Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-sp94z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T08:00:40.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Modified Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (MPOD) for reducing ecosystem models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

J. Lawrie  and
J. W. Hearne
J. Lawrie
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia; jock.lawrie@gmail.com.
J. W. Hearne
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia; jock.lawrie@gmail.com.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

In this paper we consider simplifying a model of the nitrogen cycle in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. The approach taken is to aggregate state variables that are linearly related using a projection in state space. The technique involved is a modification of proper orthogonal decomposition and was developed so that a resulting simplified model retains an ecological interpretation. It can be applied automatically, and enables insights into the system to be gained that were not obvious beforehand. In the case of the Port Phillip Bay model, we find that the variables representing water and sand are unaffected by the remaining variables, while only variables on the same trophic level can be grouped together. The validity of the aggregation under several nutrient loads is also discussed.

Keywords

Large ecosystem modelscomplexityaggregating state variablesmodel order reduction

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The ANZIAM Journal , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , April 2007 , pp. 461 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Mathematical Society 2007

References

[1]Beck, M. B., “Hard or soft environmental systems”, Ecol. Model. 11 (1981) 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Bugmann, H., “A review of forest gap models”, Climatic Change 51 (2001) 259–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Cale, W. G. Jr. and Odell, P. L., “Behaviour of aggregate state variables in ecosystem models”, Math. Biosci. 49 (1980) 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Christensen, V. and Walters, C. J., “Ecopath with ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations”, Ecol. Model. 172 (2004) 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Denman, K. L., “Modelling planktonic ecosystems: parameterizing complexity”, Prog. Oceanography 57 (2003) 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Fazey, I., Fischer, J. and Lindenmayer, D. B., “What do conservation biologists publish”, Biol. Conserv. 124 (2005) 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Fulton, E. A., “The effects of model structure and complexity on the behaviour and performance of marine ecosystem models”, Ph. D. Thesis, School of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 2001.Google Scholar
[8]Fulton, E. A., Parslow, J. S., Smith, A. D. M. and Johnson, C. R., “Biogeochemical marine ecosystem models II: the effect of physiological detail on model performance”, Ecol. Model. 173 (2004) 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Fulton, E. A., Smith, A. D. M. and Johnson, C. R., “Mortality and predation in ecosystem models: is it important how these are expressed”, Ecol. Model. 169 (2003) 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Håkanson, L., “Optimal size of predictive models”, Ecol. Model. 78 (1995) 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Harris, G., Batley, G., Fox, D., Hall, D., Jernakoff, P., Molloy, R., Murray, A., Newell, B., Parslow, J., Skyring, G. and Walker, S. J., “Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study Final Report”, Technical report, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, 1996.Google Scholar
[12]Homann, P. S., McKane, R. B. and Sollins, P., “Below-ground processes in forest-ecosystem biogeochemical simulation models”, Forest Ecol. Management 138 (2000) 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Jorgensen, S. E., “A eutrophication model for a lake”, Ecol. Model. 2 (1976) 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Jorgensen, S. E., Ray, S., Berec, L. and Straskraba, M., “Improved calibration of a eutrophication model by use of the size variation due to succession”, Ecol. Model. 153 (2002) 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Kooi, B. W., Poggiale, J. C. and Auger, P., “Aggregation methods in food chains”, Math. Comput. Model. 27 (1998) 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Lawrie, J., “Reducing the complexity of large ecosystem models”, Ph. D. Thesis, School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, 2006.Google Scholar
[17]Lindenschmidt, K. E., “The effect of complexity on parameter sensitivity and model uncertainty in river water quality modelling”, Ecol. Model. 190 (2006) 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Lukyanov, N. K., Svirezhev, Yu. M. and Voronkova, O. V., “Aggregation of variables in simulation models of water ecosystems”, Ecol. Model. 18 (1983) 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Murray, A. and Parslow, J., “Port Phillip Bay Integrated Model: Final Report”, Technical Report 44, Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, 1997.Google Scholar
[20]Murray, A. and Parslow, J., “The analysis of alternative formulations in a simple model of a coastal ecosystem”, Ecol. Model. 119 (1999) 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]O'Neill, R. V. and Rust, B., “Aggregation error in ecological models”, Ecol. Model. 7 (1979) 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Pinnegar, J. K., Blanchard, J. L., Mackinson, S., Scott, R. D. and Duplisea, D. E., “Aggregation and removal of weak-links in food-web models: system stability and recovery from disturbance”, Ecol. Model. 184 (2005) 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Rathinam, M. and Petzold, L. R., “A new look at proper orthogonal decomposition”, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 41 (2003) 1893–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Rowley, C. W., Colonius, T. and Murray, R. M., “Model reduction for compressible flows using POD and Galerkin projection”, Phys. D 189 (2004) 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25]Scholten, H., Van Der Tol, M. W. and Smaal, A. C., “Models or measurements”, in Meet. of the Int. Counc. for the Exploration of the Sea, Cascais, Portugal, 16–19 Sep, (ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998).Google Scholar
[26]Snowling, S. D. and Kramer, J. R., “Evaluating modelling uncertainty for model selection”, Ecol. Model. 138 (2001) 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Toal, M. E., Yeomans, C., Killham, K. and Meharg, A. A., “A review of rhizosphere carbon flow modelling”, Plant Soil 222 (2000) 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28]Van Nes, E. H. and Scheffer, M., “A strategy to improve the contribution of complex simulation models to ecological theory”, Ecol. Model. 185 (2005) 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29]Walker, S. J., “Hydrodynamic models of Port Phillip Bay”, Technical Report 38, Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, 1997.Google Scholar
[30]Walker, S. J. and Sherwood, C. R., “A transport model of Port Phillip Bay”, Technical Report 39, Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, 1997.Google Scholar