@article{GrimmAugusiakFocksetal.2014,
  author    = {Grimm, Volker and Augusiak, Jacqueline and Focks, Andreas and Frank, Beatrice M. and Gabsi, Faten and Johnston, Alice S. A. and Liu, Chun and Martin, Benjamin T. and Meli, Mattia and Radchuk, Viktoriia and Thorbek, Pernille and Railsback, Steven Floyd},
  title     = {Towards better modelling and decision support: Documenting model development, testing, and analysis using TRACE},
  series = {Ecological modelling : international journal on ecological modelling and engineering and systems ecolog},
  volume    = {280},
  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.2014.01.018},
  pages     = {129 -- 139},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The potential of ecological models for supporting environmental decision making is increasingly acknowledged. However, it often remains unclear whether a model is realistic and reliable enough. Good practice for developing and testing ecological models has not yet been established. Therefore, TRACE, a general framework for documenting a model's rationale, design, and testing was recently suggested. Originally TRACE was aimed at documenting good modelling practice. However, the word 'documentation' does not convey TRACE's urgency. Therefore, we re-define TRACE as a tool for planning, performing, and documenting good modelling practice. TRACE documents should provide convincing evidence that a model was thoughtfully designed, correctly implemented, thoroughly tested, well understood, and appropriately used for its intended purpose. TRACE documents link the science underlying a model to its application, thereby also linking modellers and model users, for example stakeholders, decision makers, and developers of policies. We report on first experiences in producing TRACE documents. We found that the original idea underlying TRACE was valid, but to make its use more coherent and efficient, an update of its structure and more specific guidance for its use are needed. The updated TRACE format follows the recently developed framework of model 'evaludation': the entire process of establishing model quality and credibility throughout all stages of model development, analysis, and application. TRACE thus becomes a tool for planning, documenting, and assessing model evaludation, which includes understanding the rationale behind a model and its envisaged use. We introduce the new structure and revised terminology of TRACE and provide examples. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MeliPalmqvistForbesetal.2014,
  author    = {Meli, Mattia and Palmqvist, Annemette and Forbes, Valery E. and Groeneveld, J{\"u}rgen and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Two pairs of eyes are better than one: Combining individual-based and matrix models for ecological risk assessment of chemicals},
  series = {Ecological modelling : international journal on ecological modelling and engineering and systems ecolog},
  volume    = {280},
  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.2013.07.027},
  pages     = {40 -- 52},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Current chemical risk assessment procedures may result in imprecise estimates of risk due to sometimes arbitrary simplifying assumptions. As a way to incorporate ecological complexity and improve risk estimates, mechanistic effect models have been recommended. However, effect modeling has not yet been extensively used for regulatory purposes, one of the main reasons being uncertainty about which model type to use to answer specific regulatory questions. We took an individual-based model (IBM), which was developed for risk assessment of soil invertebrates and includes avoidance of highly contaminated areas, and contrasted it with a simpler, more standardized model, based on the generic metapopulation matrix model RAMAS. In the latter the individuals within a sub-population are not treated as separate entities anymore and the spatial resolution is lower. We explored consequences of model aggregation in terms of assessing population-level effects for different spatial distributions of a toxic chemical. For homogeneous contamination of the soil, we found good agreement between the two models, whereas for heterogeneous contamination, at different concentrations and percentages of contaminated area, RAMAS results were alternatively similar to IBM results with and without avoidance, and different food levels. This inconsistency is explained on the basis of behavioral responses that are included in the IBM but not in RAMAS. Overall, RAMAS was less sensitive than the IBM in detecting population-level effects of different spatial patterns of exposure. We conclude that choosing the right model type for risk assessment of chemicals depends on whether or not population-level effects of small-scale heterogeneity in exposure need to be detected. We recommend that if in doubt, both model types should be used and compared. Describing both models following the same standard format, the ODD protocol, makes them equally transparent and understandable. The simpler model helps to build up trust for the more complex model and can be used for more homogeneous exposure patterns. The more complex model helps detecting and understanding the limitations of the simpler model and is needed to ensure ecological realism for more complex exposure scenarios. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}