Quantitative vs. Semiquantitative Ecosystem Models: Comparing Alternate Representations of an Estuarine Ecosystem

Comparing the network structure and resilience of two benthic estuarine systems following the implementation of nutrient mitigation actions

“…EwE models have a number of ENA features and can been selected to: identify and quantify major energy flows in an ecosystem, interactions between species, compare coastal ecosystems of different sizes, evaluate the effects of climate induced or anthropogenic variability on ecosystems, explore management policy options. EwE models have also been applied in testing ecosystem theories on eutrophication (Patricio et al, 2006;Baeta et al, 2011;Vasslides et al, 2017), resilience, stability and regime shifts (Pérez-España & Arreguín-Sánchez, 2001; Tomczak et al, 2013;Arreguín-Sánchez & Ruiz-Barreiro, 2014;Heymans & Tomczak, 2016). Thus, the aim of this paper was to use the Ecopath software with ENA analysis to examine and compare the network system attributes of two temperate UK estuaries, the well-document Tamar Estuary, in south-west England and the smaller less well studied Eden Estuary, in north-east Scotland.…”

Network Modeling for Post-Entry Management of Invasive Pest Species in the Philippines: The Case of the Colorado Potato Beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say, 1824) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

“…For example, techniques have been demonstrated on the basis of fuzzy cognitive maps (FCMs), a semiquantitative modelling tool first proposed by Kosko [ 38 ]. This approach was shown to be a workable alternative to purely quantitative ENA models for modelling ecosystems with limited data; applications include analysis of pest management strategies [ 39 ] and nutrient flows [ 40 ]. As a matter of best practice, building FCM models requires calibration with expert knowledge coupled with sensitivity analysis.…”

From individual Fuzzy Cognitive Maps to Agent Based Models: Modeling multi-factorial and multi-stakeholder decision-making for water scarcity

“…To develop an FCM model, all of the individual maps are aggregated to a single unified model that encompasses all of the individual's knowledge. The individual maps are merged through matrix algebra, whereby each entry of the merged model is the average of the connection weights assigned by individuals (Vasslides and Jensen, 2017)-other approaches for group-level aggregation of FCMs are proposed in Gray et al (2014) and Lavin et al (2018). However, stakeholders may differ in their preferences, decisions and rules of behavior.…”