4.7 Article

Ecosystem modeling as a framework to convert a multi-disciplinary research approach into a useful model for the Araca Bay (Brazil)

期刊

OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 92-103

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.02.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2011/50317-5, 2013/19435-7]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico (CNPq) [306558/2010]
  3. CAPES [PVE A063/2013, Ed.71/2013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A model-oriented research project can organize and systematize high quality sampling information and convert observed values into information needed to parameterize ecological models. In this paper, we describe the value parameterization process from an interdisciplinary project to the development of a food web model (using Ecopath) in order to comprehend the Araca Bay ecosystem structure (Brazil) and to forecast the impact of a port expansion (Sao Sebastiao Port) over a bay environment. Araca Bay Ecopath model has 34 compartments, Phytoplankton, Phytobenthos, Mangrove, Zooplankton, 10 groups of benthos, 13 fish groups, Shrimp, Crabs, Turtles, two bird groups and two groups of Detritus. The model outputs showed that Araca Bay is a mature and detritus-based ecosystem. It is highly influenced by the role of benthos groups which are responsible for a huge amount of detritus recycling due to their large biomass value. The simulation of port expansion (primary producers' reduction), using the Ecosim module, indicated negative impacts on almost all living groups and an increase in detritus accumulation, leading the entire bay ecosystem towards its collapse (in the short term). The interdisciplinary organized sampling process presented here is an example of how objectively planned sample design and modeling may guide scientists, local people and stakeholders' decisions with valuable integrated information and overall predictions in order to consider the sustainable use of natural areas and resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据