TY  - JOUR
A1  - Sommer, Ulrich
A1  - Adrian, Rita
A1  - Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont
A1  - Elser, James J.
A1  - Gaedke, Ursula
A1  - Ibelings, Bas
A1  - Jeppesen, Erik
A1  - Lurling, Miquel
A1  - Molinero, Juan Carlos
A1  - Mooij, Wolf M.
A1  - van Donk, Ellen
A1  - Winder, Monika
ED  - Futuyma, DJ
T1  - Beyond the Plankton Ecology Group (PEG) Model mechanisms driving plankton succession
JF  - Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics
JF  - Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics
N2  - The seasonal succession of plankton is an annually repeated process of community assembly during which all major external factors and internal interactions shaping communities can be studied. A quarter of a century ago, the state of this understanding was described by the verbal plankton ecology group (PEG) model. It emphasized the role of physical factors, grazing and nutrient limitation for phytoplankton, and the role of food limitation and fish predation for zooplankton. Although originally targeted at lake ecosystems, it was also adopted by marine plankton ecologists. Since then, a suite of ecological interactions previously underestimated in importance have become research foci: overwintering of key organisms, the microbial food web, parasitism, and food quality as a limiting factor and an extended role of higher order predators. A review of the impact of these novel interactions on plankton seasonal succession reveals limited effects on gross seasonal biomass patterns, but strong effects on species replacements.
KW  - lakes
KW  - oceans
KW  - seasonal patterns
KW  - pelagic zone
KW  - light
KW  - overwintering
KW  - grazing
KW  - parasitism
KW  - food quality
Y1  - 2012
SN  - 978-0-8243-1443-9
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160251
SN  - 1543-592X
VL  - 43
IS  - 2-4
SP  - 429
EP  - 448
PB  - Annual Reviews
CY  - Palo Alto
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Janssen, Annette B. G.
A1  - Arhonditsis, George B.
A1  - Beusen, Arthur
A1  - Bolding, Karsten
A1  - Bruce, Louise
A1  - Bruggeman, Jorn
A1  - Couture, Raoul-Marie
A1  - Downing, Andrea S.
A1  - Elliott, J. Alex
A1  - Frassl, Marieke A.
A1  - Gal, Gideon
A1  - Gerla, Daan J.
A1  - Hipsey, Matthew R.
A1  - Hu, Fenjuan
A1  - Ives, Stephen C.
A1  - Janse, Jan H.
A1  - Jeppesen, Erik
A1  - Joehnk, Klaus D.
A1  - Kneis, David
A1  - Kong, Xiangzhen
A1  - Kuiper, Jan J.
A1  - Lehmann, Moritz K.
A1  - Lemmen, Carsten
A1  - Oezkundakci, Deniz
A1  - Petzoldt, Thomas
A1  - Rinke, Karsten
A1  - Robson, Barbara J.
A1  - Sachse, Rene
A1  - Schep, Sebastiaan A.
A1  - Schmid, Martin
A1  - Scholten, Huub
A1  - Teurlincx, Sven
A1  - Trolle, Dennis
A1  - Troost, Tineke A.
A1  - Van Dam, Anne A.
A1  - Van Gerven, Luuk P. A.
A1  - Weijerman, Mariska
A1  - Wells, Scott A.
A1  - Mooij, Wolf M.
T1  - Exploring, exploiting and evolving diversity of aquatic ecosystem models: a community perspective
JF  - Aquatic ecology : the international forum covering research in freshwater and marine environments
N2  - Here, we present a community perspective on how to explore, exploit and evolve the diversity in aquatic ecosystem models. These models play an important role in understanding the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, filling in observation gaps and developing effective strategies for water quality management. In this spirit, numerous models have been developed since the 1970s. We set off to explore model diversity by making an inventory among 42 aquatic ecosystem modellers, by categorizing the resulting set of models and by analysing them for diversity. We then focus on how to exploit model diversity by comparing and combining different aspects of existing models. Finally, we discuss how model diversity came about in the past and could evolve in the future. Throughout our study, we use analogies from biodiversity research to analyse and interpret model diversity. We recommend to make models publicly available through open-source policies, to standardize documentation and technical implementation of models, and to compare models through ensemble modelling and interdisciplinary approaches. We end with our perspective on how the field of aquatic ecosystem modelling might develop in the next 5-10 years. To strive for clarity and to improve readability for non-modellers, we include a glossary.
KW  - Water quality
KW  - Ecology
KW  - Geochemistry
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Hydraulics
KW  - Hydrodynamics
KW  - Physical environment
KW  - Socio-economics
KW  - Model availability
KW  - Standardization
KW  - Linking
Y1  - 2015
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-015-9544-1
SN  - 1386-2588
SN  - 1573-5125
VL  - 49
IS  - 4
SP  - 513
EP  - 548
PB  - Springer
CY  - Dordrecht
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Quintana, Xavier D.
A1  - Arim, Matias
A1  - Badosa, Anna
A1  - Maria Blanco, Jose
A1  - Boix, Dani
A1  - Brucet, Sandra
A1  - Compte, Jordi
A1  - Egozcue, Juan J.
A1  - de Eyto, Elvira
A1  - Gaedke, Ursula
A1  - Gascon, Stephanie
A1  - Gil de Sola, Luis
A1  - Irvine, Kenneth
A1  - Jeppesen, Erik
A1  - Lauridsen, Torben L.
A1  - Lopez-Flores, Rocio
A1  - Mehner, Thomas
A1  - Romo, Susana
A1  - Sondergaard, Martin
T1  - Predation and competition effects on the size diversity of aquatic communities
JF  - Aquatic sciences : research across boundaries
N2  - Body size has been widely recognised as a key factor determining community structure in ecosystems. We analysed size diversity patterns of phytoplankton, zooplankton and fish assemblages in 13 data sets from freshwater and marine sites with the aim to assess whether there is a general trend in the effect of predation and resource competition on body size distribution across a wide range of aquatic ecosystems. We used size diversity as a measure of the shape of size distribution. Size diversity was computed based on the Shannon-Wiener diversity expression, adapted to a continuous variable, i.e. as body size. Our results show that greater predation pressure was associated with reduced size diversity of prey at all trophic levels. In contrast, competition effects depended on the trophic level considered. At upper trophic levels (zooplankton and fish), size distributions were more diverse when potential resource availability was low, suggesting that competitive interactions for resources promote diversification of aquatic communities by size. This pattern was not found for phytoplankton size distributions where size diversity mostly increased with low zooplankton grazing and increasing nutrient availability. Relationships we found were weak, indicating that predation and competition are not the only determinants of size distribution. Our results suggest that predation pressure leads to accumulation of organisms in the less predated sizes, while resource competition tends to favour a wider size distribution.
KW  - Phytoplankton
KW  - Zooplankton
KW  - Fish
KW  - Size distribution
KW  - Predation
KW  - Competition
KW  - Compositional data analysis
Y1  - 2015
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0368-1
SN  - 1015-1621
SN  - 1420-9055
VL  - 77
IS  - 1
SP  - 45
EP  - 57
PB  - Springer
CY  - Basel
ER  -