Sensitivity of secondary production and export flux to choice of trophic transfer formulation in marine ecosystem models

Anderson, Thomas R. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7408-1566; Hessen, Dag O.; Mitra, Aditee; Mayor, Daniel J. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1295-0041; Yool, Andrew ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9879-2776. 2013 Sensitivity of secondary production and export flux to choice of trophic transfer formulation in marine ecosystem models. Journal of Marine Systems, 125. 41-53. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.09.008

Before downloading, please read NORA policies.

Preview

Text
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Marine Systems. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was/will be published in Journal of Marine Systems (doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.09.008)
trophic120810.pdf - Accepted Version
Download (225kB) | Preview

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.09.008

Abstract/Summary

The performance of four contemporary formulations describing trophic transfer, which have strongly contrasting assumptions as regards the way that consumer growth is calculated as a function of food C:N ratio and in the fate of non-limiting substrates, was compared in two settings: a simple steady-state ecosystem model and a 3D biogeochemical general circulation model. Considerable variation was seen in predictions for primary production, transfer to higher trophic levels and export to the ocean interior. The physiological basis of the various assumptions underpinning the chosen formulations is open to question. Assumptions include Liebig-style limitation of growth, strict homeostasis in zooplankton biomass, and whether excess C and N are released by voiding in faecal pellets or via respiration/excretion post-absorption by the gut. Deciding upon the most appropriate means of formulating trophic transfer is not straightforward because, despite advances in ecological stoichiometry, the physiological mechanisms underlying these phenomena remain incompletely understood. Nevertheless, worrying inconsistencies are evident in the way in which fundamental transfer processes are justified and parameterised in the current generation of marine ecosystem models, manifested in the resulting simulations of ocean biogeochemistry. Our work highlights the need for modellers to revisit and appraise the equations and parameter values used to describe trophic transfer in marine ecosystem models.

Item Type:	Publication - Article
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):	10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.09.008
ISSN:	09247963
Date made live:	17 Sep 2013 10:46 +0 (UTC)
URI:	https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/503257

Item Type:

Publication - Article

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.09.008

ISSN:

09247963

Date made live:

17 Sep 2013 10:46 +0 (UTC)

URI:

https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/503257