Advertisement

Critique and Analyses of the Grassland Ecosystem Model ELM

  • Robert G. Woodmansee
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 26)

Abstract

The grassland ecosystem model ELM is discussed and criticized. The critique is based on the examination of the: (a) degree to which the objectives of the model were realized, (b) appropriateness of representation of selected biological, physical, or chemical processes modeled, (c) apparent adequacy of selected model responses, and (d) extent to which the goals of the modeling effort were realized.

The objective of the modeling activity was to develop a total system model of the biomass dynamics of a grassland that was representative of sites in the US/IBP Grassland Biome network and with which there could be relatively easy interaction. The goals of the modeling effort were to create a model that would serve as a communications device and organizer of information, be useful as a research instrument, and yield results helpful in elucidating biological phenomena in grassland ecosystems.

Keywords

Modeling Effort Model Response Grassland Ecosystem Communication Device Modeling Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berne, E. M. D.: The Structure and Dynamics of Organization and Groups. New York: Lippincott, 1963, 260 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Bledsoe, L. J., Francis, R. C., Swartzman, G. L., Gustafson, J. D.: PWNEE: A grassland ecosystem model. US/IBP Grassland Biome Tech. Rep. No. 64. Fort Collins: Colorado State Univ., 1971, 179 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Coleman, D. C., Andrews, R., Ellis, J. E., Singh, J. S.: Energy flow and partitioning in selected man-managed and natural ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 3, 45–54 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Wit, C. T.: Dynamic concepts in biology. In: Prediction and Measurement of Photosynthetic Productivity. I. Šetlîk, (ed.). Wageningen, the Netherlands: Centre for Agr. Publ. Docu., 1970, pp. 17–23Google Scholar
  5. Dillon, J. L.: Interpreting systems simulation output for managerial decision-making. In: Systems Analysis in Agricultural Management. Dent, J. B., Anderson, J. R. (eds.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971, pp. 85–120Google Scholar
  6. Dodd, J. L., Lauenroth, W. K.: Responses of Opuntia polyacantha to water and nitrogen perturbations in a shortgrass prairie. Proc. IVth Midwest Prairie Conf., Univ. North Dakota, Grand Forks, N.D., 1974Google Scholar
  7. Forrester, J. W.: Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1961, 464 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Forrester, J. W.: Principles of Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: Wright-Allen Press, 1968, 400 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Gustafson, J. D., Innis, G.: SIMCOMP Version 3.0 user’s manual. US/IBP Grassland Biome Tech. Rep. No. 218, 1973, 149 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Halm, B. J.: The phosphorus cycle in a grassland ecosystem. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 1972Google Scholar
  11. Hyder, D. N., Bement, R. E., Remmenga, E. E., Hervey, D. F.: Ecological responses of native plants and guidelines for management of shortgrass range. USDA Agr. Res. Serv. (ARS) Tech. Bull. No. 1503, 1975Google Scholar
  12. Innis, G. S.: Simulation of biological systems: Some problems and progress. In: Proc. 1972 Summer Computer Sim. Conf., Vol. II. La Jolla, Calif.: Simulation Councils, Inc., 1972, pp. 1085–1089aGoogle Scholar
  13. Jameson, D.: Responses of individual plants to harvesting. Bot. Rev. 29, 532–594 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nolan, Richard L.: Verification/validation of computer simulation models. In: Proc. 1972 Summer Computer Sim. Conf., Vol. II. La Jolla, Calif.: Simulation Councils, Inc., 1972, pp. 1254–1265Google Scholar
  15. Odum, E. P.: Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, 1971, 574 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Patten, B. C.: A simulation of the shortgrass prairie ecosystem. Simulation 19, 177–186 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saaty, T. L.: Operation research: Some contributions to mathematics. Science 178, 1061–1070 (1972)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singh, J. S., Lauenroth, W. K., Steinhorst, R. K.: Review and assessment of various techniques for estimating net aerial primary production in grasslands from harvest data. Bot. Rev. 41, 2, 181–232.Google Scholar
  19. Stewart, J. W. B., Halm, B. J., Cole, C. V.: Nutrient cycling: I. Phosphorus. Canadian Comm. Int. Biol. Prog. (Matador Project) Tech. Rep. No. 40. Saskatoon: Univ. Saskatchewan, 1973Google Scholar
  20. Swift, D. M., French, N. R. (coordinators): Basic field data collection procedures for the Grassland Biome 1972 season. US/IBP Grassland Biome Tech. Rep. No. 145. Fort Collins: Colorado State Univ., 1972, 86 pp.Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Forest Service: Planning: A key to successful management. Mgmt. Notes 17, 7–10 (1973) (Washington, D.C.: USDA, Forest Service, Division of Administrative Management)Google Scholar
  22. Van Dyne, G. M.: Some procedures, problems, and potentials of systems-oriented, ecosystem-level research programs. In: Procedures and Examples of Integrated Ecosystem Research. Tech. Rep. No. 1. Uppsala, Sweden: Barrskogslandskapets Ecologi, Swedish Coniferous Forest Project, 1975, pp. 4–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert G. Woodmansee

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations