Structurally Dynamic Models of Lakes

Structurally Dynamic Models of Lakes

Sven Erik Jørgensen

Copenhagen University, Institute A, Section of Environmental Chemistry, University Park, Copenhagen.

29 June 2012
| Citation



Lakes as all other ecosystems are adaptive, have self-organization, and change the species compositions in accordance with the variable forcing functions. Therefore, models that can capture this dynamics are needed, which means that the properties (represented in models by the parameter) of the biological components of the model are continuously changed. This paper presents what is denoted as structural dynamic models (SDMs) that can capture this dynamics of changing the ecosystem structure. A SDM uses a goal function to determine the changes of the parameters. Eco-exergy is used as goal function, which is the work capacity (work energy) of the ecosystem. The use of this goal function can be considered a translation of Darwin’s theory to thermodynamics. In 23 case studies, it has been possible to use SDM to describe the structural changes with an acceptable standard deviation. Of these cases, 12 were lake models and an attempt is made in this paper to summarize the experience gained by the use of SDMs on lakes. The three most characteristic case studies are presented in more detail and conclusions on the applicability of SDM on lakes are summarized.


Adaptation, eco-exergy, lake models, shift in species composition, structural dynamics


[1] Zhang, J., Z. Gurkan and S.E. Jørgensen. Application of eco-energy for assessment of ecosystem health and development of structurally dynamic models. P. Ecological Modelling, 221, pp. 693–702, 2010. doi:

[2] Jørgensen, S.E., An Overview of the model types available for development of ecological  models. Ecological Modelling, 215, pp. 3–9, 2008. doi:

[3] Jørgensen, S.E., Ecological Modelling – An Introduction. WIT, Southampton, p. 190, 2009.

[4] Nielsen, S.N., Application of maximum exergy in structural dynamic models, Ph.D. Thesis. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark, p. 51, 1992a.

[5] Nielsen, S.N., Strategies for structural-dynamical modelling. Ecol. Modelling, Ecological 

Modelling, 63, pp. 91–101, 1992b. doi:

[6] Straskraba, M., Natural control mechanisms in models of aquatic ecosystems. Ecol. M odelling, 6, pp. 305–322, 1979. doi:

[7] Straskraba, M., 1980~. Cybernetic-categories of ecosystem dynamics. ISEM-Journal, 2, pp. 81–96.

[8] Jørgensen, S.E., & Mejer, H.F., A holistic approach to ecological modelling. Ecol. Modelling, 7, pp. 169–189, 1979. doi:

[9] Jørgensen, S.E., A holistic approach to ecological modelling by application of thermo- Dynamics. Systems and Energy. eds W. Mitsch et. al., Ann Arbor, 1982.

[10] Jørgensen, S.E., Structural dynamic model. Ecol. Modelling, 31, pp. 1–9, 1986. doi: http://

[11] Jørgensen, S.E., Use of models as experimental tools to show that structural changes are  accompanied by increased exergy. Ecol. Modelling, 41, pp. 117–126, 1988. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0304-3800(88)90049-X

[12] Jørgensen, S.E., Ecosystem theory, ecological buffer capacity, uncertainty and complexity. 

Ecol. Modelling, 52, pp. 125–133, 1990. doi:

[13] Jørgensen, S.E., Parameters, Ecological constraints and exergy. Ecol. Modelling, 62, pp. 163–170, 1992a. doi:

[14] Jørgensen, S.E., Development of models able to account for changes in species composition. Ecol. Modelling, 62, 195–208, 1992b. doi: [15] Jørgensen, S.E., & Mejer, J.F., Ecological buffer capacity. Ecol. Modelling, 3, pp. 39–61, 1977.

[16] Jørgensen, S.E., & Svirezhev Y. Toward a Thermodynamic Theory for Ecological Systems. Amsterdam, Oxford: Elsevier. p. 366, 2005. doi: [17] Schrødinger, E., What is Life? Cambridge University Press. p. 186, 1944.

[18] Jørgensen, S.E., Ladegaard, N., Debeljak, M., Marques, J.C., Calculations of exergy for organisms. Ecol. Model, 185, pp. 165–175, 2005. doi:

[19] Hosper, S.H. Biomanipulation, new perspective for restoring shallow, eutrophic lakes in The Netherlands. Hydrobiol. Bull, 73, pp. 11–18, 1989.

[20] Van Donk, E., Gulati, R.D., & Grimm, M.P. Food web manipulation in lake Zwemlust: positive and negative effects during the fi rst two years. Hydrobiol. Bull, 23, pp. 19–35, 1989. doi: http://

[21] de Bernardi, R. Biomanipulation of aquatic food chains to improve water quality in eutrophic lakes 195-215. In Ecological Assessment of Environmental Degradation, Pollution and Recovery, ed O. Ravera. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sci. Publ, p. 356, 1989.

[22] Sas, H. (Coordination) Lake restoration by reduction of nutrient loading. Expectations, experiences, extrapolations. St. Augustin. Academia Verl. Richarz, p. 497, 1989.

[23] de Bernardi, R., & Giussani, G, Biomanipulation: Bases for a Top-down Control 1–14. In Guidelines of Lake Management, Volume 7. Biomanipulation in Lakes and Reservoirs, edited by De Bernardi, R., & Giussani, G. ILEC and UNEP, p. 211, 1995.

[24] Willemsen, J. Fishery aspects of eutrophication. Hydrobiol. Bull, 14, pp. 12–21, 1980. doi:

[25] Lammens, E.H.R.R. Trophic interactions in the hypertrophic Lake Tjeukemeer: Top-down and bottom-up effects in relation to hydrology, predation and bioturbation, during the period 1974–1988. Limnologica (Berlin), 19, pp. 81–85, 1988.

[26] Jeppesen, E.J. et al. Fish manipulation as a lake restoration tool in shallow, eutrophic temperate lakes. Cross-analysis of three Danish Case Studies. Hydrobiologia, 200/201, pp. 205–218, 1990. doi:

[27] Benndorf, J., Conditions for effective biomanipulation. Conclusions derived from wholelake experiments in Europe. Hydrobiologia, 200/201, pp. 187–203, 1990. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF02530339

[28] Shapiro, J. Biomanipulation. the next phase-making it stable. Hydrobiologia, 200/210, pp.  13–27, 1990. doi:

[29] Koschel, R., Kasprzak, Krienitz, L. and Ronneberger, D. Long term effects of reduced nutrient loading and food-web manipulation on plankton in a stratifi ed Baltic hard water lake. Verh. int. 

ver. Limnol, 25, pp. 647–651, 1993.

[30] Scheffer, M. Simple models as useful tools for ecologists. Elsevier. Amsterdam. pp. 192, 1990.

[31] Giussani, G., & Galanti, G. Case Study: Lake Candia (Northern Italy) 135–146. In G uidelines of Lake Management, Volume 7. Biomanipulation in Lakes and Reservoirs, edited by De  Bernardi, R. and Giussani, G. Biomanipulation. ILEC and UNEP, pp. 211,1995.

[32] Jørgensen, S.E., & de Bernardi, R., The use of structural dynamic models to explain the  success and failure of biomanipulation. Hydrobiologia, 379, pp. 147–158, 1998. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1023/A:1003453100523

[33] Zhang, J., Jørgensen, S.E., Tan C.O., Beklioglu, M., A structurally dynamic modelling – Lake Mogan, Turkey as a case study. Ecological Modelling, 164, pp. 103–120, 2003a. doi: http://

[34] Zhang, J., Jørgensen, S.E., Tan C.O., Beklioglu, M., Hysteresis in vegetation shift – lake  Mogan Prognoses. Ecological Modelling, 164, pp. 227–238, 2003b. doi: S0304-3800(03)00050-4

[35] Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J.A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. Castrophic changes  Ecosystems. Nature, 413, pp. 591–596, 2001. doi:

[36] Gurkan, Z., Zhang, J., & Jørgensen, S.E. Development of a structurally dynamic model for Forecasting the effects of restoration of lakes. Ecological Modelling, 197, pp. 89–103, 2006. doi:

[37] Jørgensen, S.E. & Fath, B. Fundamentals of ecological modelling, 4th edition, p. 360, 2011.

[38] Peters, R.H. The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press, p. 329, 1983. doi: