Modeling Complexity

Modelling Complexity:
space, diversity (functional, species, size)

Fabien Lombard 5UM35 MEM
Outline
• Introduction : why to model complexity?
1) Plankton functional types (PFT)

2) Trait-based modelling
3) Adaptative dynamic approach
4) End-to-End modelling
5) Special case of the benthos: Integrating implicit
competition (tomorow)
Fasham model: a « simple » model
E =f(t) Production nouvelle

Absorption
Excrétion
Nd:DON P Nn:NO3
MLD
Absorption
Nr:NH4
Absorption
Absorption
Mortalité, égestion
Reminéralisation
Broutage Broutage
Broutage
Bacteria:B Z Detritus: D
Kz, M, sédimentation
Excrétion
Reminéralisation B attaché
NO30
Fasham model: a « simple » model
System of differential equations(Fasham et al., 1990)

Fasham model: main results
In agreement with data
Total NPP
1: La démarche
Why changing de modélisation
the modeling2: framework
Réponse du plancton à l’environnement
? Too simple ? 3: Les modèles biogéochimiques
Conclusion on NPZD Fasham et al. 1990
 most of the export takes place during detrainement (37-65%)

 main loss for phytoplankton is natural mortality (70%) and
the grazing is weak
-> the physic is more important than the biology in generating

the flux?
-> do we need a foodweb?
-> is it realistic?
1: La démarche
NPZD MODELS de modélisation
AT global2:scale
Réponse du plancton à l’environnement 3: Les modèles biogéochimiques
More recent models
SeaWiFS
NPZD
Chla
(mgChl/m3)
Nature is more abundant and extreme than models
Models usually fails in the antarctic zone (too high) and are too low
for the rest [Prentice et al., 2004]
NPZD MODELS AT global scale
More recent models
SeaWiFS
NPZD
Interanual variation of Chla by sattelite and seen by different NPZD

models
Nature is more stable than models

=> Stabilizing retro-actions?
[Prentice et al., 2004]
Why changing the modeling framework ? Too simple ?
Buffering capacity of
oceans?
Not enough complexity

to generate fluctuation
through feed backs and
non linear interactions
Prentice et al. [2001]

That’s our view of the ecosystem… in the 80’s

« Plankton »
« Plankton »
If god had consulted me before embarking on the creation, I would have suggested
something simpler.
Alfonso of Castile (15th century)
New attemps in modelling pelagic ecosystem with more complexity
Central question :How to represent the marine biodiversity

in a model?
1) Plankton functional types (PFT)

2) Trait-based modelling
3) Adaptative dynamic approach
4) End-to-End modelling
A new attemp in pelagic ecosystem modelling with PFT and complex processes
PISCES Model (Aumont & Bopp 2006)

1. Have an important role in

biogeochemical cycles
2. Can be observed
3. Parameters are known
4. Are present in most oceans
An example with Planktom10
DIN: NP3 +NH4
Bact. Het. Macrozoopl.
PlankTOM10 model, a global marine biogeochemical model based on the representation of ten Plankton
Functional Types (PFTs), including six phytoplankton (pPFTs), three zooplankton (zPFTs) and bacteria.
PlankTOM10 also represents the full cycles of C, O2, P and Si and simplified cycles for Fe and N. It currently
comprises of 39 biogeochemical tracers
http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/green_ocean/model/description.shtml
http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/green_ocean/model/code_description/Tex/bgcbio/bgcbio.html
(incl. cocco’)
(e.g. diatoms)
Too high
Too low
N
“Just” adding jellyfishes helps to solve

quite a lot of issues
Several PFT models do exists
Are they better ? Atlantic
Skill assessment with the Taylor diagram Antarctic
Pacific
Monthly observation Annual observation Global
Di
ff er
en
ce
wi
th
ob
se
rv
ati
on
s
Difference in mass between model/observation
Taylor, K.E.: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7183-7192, 2001 (also see PCMDI Report 55, http://www- pcmdi.llnl.gov/publications/ab55.html)
Nutriment, O2 Atlantic
Fe=0.7
Antarctic
Pacific
Global
NO3=0.96
O2 = 0.97
Phytoplankton
Pac=Atl=0.8
Zooplankton
Pac= 0.6
Atl=0.7
The higher is the trophic layer

The worst is the relationship between model
results and observation
Inter comparaison between models
Bopp et al., 2013, Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models
Biogeosciences, 10, 6225–6245, 2013
Inter comparaison
between models
This is a plankton mess!

But no one knows what
will be the truth
Bopp et al., 2013, Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models
Biogeosciences, 10, 6225–6245, 2013
This is a plankton mess!
Simulated patterns that agree well with observations have relatively high correlation and low RMS errors
and be close to std=1.
GONÇALVES LELES et al 2018

Traditionally Modern view
Flynn et al 2013
GONÇALVES LELES et al 2018
A1:new
La démarche
attemp de modélisation 2: Réponse du
in pelagic ecosystem plancton à l’environnement
modelling by resolving 3: Les modèles biogéochimiques
functional types with
trait based modelling
A new attemp in pelagic ecosystem modelling by resolving functional types with
The major ecological axes that define ecological niches of plankton are physical
environment, resources, and natural enemies (grazers and parasites).
For each of these axes a whole hierarchy of traits exists, from the subcellular to
population level, that allow plankton to survive and reproduce in the environment.
Kiorboe et al 2018
Kiorboe et al 2018
Phytoplankton
Litchman and Klausmeier

2008
Zooplankton
Litchman et al 2013
All plankton + benthos + necton
Martini et al 2021
Large interrest
Most traits in organisms are not independent but are instead interrelated. Correlations between
and among traits often represent trade-offs and complicate assessment of the selective pressures.
Correlations among traits can also lead to a reduced number of potential strategies characterized
by different trait values, where certain combinations of trait values become impossible. A trade-
off arises when a trait that is advantageous for one function confers a disadvantage for others.
Traits trade off for zooplankton
Barton et al 2014
Traits trade off for zooplankton
Conley et al 2018
Size is a master trait

“Size has a remarkably great influence on the
organisation of animal communities”
Elton, Animal Ecology, 1926
“For every type of animal there is a most convenient

size, and a large change in size inevitably carries with
it a change of form”
Haldane, On Being the Right Size, 1928

Andersen et al 2016
Andersen et al 2016
Andersen et al 2016
Testing different functional responses
And refuge from predation

Testing different functional responses
And refuge from predation

Adaptive dynamic approaches
A new attemp in pelagic ecosystem modelling with trait based and adaptative
dynamic modelling
dynamic modelling
Certainly an effect of the chlorophyll / biomass ratio

dynamic modelling
A new attemp in pelagic ecosystem modelling with adaptative dynamic modelling
End to end models
A new attemp in pelagic ecosystem modelling with End to End models
Types of models
1) Individual
Based Model (for example OSMOSE)
or DEB models structured in size (for
example APESCOM)
2) PFT models for plankton (PISCES,

PLANKTOM, …)
3) Physical model (for examples

ROMS, OPA, …) for transport and
physical conditions
Cury et al., 2008

using size structure for fishes

Everett et al under press

TD
Objectif
1) Integrate a 2D model
1) Code for the 2d difusion of a single tracer using a A-grid
-Remember that 2D is actually 1D in one direction + 1D in the
second direction
-Remember that there is two limit conditions in the first
dimension … and the same in the second dimension
2) Add an NPZD model within this 2D framework
3) Add several nutrients / phytoplankton / zooplankton as you wish

(take a look at the hidden slides in there, they contains parameters)

Modeling Complexity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling Complexity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelling Complexity:

space, diversity (functional, species, size)

• Introduction : why to model complexity?

1) Plankton functional types (PFT)

E =f(t) Production nouvelle

System of differential equations(Fasham et al., 1990)

Conclusion on NPZD Fasham et al. 1990

 most of the export takes place during detrainement (37-65%)

-> the physic is more important than the biology in generating

More recent models

More recent models

Interanual variation of Chla by sattelite and seen by different NPZD

Nature is more stable than models

Not enough complexity

Prentice et al. [2001]

That’s our view of the ecosystem… in the 80’s

Central question :How to represent the marine biodiversity

1) Plankton functional types (PFT)

PISCES Model (Aumont & Bopp 2006)

1. Have an important role in

An example with Planktom10

DIN: NP3 +NH4

Bact. Het. Macrozoopl.

“Just” adding jellyfishes helps to solve

Monthly observation Annual observation Global

Difference in mass between model/observation

The higher is the trophic layer

Inter comparaison between models

This is a plankton mess!

GONÇALVES LELES et al 2018

Litchman and Klausmeier

All plankton + benthos + necton

Traits trade off for zooplankton

Traits trade off for zooplankton

Size is a master trait

“For every type of animal there is a most convenient

Haldane, On Being the Right Size, 1928

And refuge from predation

And refuge from predation

Certainly an effect of the chlorophyll / biomass ratio

2) PFT models for plankton (PISCES,

3) Physical model (for examples

Cury et al., 2008

using size structure for fishes

Everett et al under press

2) Add an NPZD model within this 2D framework

3) Add several nutrients / phytoplankton / zooplankton as you wish

You might also like