CTW: Uncertainty, Sensitivity and Predictability in Ecology: Mathematical Challenges and Ecological Applications

(October 26,2015 - October 30,2015 )

Organizers


Jennifer Dunne
n/a, Santa Fe Institute
Alan Hastings
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis
Andrew Morozov
Mathematics, University of Leicester

Uncertainty underlines almost every problem in mathematical ecology, and understanding its implications leads to substantial new mathematical challenges. Issues of uncertainty arise particularly in the structure of models, as reflected by the choice of state variables and model functions, uncertainty in parameters, initial conditions, etc. Uncertainty can greatly affect the determination of the current ecosystem state (e.g., stochastic versus deterministic description) and hence prediction of its dynamics. In ecological models uncertainty can be a real nuisance due to the phenomenon known as model sensitivity: models can be sensitive to the mathematical formulations of the constituent functions. This structural sensitivity can substantially reduce predictability of models. Whereas parameter-based sensitivity methods are now relatively well-developed, the mathematical framework to investigate structural sensitivity, when the entire function is unknown, is in its early stage and this represents a major challenge both in mathematics and ecology. In particular, there is a strong need for reliable mathematical tools to investigate structural sensitivity of biological models directly from data.

In addition, ecosystems are known to sometimes exhibit a sudden (catastrophic) regime shift, which is referred to as the tipping points, and this can be linked to a bifurcation in the model as a response to parameter changes (e.g., due to global climate changes). Development of robust techniques to identify reliable early warning signals of approaching catastrophic transition is a major challenge since the current methods are not always reliable and could result in false alarms, which can be very costly.

One of the goals of the ecosystem management is to estimate the risk of undesirable events. Coping with uncertainty (e.g., by providing the minimal required amount of information about the system) is therefore crucial to enable ecosystem managers to make the right decision in order to guarantee that the risk of undesirable event will not exceed the critical level. Lack of information about underlining processes calls into question the assumption that classical optimal control theory will always be successful. More research is needed to develop the mathematical framework for ecosystem management, in particular looking for an optimal balance between models complexity and their predictive power under a given level of uncertainty.

The main goal of the workshop is to bring together applied mathematicians, theoretical ecologists, empiricists and statisticians in order to address the above raised issues related to ecosystem understanding, modelling, and management to cope with uncertainty

Accepted Speakers

Karen Abbott
Biology, Case Western Reserve University
Ludek Berec
Department of Biosystematics and Ecology, Biology Centre CAS, Institute of Entomology
Ottar Bjornstad
Entomology, Pennsylvania State University
Ben Bolker
Math & statistics and Biology, McMaster University
Donald De Angelis
Department of Biology, University of Miami
Odo Diekmann
Mathematics, Utrecht University
Jennifer Dunne
n/a, Santa Fe Institute
Bill Fagan
Biology, University of Maryland
Gregor Fussmann
Department of Biology, McGill University
Thilo Gross
John Guckenheimer
Department of Mathematics, Cornell University
Alan Hastings
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis
Robert Holt
Zoology, University of Florida
Christian Kuehn
Mathematics, Vienna University of Technology
Mark Lewis
Canada Research Chair in Mathematical Biology, University of Alberta
Per Lundberg
Biology, Department of Biology, Lund University
Eve McDonald-Madden
Andrew Morozov
Mathematics, University of Leicester
Steve Munch
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz
Natalia Petrovskaya
Jean-Christophe Poggiale
Institut Pytheas (OSU), Aix-Marseille University
Axel Rossberg
Environment and Ecosystems Division, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science
Monday, October 26, 2015
Time Session
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Time Session
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Time Session
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Time Session
Friday, October 30, 2015
Time Session
Name Email Affiliation
Abbott, Karen kcabbott@case.edu Biology, Case Western Reserve University
Adamson, Matthew mwa4@le.ac.uk.
Barabás, György dysordys@uchicago.edu
Bearup, Daniel daniel.bearup@uni-oldenburg.de
Berec, Ludek berec@entu.cas.cz Department of Biosystematics and Ecology, Biology Centre CAS, Institute of Entomology
Bjornstad, Ottar onb1@psu.edu Entomology, Pennsylvania State University
Blasius, Bernd blasius@icbm.de Institute of Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg
Bolker, Ben bolker@mcmaster.ca Math & statistics and Biology, McMaster University
Cosner, Chris gcc@math.miami.edu Department of Mathematics, University of Miami
Cuddington, Kim kcuddington@uwaterloo.ca Biology, University of Waterloo
Cushing, Jim cushing@math.arizona.edu Mathematics, University of Arizona
Dakos, Vasilis vasilis.dakos@ebd.csic.es Integrative Ecology, Eustachian Biologica de Donana
De Angelis, Donald ddeangelis@bio.miami.edu Department of Biology, University of Miami
Diekmann, Odo O.Diekmann@uu.nl Mathematics, Utrecht University
Dunne, Jennifer jdunne@santafe.edu n/a, Santa Fe Institute
Englund, Göran goran.englund@emg.umu.se
Fagan, Bill bfagan@umd.edu Biology, University of Maryland
Fryxell, John jfryxell@uoguelph.ca
Fussmann, Gregor gregor.fussmann@mcgill.ca Department of Biology, McGill University
Gentleman, Wendy Wendy.Gentleman@Dal.Ca
Gross, Thilo thilo@biond.org
Guckenheimer, John jmg16@cornell.edu Department of Mathematics, Cornell University
Hastings, Alan amhastings@ucdavis.edu Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis
Holt, Robert rdholt@zoo.ufl.edu Zoology, University of Florida
Johnson, Leah lrjohnson0@gmail.com Integrative Biology, University of South Florida
Kooi, B.W. (Bob) bob.kooi@vu.nl
Kuehn, Christian ck274@cornell.edu Mathematics, Vienna University of Technology
Laurie, Henri henri.laurie@gmail.com
Lewis, Mark mark.lewis@ualberta.ca Canada Research Chair in Mathematical Biology, University of Alberta
Liu, Rongsong Rongsong.Liu@uwyo.edu Mathematics, University of Wyoming
Lundberg, Per per.lundberg@biol.lu.se Biology, Department of Biology, Lund University
McDonald-Madden, Eve e.mcdonaldmadden@uq.edu.au
Meszena, Geza geza.meszena@elte.hu
Morozov, Andrew am379@leicester.ac.uk Mathematics, University of Leicester
Munch, Steve steve.munch@noaa.gov Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz
Nerini, David david.nerini@univ-amu.fr
Petrovskaya, Natalia n.b.petrovskaya@bham.ac.uk
Petrovskii, Sergei sp237@le.ac.uk Mathematics, University of Leicester
Poggiale, Jean-Christophe jean-christophe.poggiale@univ-amu.fr Institut Pytheas (OSU), Aix-Marseille University
Rossberg, Axel Axel@Rossberg.net Environment and Ecosystems Division, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science
Terry, Alan aterry.maths@outlook.com
Tilles, Paulo paulotilles@hotmail.com
Why structural instability is inherent to ecological communities and how management can deal with it

Structural instability denotes situations where small changes in parameters (or external pressures) can fundamentally change the state of a system, in ecological communities typically through extirpations. I will argue based on models and data that structural instability increases with species richness and that natural communities tend to be packed to the point where invasion of any new species leads to extirpation of one other on average. As a result, ecological communities are inherently structurally unstable; detailed predictions of changes in ecosystem state in response to anthropogentic pressures are often impossible. Facing this challenge, managers have two options: to manage at the level of higher emergent properties, e.g. community size spectra, or to engineer desired ecosystem states and to stabilize them through adaptive management. I will discuss both options for the case of fisheries management.