Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (55)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Yool, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Yool, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Plankton Research Vol.22 no.6 pp.1085-1112, 2000
© Oxford University Press 2000

The role of higher predation in plankton population models

Andrew M. Edwards and Andrew Yool1

Biological Oceanography Division, Bedford Institute of Oceanography B240, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 4A2, Canada and 1 School of Ocean and Earth Sciences, Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK

Zooplankton mortality in plankton population models is often represented by the so-called closure term. Recently, much attention has been paid to the choice of functional form used for the closure term, primarily due to the influential paper by Steele and Henderson (J. Plankton Res., 14, 157–172, 1992). Here we reveal an inconsistency in the normalization of Steele and Henderson's models, and show that unforced short-term oscillations (limit cycles) can occur when a quadratic closure term is used. Furthermore, we contradict the hypothesis regarding the relationship between nutrient steady-state values and the choice of closure term: using the seven-component plankton model of Fasham (The Global Carbon Cycle, Heimann,M. (ed.), pp. 457–504, 1993) with four alternative closure terms, we find the nutrient value to depend more upon the choice of parameter values than on the choice of closure term. However, our results agree with and strengthen the general conclusion of Steele and Henderson's work: that the choice of closure term can strongly influence the dynamics of models.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J PLANKTON RESHome page
G. A. Gibson, D. L. Musgrave, and S. Hinckley
Non-linear dynamics of a pelagic ecosystem model with multiple predator and prey types
J. Plankton Res., May 1, 2005; 27(5): 427 - 447.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J PLANKTON RESHome page
A. M. Edwards
Adding Detritus to a Nutrient-Phytoplankton-Zooplankton Model:A Dynamical-Systems Approach
J. Plankton Res., April 1, 2001; 23(4): 389 - 413.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.