首页> 外文期刊>Ecological Modelling >Comparing network analysis methodologies for consumer-resource relations at species and ecosystems scales
【24h】

Comparing network analysis methodologies for consumer-resource relations at species and ecosystems scales

机译:比较物种和生态系统规模的消费者-资源关系的网络分析方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This research compares two existing methodologies, mixed trophic impact analysis and utility analysis, which use network analysis to evaluate the direct, pair-wise, and indirect, holistic, ecological relations between ecosystem compartments. The two approaches have many similarities, but differ in some key assumptions which affect both the final results and interpretations. Here, we briefly introduce both methodologies through a series of two simple examples; a 3-compartment competition model and a 3-compartment food chain model, and then apply the methodologies to a 15-compartment ecosystem model of the Chesapeake Bay. This example demonstrates how implementing the various conceptual and methodological assumptions lead to differing results. Notably, the overall number of positive relations is greatly affected by the treatment of the self-interactions and the handling of detritus compartments lead to a distinction between ecological or trophic relations. We recommend slight changes to both methodologies, not necessarily in order to bring them completely together, but because each has some points which are stronger and better defensible.
机译:这项研究比较了两种现有的方法,即混合营养影响分析和效用分析,它们使用网络分析来评估生态系统分区之间的直接,成对和间接整体的生态关系。两种方法有许多相似之处,但是在一些关键假设上有所不同,这些假设影响最终结果和解释。在这里,我们通过一系列两个简单的示例简要介绍这两种方法。 3室竞争模型和3室食物链模型,然后将该方法应用于切萨皮克湾的15室生态系统模型。该示例说明了如何实施各种概念和方法假设会导致不同的结果。值得注意的是,积极关系的总数受到自我相互作用的处理的极大影响,碎屑区室的处理导致生态关系或营养关系之间的区别。我们建议对这两种方法进行轻微的更改,不一定是为了将它们完全结合在一起,而是因为每种方法都有一些更强和更可辩护的观点。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号