = {en} } @article{KlauschiesCoutinhoGaedke2018, author = {Klauschies, Toni and Coutinho, Renato Mendes and Gaedke, Ursula}, title = {A beta distribution-based moment closure enhances the reliability of trait-based aggregate models for natural populations and communities}, series = {Ecological modelling : international journal on ecological modelling and engineering and systems ecolog}, volume = {381}, journal = {Ecological modelling : international journal on ecological modelling and engineering and systems ecolog}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0304-3800}, doi = {10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.02.001}, pages = {46 -- 77}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Ecological communities are complex adaptive systems that exhibit remarkable feedbacks between their biomass and trait dynamics. Trait-based aggregate models cope with this complexity by focusing on the temporal development of the community's aggregate properties such as its total biomass, mean trait and trait variance. They are based on particular assumptions about the shape of the underlying trait distribution, which is commonly assumed to be normal. However, ecologically important traits are usually restricted to a finite range, and empirical trait distributions are often skewed or multimodal. As a result, normal distribution-based aggregate models may fail to adequately represent the biomass and trait dynamics of natural communities. We resolve this mismatch by developing a new moment closure approach assuming the trait values to be beta-distributed. We show that the beta distribution captures important shape properties of both observed and simulated trait distributions, which cannot be captured by a Gaussian. We further demonstrate that a beta distribution-based moment closure can strongly enhance the reliability of trait-based aggregate models. We compare the biomass, mean trait and variance dynamics of a full trait distribution (FD) model to the ones of beta (BA) and normal (NA) distribution-based aggregate models, under different selection regimes. This way, we demonstrate under which general conditions (stabilizing, fluctuating or disruptive selection) different aggregate models are reliable tools. All three models predicted very similar biomass and trait dynamics under stabilizing selection yielding unimodal trait distributions with small standing trait variation. We also obtained an almost perfect match between the results of the FD and BA models under fluctuating selection, promoting skewed trait distributions and ongoing oscillations in the biomass and trait dynamics. In contrast, the NA model showed unrealistic trait dynamics and exhibited different alternative stable states, and thus a high sensitivity to initial conditions under fluctuating selection. Under disruptive selection, both aggregate models failed to reproduce the results of the FD model with the mean trait values remaining within their ecologically feasible ranges in the BA model but not in the NA model. Overall, a beta distribution-based moment closure strongly improved the realism of trait-based aggregate models.}, language = {en} } @article{MittlerBlasiusGaedkeetal.2018, author = {Mittler, Udo and Blasius, Bernd and Gaedke, Ursula and Ryabov, Alexey B.}, title = {Length-volume relationship of lake phytoplankton}, series = {Limnology and Oceanography: Methods}, volume = {17}, journal = {Limnology and Oceanography: Methods}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1541-5856}, doi = {10.1002/lom3.10296}, pages = {58 -- 68}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The shapes of phytoplankton units (unicellular organisms and colonies) are extremely diverse, and no unique relationship exists between their volume, V, and longest linear dimension, L. However, an approximate scaling between these parameters can be found because the shape variations within each size class are constrained by cell physiology, grazing pressure, and optimality of resource acquisition. To determine this scaling and to test for its seasonal and interannual variation under changing environmental conditions, we performed weighted regression analysis of time-dependent length-volume relations of the phytoplankton community in large deep Lake Constance from 1979 to 1999. We show that despite a large variability in species composition, the V(L) relationship can be approximated as a power law, V similar to L-alpha, with a scaling exponent alpha = 3 for small cells (L < 25 mu m) and alpha = 1.7 if the fitting is performed over the entire length range, including individual cells and colonies. The best description is provided by a transitional power function describing a regime change from a scaling exponent of 3 for small cells to an exponent of 0.4 in the range of large phytoplankton. Testing different weighted fitting approaches we show that remarkably the best prediction of the total community biovolume from measurements of L and cell density is obtained when the regression is weighted with the squares of species abundances. Our approach should also be applicable to other systems and allows converting phytoplankton length distributions (e.g., obtained with automatic monitoring such as flow cytometry) into distributions of biovolume and biovolume-related phytoplankton traits.}, language = {en} } @article{vanVelzenThieserBerendonketal.2018, author = {van Velzen, Ellen and Thieser, Tamara and Berendonk, Thomas U. and Weitere, Markus and Gaedke, Ursula}, title = {Inducible defense destabilizes predator-prey dynamics}, series = {Oikos}, volume = {127}, journal = {Oikos}, number = {11}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0030-1299}, doi = {10.1111/oik.04868}, pages = {1551 -- 1562}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Phenotypic plasticity in prey can have a dramatic impact on predator-prey dynamics, e.g. by inducible defense against temporally varying levels of predation. Previous work has overwhelmingly shown that this effect is stabilizing: inducible defenses dampen the amplitudes of population oscillations or eliminate them altogether. However, such studies have neglected scenarios where being protected against one predator increases vulnerability to another (incompatible defense). Here we develop a model for such a scenario, using two distinct prey phenotypes and two predator species. Each prey phenotype is defended against one of the predators, and vulnerable to the other. In strong contrast with previous studies on the dynamic effects of plasticity involving a single predator, we find that increasing the level of plasticity consistently destabilizes the system, as measured by the amplitude of oscillations and the coefficients of variation of both total prey and total predator biomasses. We explain this unexpected and seemingly counterintuitive result by showing that plasticity causes synchronization between the two prey phenotypes (and, through this, between the predators), thus increasing the temporal variability in biomass dynamics. These results challenge the common view that plasticity should always have a stabilizing effect on biomass dynamics: adding a single predator-prey interaction to an established model structure gives rise to a system where different mechanisms may be at play, leading to dramatically different outcomes.}, language = {en} } @article{vanVelzenGaedke2018, author = {van Velzen, Ellen and Gaedke, Ursula}, title = {Reversed predator}, series = {Ecology and Evolution}, journal = {Ecology and Evolution}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.4184}, pages = {1 -- 13}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Ecoevolutionary feedbacks in predator-prey systems have been shown to qualitatively alter predator-prey dynamics. As a striking example, defense-offense coevolution can reverse predator-prey cycles, so predator peaks precede prey peaks rather than vice versa. However, this has only rarely been shown in either model studies or empirical systems. Here, we investigate whether this rarity is a fundamental feature of reversed cycles by exploring under which conditions they should be found. For this, we first identify potential conditions and parameter ranges most likely to result in reversed cycles by developing a new measure, the effective prey biomass, which combines prey biomass with prey and predator traits, and represents the prey biomass as perceived by the predator. We show that predator dynamics always follow the dynamics of the effective prey biomass with a classic ¼-phase lag. From this key insight, it follows that in reversed cycles (i.e., ¾-lag), the dynamics of the actual and the effective prey biomass must be in antiphase with each other, that is, the effective prey biomass must be highest when actual prey biomass is lowest, and vice versa. Based on this, we predict that reversed cycles should be found mainly when oscillations in actual prey biomass are small and thus have limited impact on the dynamics of the effective prey biomass, which are mainly driven by trait changes. We then confirm this prediction using numerical simulations of a coevolutionary predator-prey system, varying the amplitude of the oscillations in prey biomass: Reversed cycles are consistently associated with regions of parameter space leading to small-amplitude prey oscillations, offering a specific and highly testable prediction for conditions under which reversed cycles should occur in natural systems.}, language = {en} } @article{EhrlichGaedke2018, author = {Ehrlich, Elias and Gaedke, Ursula}, title = {Not attackable or not crackable}, series = {Ecology and Evolution}, volume = {8}, journal = {Ecology and Evolution}, number = {13}, publisher = {Wiley}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.4145}, pages = {6625 -- 6637}, year = {2018}, abstract = {It is well-known that prey species often face trade-offs between defense against predation and competitiveness, enabling predator-mediated coexistence. However, we lack an understanding of how the large variety of different defense traits with different competition costs affects coexistence and population dynamics. Our study focusses on two general defense mechanisms, that is, pre-attack (e.g., camouflage)and post-attack defenses (e.g., weaponry) that act at different phases of the predator—prey interaction. We consider a food web model with one predator, two prey types and one resource. One prey type is undefended, while the other one is pre-or post-attack defended paying costs either by a higher half-saturation constant for resource uptake or a lower maximum growth rate. We show that post-attack defenses promote prey coexistence and stabilize the population dynamics more strongly than pre-attack defenses by interfering with the predator's functional response: Because the predator spends time handling "noncrackable" prey, the undefended prey is indirectly facilitated. A high half-saturation constant as defense costs promotes coexistence more and stabilizes the dynamics less than a low maximum growth rate. The former imposes high costs at low resource concentrations but allows for temporally high growth rates at predator-induced resource peaks preventing the extinction of the defended prey. We evaluate the effects of the different defense mechanisms and costs on coexistence under different enrichment levels in order to vary the importance of bottom-up and top-down control of the prey community.}, language = {en} }