Dealing with uncertainty in ecosystem models: Lessons from a complex salmon model

Ecological Applications

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 465-482

  Mcelhany, Paul ^a   Ashley Steel, E ^a   Avery, Karen ^a   Yoder, Naomi ^a   Busack, Craig ^b   Thompson, Brad ^c  

^a NORTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE   (United States)

^c Western Washington Office   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecosystem diagnosis and treatment (edt) model; Ecosystem model; Pacific northwest; Salmon; Sensitivity analysis; Sobol index; Uncertainty; USA

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; ECOSYSTEM MODELING; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; FISHERY MANAGEMENT; FISHERY PRODUCTION; HABITAT RESTORATION; INDEX METHOD; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; PARAMETERIZATION; PRESERVATION; SALMONID; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; METHODOLOGY; SALMON; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SALMON; UNCERTAINTY;

PACIFIC OCEAN; PACIFIC OCEAN (NORTHWEST); UNITED STATES;

EID: 77950105025     PISSN: 10510761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/08-0625.1     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Beechie, T. J., P. Roni, A. Steel, and E. Quimby. 2003. Ecosystem recovery planning for listed salmon: an integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-58. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington, USA.
2. Blair, G. R., L. C. Lestelle, and L. E. Mobrand. 2009. The ecosystem diagnosis and treatment model: a tool for assessing salmonid performance potential based on habitat conditions. Pages 289-309 in E. Knudson, editor. Pacific salmon environment and life history models: advancing science for sustainable salmon in the future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
3. Busack, C., and B. E. Thompson. 2006. Improving salmon habitat productivity models for setting escapement goals and prioritizing habitat recovery funding. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.
4. Chertov, O., A. Komarov, A. Loutkianov, A. Mikhailov, M. Nadporozhskaya, and E. Zubkova. 2006. The use of the forest ecosystem model EFIMOD for research and practical implementation at forest stand, local and regional levels. Ecological Modeling 194:227-232.
5. Clark, J. S. 2003. Uncertainty in ecological inference and forecasting. Ecology 84:1349-1350.
6. Delworth, T. L., et al. 2006. GFDL's CM2 global couples climate models. Part 1: formulation and simulation characteristics. Journal of Climate 19:643-674.
7. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2005. Charting progress: an integrated assessment of the state of UK seas. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.
8. Fieberg, J., and K. J. Jenkins. 2005. Assessing uncertainty in ecological systems using global sensitivity analyses: a case example of simulated wolf reintroduction effects on elk. Ecological Modeling 187:259-280.
9. Good, T. P., T. J. Beechie, P. McElhany, M. McClure, and M. H. Ruckelshaus. 2007. Recovery planning for endangered species act listed Pacific salmon: using science to inform goals and strategies. Fisheries 32:426-440.
10. Groot, G., and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon: life histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
11. Harssan, R. M., R. Scholes, and N. Ash. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being current state and trends: findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem. Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
12. Harwood, J., and K. Stokes. 2003. Coping with uncertainty in ecological advice: lessons from fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:617-622.
13. Hatchery Scientific Review Group. 2009a. Columbia River hatchery reform system-wide report: Appendix D. (http://www.hatcheryreform.us/hrp-downloads/ reports/columbia-rive.r/system.-wid.e/4-appendix-d-user-guide.pdf)
14. Hatchery Scientific Review Group. 2009Ä. Report to Congress on Columbia River Basin hatchery reform. (http://www.hatcheryreform.us/hrp- downloads/reports/columbia-river/report-to-congress/hsrg-report-12.pdf)
15. Hilborn, R., and M. Mangel. 1997. The ecological detective. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
16. Jensen, J. L. W. V. 1906. Sur les fonctions convexes et les inegalites entre les valeurs moyennes. Acta Mathematica 30: 175-193.
17. Johnson, K. N., S. Duncan, and T. A. Spies. 2007. Regional policy models for forest biodiversity analysis: lessons from coastal Oregon. Ecological Applications 17:81-90.
18. Lestelle, L. C. L. E. Mobrand, and W. E. McConnaha. 2004. Information structure of Ecosystem. Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and habitat rating rules for chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. Mobrand Biometrics, Vashon Island, Washington, USA.
19. Lichatowich, J., L. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the diagnosis and treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 20:10-18.
20. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2004. Lower Columbia salmon recovery and fish and wildlife subbasin plan. Lower Columbia Fish. Recovery Board, Longview, Washington, USA.
21. McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. M. Myers, and R. Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability status of Oregon salmon and steelhead populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
22. Mobrand Biometrics. 2005. Documentation of the mathematical algorithms within EDT. Mobrand Biometrics, Vashon Island, Washington, USA.
23. Mobrand, L., J. Lichatowich, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1997. An approach to describing ecosystem performance "through the eyes of salmon." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2964-2973.
24. Moussalli, E., and R. Hilborn. 1986. Optimal stock size and harvest rate in multistage life history models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:135-141.
25. NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. 2007. 2007 Report to Congress: Pacific coastal salmon recovery fund. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Springs, Maryland, USA.
26. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, and C. J. Walters. 2000. Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:697-706.
27. Pielke, R. A., and R. T. Conant. 2003. Best practices in prediction for decision-making: lessons from the atmospheric and earth sciences. Ecology 84:1351-1358.
28. Plaganyi, E. E. 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Food and Agricultural Organization Fisheries Technical Paper 477. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.
29. Quinn, T. P. 2004. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.
30. Quinn, T. P., and K. W. Myers. 2007. Patterns of anadromy and migrations of Pacific salmon and trout at sea. Pages 9-24 in N. M. G. Harris, editor. Sea trout: biology, conservation and management. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts, USA.
31. Randall, D. A., R. A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman, T. Fichetet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov, J. Shukla, R. J. Sririvasan, A. Sumi, and K. E. Taylor. 2007. Climate models and their evaluation. Pages 591-662 in S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, editors. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contributions of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
32. Rawding, D. 2004. Comparison of spawner-recruit data with estimates of ecosystem diagnosis and treatment (EDT) spawner-recruit performance. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, Washington, USA.
33. Regan, H. M., M. Colyvan, and M. A. Burgman, 2002. A. taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications 12:618-628.
34. Roni, P., editor. 2004. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
35. Ruckelshaus, M. H., P. Levin, J. B. Johnson, and P. M. Kareiva. 2002. The Pacific salmon wars: what science brings to the challenge of recovering species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:665-706.
36. Saltelli, A. 2002. Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Computer Physics Communications 145:280-297.
37. Saltelli, A., K. Chan, and E. M. Scott, editors. 2000a. Sensitivity analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
38. Saltelli, A., and S. Tarantola. 2002. On the importance of input factors in mathematical models: safety assessment for nuclear waste disposal. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97:702-709.
39. Saltelli, A., S. Tarantola, and F. Campolongo. 2000b. Sensitivity analysis as an ingredient of modeling. Statistical Science 15:377-395.
40. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2007. Puget Sound salmon recovery plan. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, Seattle, Washington, USA.
41. Sobol, I. M. 1993. Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models. Mathematical Modelling and Computational Experiments 1:407-414.
42. Steel, E. A., A. Fullerton, Y. Caras, M. Sheer, P. Olson, D. Jensen, J. Burke, M. Maher, and P. McElhany. 2008. A spatially explicit decision support system for watershed-scale management of salmon. Ecology and Society 13:50.
43. Steel, E. A., et al. 2009. Making the best use of modeled data: multiple approaches to sensitivity analysis of a fish-habitat model. Fisheries 34:330-339.
44. Tang, Y., P. Reed, T. Wagener, and K. van Werkhoven. 2006. Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 3:3333-3395.