IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v215y2008i1p105-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of individual-based and matrix projection models for simulating yellow perch population dynamics in Oneida Lake, New York, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Sable, Shaye E.
  • Rose, Kenneth A.

Abstract

Both individual-based models (IBMs) and matrix projection models are commonly used to simulate fish population dynamics. We questioned whether matrix models could be used to predict population responses of the prey in a highly coupled predator–prey system. The matrix approach was evaluated for predicting yellow perch population responses to changes in survival, and comparing the responses to those from a detailed IBM. The IBM explicitly modeled effects of walleye predation and competition with yellow perch, whereas the matrix models used averaged values, and in some cases density-dependent relationships, for survival, growth, and reproduction of yellow perch that implicitly included walleye effects. We used the output from a 200-year simulation of the IBM as data for estimating the elements of three alternative versions of a matrix projection model. We constructed an age-structured matrix model and two stage-within-age matrix models for yellow perch. The stage-within-age versions both represented the young-of-the-year (YOY) stages, but differed in the timestep used for updating their density-dependent relationships (annual or daily). The predictions of the matrix models were first compared with the IBM under baseline conditions to confirm that parameter estimation of the matrix models was reasonable. We then simulated reduced and increased egg or adult survival in each model, and compared the relative responses among the four models. Predicted yellow perch spawner abundance under baseline conditions was similar among the IBM and two matrix models that used annual density-dependence, but underestimated by the stage-within-age matrix model that used daily density-dependence. Averaged annual abundances, YOY and yearling survival rates, and sizes at age were generally similar between the IBM and matrix models under baseline conditions. Density-dependent YOY survival was critical for accurately predicting yellow perch responses to changed egg and adult survival rates. Predicted responses to changed survival rates from the stage-within-age matrix model with daily density-dependence differed most from the IBM, and consistently predicted changes in juvenile stage survival opposite to those predicted by the other models. The matrix models that used annual density-dependence predicted similar abundance responses as the IBM to changed egg and adult survival rates. If sufficient data are available, we recommend a population and multispecies modeling approach. If data are available only for the species of interest, then we favor the stage-within-age matrix model with annual density-dependence because the stage structure for YOY allows for flexibility and because it performed better than other matrix models when compared to the IBM.

Suggested Citation

  • Sable, Shaye E. & Rose, Kenneth A., 2008. "A comparison of individual-based and matrix projection models for simulating yellow perch population dynamics in Oneida Lake, New York, USA," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 105-121.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:215:y:2008:i:1:p:105-121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.02.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380008000914
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.02.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Radchuk, Viktoriia & Johst, Karin & Groeneveld, Jürgen & Grimm, Volker & Schtickzelle, Nicolas, 2013. "Behind the scenes of population viability modeling: Predicting butterfly metapopulation dynamics under climate change," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 259(C), pages 62-73.
    2. Radchuk, Viktoriia & Oppel, Steffen & Groeneveld, Jürgen & Grimm, Volker & Schtickzelle, Nicolas, 2016. "Simple or complex: Relative impact of data availability and model purpose on the choice of model types for population viability analyses," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 323(C), pages 87-95.
    3. Ficker, Harald & Mazzucco, Rupert & Gassner, Hubert & Wanzenböck, Josef & Dieckmann, Ulf, 2016. "Stocking strategies for a pre-alpine whitefish population under temperature stress," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 170-176.
    4. Halsey, Samniqueka J. & Cinel, Scott & Wilson, Jared & Bell, Timothy J. & Bowles, Marlin, 2017. "Predicting population viability of a monocarpic perennial dune thistle using individual-based models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 359(C), pages 363-371.
    5. Mintram, Kate S. & Brown, A. Ross & Maynard, Samuel K. & Liu, Chun & Parker, Sarah-Jane & Tyler, Charles R. & Thorbek, Pernille, 2018. "Assessing population impacts of toxicant-induced disruption of breeding behaviours using an individual-based model for the three-spined stickleback," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 387(C), pages 107-117.
    6. Dupont, H. & Mihoub, J.B. & Becu, N. & Sarrazin, F., 2011. "Modelling interactions between scavenger behaviour and farming practices: Impacts on scavenger population and ecosystem service efficiency," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(4), pages 982-992.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:215:y:2008:i:1:p:105-121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.