Previous Return to table of contents   |   Search Reports Next
« Back to weltagrarbericht.de

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 371

 

Predator prey interactions are moderated by prey behavior to limit exposure to predation, such that biomass flux pat­terns can show either bottom-up or top down (trophic cas­cade) control (Walters et al., 2000). Conducting repeated simulations Ecosim simulations allows for the fitting of pre­dicted biomasses to time series data, thereby providing more insights into the relative importance of ecological, fisheries and environmental factors in the observed trajectory of one or more species or functional groups.

A.5.9.3 Application
The core of this global ocean model is Ecopath with Ecosim, which has been used for a number of regional and sub-region­al models throughout the world. This global ocean model will be used for this assessment and the GEO4 Assessment.

 

A.5.9.4 Uncertainty
Table A.5.1 6 Overview of major uncertainties in EcoOcean Model

Model component

Uncertainty

Model structure

low

Parameters

Input parameters
•   Most have medium to low uncertainty; a few have high uncertainty

Driving force effort: either direct or relative

Medium to high depending on the FAO area at this stage

Initial condition

low

Model operation

medium

Table A.5.17 Level of confidence for scenario calculations with EcoOcean model

 

Level of Agreement/ Assessment

High

Established but incomplete:
•   Catches
•   Value
•   Landing diversity

Well-established:
•   Marine trophic index (MTI)

Low

Speculative Jobs

Competing Explanations

Low

High

Amount of Evidence (Theory, Observations, Model Outputs)

References

Ahammad, H., R. Curtotti, and A. Gurney.
2004. A possible Japanese carbon tax:
Implications for the Australian energy sector.
ABARE eReport 04.13. Available at http://
www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/
climate/climate_04/climate_04.html. ABARE,
Canberra.
Ahammad, H., A. Matysek, B.S. Fisher, R.
Curtotti, A. Gurney, G. Jakeman et al.
2006. Economic impact of climate change
policy: The role of technology and economic
instruments. ABARE Res. Rep. 06.7.
Available at http://www.abareconomics
.com/publications_html/climate/climate_06/
climate_06.html. ABARE, Canberra.
Ahammad, H., and R. Mi. 2005. Land use
change modeling in GTEM: Accounting
for forest sinks. Australian Bureau Agric.
Resource Econ. (ABARE) Conf. Pap. 05.13.

 

Energy Modeling Forum 22: Climate Change
Control Scenarios, Stanford University, 25-
27 May.
Alcamo, J., R. Leemans, and G.J.J. Kreileman.
1998. Global change scenarios of the 21st
century. Results from the IMAGE 2.1 model.
Pergamon and Elsevier, London
Alcamo, J., D. van Vuren, C. Ringler, W.
Cramer, T. Masui, J. Alder, and K. Schulze.
2005. Changes in nature's balance sheet:
model-based estimates of future worldwide
ecosystem services. Ecol. Society 10(2):19.
Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety
.org/vol10/iss2/art19/.
Alkemade, R., M. Bakkenes, R. Bobbink,
L. Miles, C. Nelleman, H. Simons et al. 2006.
GLOBIO 3: Framework for the assessment
of global terrestrial biodiversity. In A.F.
Bouwman et al. (ed) Integrated modeling of

 

global environmental change. An overview
of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environ.
Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven.
Anderson, P.K., A.A. Cunningham, N.G. Patel,
F.J. Morales, P.R. Epstein, and P. Daszak.
2004. Emerging infectious diseases of plants:
pathogen pollution, climate change and
agrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol.
19(10):535-544.
Asiedu, E. 2004. Policy reform and foreign direct
investment in Africa: Absolute progress but
relative decline. Dev. Policy Rev. 22(1):41-48.
Babu, S. 2004. Future of the agri-food system:
Perspectives from the Americas. Food Policy
29:669-674.
Babu, S., and W. Reidhead. 2000. Poverty, food
security and nutrition in Central Asia: A case
study of the Kyrgyz Republic. Food Policy
25:647-660.
Previous Return to table of contents   |   Search Reports Next
« Back to weltagrarbericht.de