Ecosystem Model Face-Off: A Comprehensive Performance Comparison of Ecopath with Ecosim and Atlantis

Abstract

This article provides a systematic comparison of two leading ecosystem modeling frameworks, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis, tailored for researchers and environmental scientists. We explore their foundational principles, methodological approaches, and application scopes based on current literature and case studies. The content addresses key challenges in model calibration, sensitivity analysis, and validation, offering a clear guide for selecting the appropriate tool for specific research objectives, from evaluating fishing impacts and marine protected areas to conducting full end-to-end ecosystem assessments under various environmental and anthropogenic pressures.

Core Principles and Ecosystem Modeling Philosophies

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) strives to account for the full complexity of natural systems, including species interactions and ecosystem processes, to achieve sustainable resource management [1]. Within this framework, two prominent modeling approaches have emerged as essential tools for researchers and policymakers: Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis. These systems represent fundamentally different paradigms for simulating marine ecosystems. EwE employs a trophic mass-balance approach, constructing food web models based on energy flows between functional groups [2]. In contrast, Atlantis operates as an end-to-end simulation framework that integrates biological, physical, and human dimensions across spatial and temporal scales [3] [4]. The selection between these modeling approaches carries significant implications for research outcomes, policy recommendations, and management strategies, making a thorough comparative analysis essential for the scientific community engaged in ecosystem-level research and decision-making.

Core Architectural Frameworks

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE): Trophic Mass-Balance Approach

The EwE modeling approach combines software for ecosystem trophic mass balance analysis (Ecopath) with dynamic modeling capabilities (Ecosim) for exploring past and future impacts of fishing and environmental disturbances [2]. The foundational Ecopath module creates a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the ecosystem using two master equations based on the principle of energy conservation. The first equation ensures that production for each functional group equals the sum of its predation mortality, fishery catches, biomass accumulation, and migration, plus other mortality. The second equation describes energy consumption by a group as the sum of its production, respiration, and unassimilated food [2].

Ecosim extends this foundation by introducing dynamic simulations through time-series fitting and policy exploration based on foraging arena theory. This theory posits that only a portion of prey biomass is vulnerable to predators at any given time, effectively partitioning prey resources and creating a stabilizing refuge mechanism [3]. The EwE framework further incorporates spatial capabilities through Ecospace, which enables dynamic simulations across a spatial grid to evaluate area-based management strategies such as marine protected areas [2].

Atlantis: End-to-End Simulation Framework

Atlantis represents a comprehensive, end-to-end ecosystem modeling framework that simulates the entire marine ecosystem, including biophysical, ecological, and human components [3] [4]. Unlike EwE's biomass-based approach, Atlantis implements age- and size-structured populations for many functional groups, tracking cohorts through time [1]. The framework incorporates three-dimensional spatial dynamics through a structured grid system that represents physical oceanographic processes, including nutrient cycling and advection [3].

As a deterministic simulation model, Atlantis produces identical outputs for given parameter sets and model specifications [3]. Its complexity arises from interacting dynamics including detailed diet preferences, movement behaviors, habitat requirements, feedback mechanisms in microbial loops, and sophisticated trophic structures. The model explicitly represents human systems through fishing fleet dynamics, management strategies, assessment protocols, and compliance behaviors [4]. This comprehensive integration allows Atlantis to simulate the full cascade of effects from environmental changes or management actions through ecological and human systems.

Table 1: Fundamental Architectural Differences Between EwE and Atlantis

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Core Approach	Trophic mass-balance	End-to-end simulation
Population Structure	Biomass pools	Age- and size-structured
Spatial Dimension	0-dimensional (Ecopath), 2D spatial grid (Ecospace)	3-dimensional spatial boxes with vertical layers
Temporal Resolution	Variable time steps	Fixed time steps
Predation Regulation	Fixed diet matrix with foraging vulnerability	Diet preference with gape limitation and prey availability
Key Theory	Foraging arena theory	Individual-based processes

Methodologies in Practice: Experimental Protocols

Model Development and Parameterization

The development process for both EwE and Atlantis shares common initial stages but diverges significantly in implementation complexity. For both frameworks, the process begins with model design involving extensive data compilation and definition of functional groups [3]. A study comparing both models for Lake Victoria revealed that they can be parameterized using similar forcing data, such as annual landings, and comparable representation of vertebrate groups and feeding interactions [1].

For EwE, the Ecopath model must first be balanced by ensuring that energy removed from each group through predation or fishing is balanced with energy consumption [3]. The Ecosim module is then calibrated to time-series data, typically through fitting procedures that adjust vulnerability parameters [2]. The TBGB EwE model development demonstrated how this process can build on simpler parameterization requirements while still capturing essential ecosystem dynamics [3].

Atlantis model development follows a more complex, component-based approach where spatial and temporal structures are defined first, followed by initialization of nutrients, bacteria, detritus, and primary producers [3]. Subsequent addition of species functional groups introduces complexity through interacting dynamics including diets, movement, habitat preferences, and age structure. The Icelandic waters Atlantis model, encompassing 1,600,000 km² divided into 51 spatial boxes with 52 functional groups, illustrates the extensive parameterization requirements [5]. This model underwent rigorous skill assessment to evaluate its ability to replicate time-series for commercial groups, with particular emphasis on modeling recruitment processes [5].

Uncertainty Assessment and Model Validation

Treatment of uncertainty differs substantially between the two modeling frameworks, requiring distinct methodological approaches.

In EwE, a Monte Carlo approach can be implemented to examine the sensitivity of simulation results to initial input parameters [1]. This allows for probabilistic assessment of how parameter uncertainty propagates through model outputs. The routine fitting procedures in Ecosim also provide measures of how well the model replicates historical data.

For Atlantis, the complexity with thousands of parameters makes full-scale sensitivity analysis computationally infeasible [1]. Instead, confidence in outputs relies heavily on model skill assessment through comparison with observational data [1]. The TBGB Atlantis implementation tested initialization uncertainty, realized growth and mortality rates, and variability from oceanographic forcing [3]. This analysis revealed the model was most sensitive to oceanographic uncertainty, highlighting the importance of physical driver accuracy in end-to-end models [3].

Ecosystem Model Development and Integration Workflow

Performance Comparison: Capabilities and Limitations

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Direct comparisons of EwE and Atlantis in scientific literature reveal distinct performance characteristics under various scenarios. A study on Lake Victoria demonstrated that while both models could predict similar qualitative outcomes for target species ("single-species effects"), considerable variations emerged for cascading effects on non-target species ("multispecies effects") [1]. This suggests that model selection significantly influences predictions of ecosystem-wide impacts.

Research from Tasman and Golden Bays (TBGB) implemented three ecosystem models with varying complexity, including both EwE and Atlantis frameworks [3]. The comparison highlighted that structurally distinct ecosystem models can provide qualitative advice, but quantitative predictions diverge due to different environmental covariates, trophic relationships, and functional forms represented in the models [3]. The TBGB study further revealed that the Atlantis model was particularly sensitive to oceanographic variability, while the EwE implementation provided more stable baseline assessments.

Table 2: Performance Comparison Across Application Domains

Application Domain	EwE Performance	Atlantis Performance
Single-Species Effects	Qualitative agreement with Atlantis [1]	Qualitative agreement with EwE [1]
Multispecies Effects	Considerable variation from Atlantis predictions [1]	Considerable variation from EwE predictions [1]
Spatial Management	Ecospace provides 2D capabilities [2]	Full 3D spatial dynamics [3]
Computational Demand	Moderate requirements [2]	High requirements [1]
Climate Scenarios	Limited direct implementation	Comprehensive inclusion [6]
Policy Exploration	Optimal fishing policies [2]	Management strategy evaluation [4]

Management Application Case Studies

The Gulf of Alaska case study exemplifies Atlantis' application to complex management questions regarding ecosystem caps on fishery yield. Researchers used Atlantis to investigate whether total catch limits should account for climate variability and predator-prey dynamics [6]. The model simulated multispecies yield of 12 groundfish stocks under various climate and fishing scenarios, revealing that the existing optimum yield cap of 800,000 metric tons may be too high to constrain groundfish catches under future climate change scenarios [6]. This application demonstrates Atlantis' capacity to integrate climate projections with detailed species interactions for policy evaluation.

The TBGB case study illustrated EwE's utility in a multi-model approach, where it served as an intermediate-complexity tool alongside simpler size-spectrum and more complex Atlantis models [3]. This implementation highlighted EwE's strength in representing food web interactions with relatively manageable data requirements while still capturing essential ecosystem dynamics for fisheries management scenarios.

For coral reef ecosystems, the Atlantis framework has been adapted to evaluate management strategies for reef conservation in Guam and the main Hawaiian Islands [4]. The model incorporates stakeholder-identified stressors, management strategies, and economic and ecological indicators, enabling exploration of questions regarding changing coral cover, nutrient inputs, and human population impacts [4].

Table 3: Essential Resources for Ecosystem Modeling Implementation

Resource Category	EwE Solutions	Atlantis Solutions
Software Platform	Ecopath with Ecosim software package [2]	Atlantis modeling framework [3]
Data Requirements	Species diets, biomass, production rates [7]	Age structure, spatial data, oceanography [3]
Parameterization Tools	Balance algorithms, time-series fitting routines [2]	Component-based initialization [3]
Uncertainty Analysis	Monte Carlo routine [1]	Sensitivity testing, skill assessment [1]
Spatial Implementation	Ecospace module [2]	3D spatial grid system [5]
Validation Metrics	Time-series fitting diagnostics [2]	Model skill assessment [5]

The comparative analysis reveals that EwE and Atlantis serve complementary rather than competing roles in ecosystem-based management. EwE offers a more accessible entry point for ecosystem modeling with manageable data requirements and established protocols for uncertainty analysis, making it particularly valuable for systems with limited data or for initial exploratory analyses [3] [2]. Its trophic mass-balance approach provides robust qualitative advice for target species management, though it shows limitations in predicting complex multispecies interactions.

Atlantis delivers comprehensive end-to-end simulations capable of integrating climate scenarios, detailed spatial dynamics, and human dimensions, but requires extensive parameterization and computational resources [1] [4]. Its application is most justified in data-rich systems or for questions requiring explicit representation of spatial processes, age structure, and complex biogeochemical cycles.

Current scientific consensus emphasizes a multimodel approach rather than a priori selection of a single framework [1] [3]. Ensemble modeling provides "insurance" against uncertainty inherent in complex system modeling, with convergent results increasing confidence in policy recommendations while divergent outcomes highlight areas requiring further research [1]. This integrated methodology represents the most promising path forward for ecosystem-based management, leveraging the distinct strengths of both EwE and Atlantis while mitigating their individual limitations.

The evolution of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) has been significantly advanced by the development of sophisticated modeling tools. Among these, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis represent two fundamentally different approaches to simulating marine ecosystem dynamics. While EwE has achieved remarkable widespread adoption with over 2,000 users worldwide, establishing itself as a foundational tool for mass-balanced trophic modeling, Atlantis has carved out a distinct niche as a strategic, high-complexity framework for evaluating management scenarios in data-rich environments. This divergence in adoption patterns reflects not merely technical differences but fundamentally distinct philosophical approaches to how ecosystem modeling should support management decisions. EwE's accessibility has fostered a broad user base conducting everything from basic ecosystem characterization to preliminary management evaluation, whereas Atlantis's computational demands and complexity have positioned it as a specialized tool for "management strategy evaluation" in situations justifying substantial resource investment. This article examines the historical development, structural differences, and complementary applications of these two prominent modeling frameworks, providing researchers with a comprehensive comparison of their respective strengths, limitations, and appropriate use cases.

Historical Development and Adoption Patterns

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE): A Tool for Widespread Application

The EwE modeling approach has experienced remarkable global adoption since its initial development, growing into one of the most widely used ecosystem modeling frameworks in marine science. Its accessibility and relatively gentle learning curve have facilitated implementation across diverse ecosystems, from coral reefs to open ocean systems.

• Broad User Base: The platform's widespread adoption is evidenced by its application in over 150 countries by thousands of users, representing government agencies, academic institutions, and consulting firms worldwide [8].

• Historical Reconstruction Applications: EwE's flexibility has enabled its use in reconstructing historical ecosystem states, such as the development of mass-balanced models of the North Sea for the 1890s and 1990s based on historical fisheries data from the 'Fishery Board for Scotland' [9]. These historical models enable comparison of ecosystem structure and function across century-long timescales, revealing dramatic changes in maturity and resilience associated with industrial fishing.

• Decision-Support Implementation: EwE has been successfully implemented as a decision-support tool for evaluating management strategies across diverse ecosystems. For example, in Puako, Hawaii Island, researchers used EwE to rank the efficiency of potential management strategies by evaluating ecological and socio-economic trade-offs based on multiple indicators for coral reef ecosystem services [8].

Atlantis: Strategic Applications for Complex Management Scenarios

The Atlantis modeling framework has followed a different adoption path, focusing on strategic, high-investment applications where its comprehensive approach justifies the substantial resource requirements.

• Regional Implementation for Strategic Management: Atlantis applications typically involve major regional implementations characterized by significant investment in parameterization and calibration. Notable examples include the Baltic Sea Atlantis, which integrates 29 sub-areas, 9 vertical layers, and 30 biological functional groups to evaluate ecosystem-wide effects of eutrophication, climate change, and fishing pressure [10]. Similarly, the Icelandic waters Atlantis implementation covers 1,600,000 km², divided into 51 spatial boxes with multiple vertical layers, containing 52 functional groups including fish, mammals, seabirds, invertebrates, primary producers, bacteria, and detritus [5].

• Holistic Management Strategy Evaluation: Atlantis has been specifically designed for medium to long-term management strategy evaluation under the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM). The Strait of Sicily Atlantis implementation exemplifies this strategic application, designed to simulate ecosystem dynamics under fishing pressure and support the development of fishery management plans through a holistic framework [11].

• Multi-Model Ensemble Contributions: In Australian waters, Atlantis has been deployed as part of multi-model ensembles to assess climate change impacts on fisheries stocks, working alongside EwE and other modeling approaches to provide complementary perspectives on ecosystem responses to environmental change [12].

Table 1: Historical Development and Adoption Patterns of EwE and Atlantis

Aspect	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
User Base	2,000+ global users [8]	Specialized research and management institutions
Primary Applications	Historical reconstruction [9], basic ecosystem characterization, preliminary management evaluation	Strategic management evaluation [11] [10], climate change scenarios [12]
Implementation Scope	Single systems to regional comparisons	Large, complex regional implementations [5] [10]
Development Timeline	Continuous development since 1990s	Strategic applications emerging in 2000s
Key Advantage	Accessibility, rapid implementation	Comprehensiveness, management strategy evaluation

Model Architectures and Methodological Approaches

Ecopath with Ecosim: Mass-Balance Foundation and Extensions

The EwE modeling framework employs a distinctive methodological approach centered on mass-balance principles and trophic interactions, with extensions for dynamic and spatial simulation.

• Core Mass-Balance Algorithm: The foundational Ecopath module creates a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the ecosystem using the master equation: Production = Catch + Predation + Biomass Accumulation + Migration + Other Mortality. This equation ensures that all energy flows within the system are accounted for, creating a balanced representation of trophic interactions [8].

• Dynamic and Spatial Extensions: The Ecosim module adds temporal dynamics to the mass-balanced Ecopath model, enabling simulation of biomass changes over time in response to fishing pressure and environmental drivers. The Ecospace module provides spatial explicitness, allowing researchers to evaluate area-based management strategies and habitat impacts [9].

• Diet Matrix and Vulnerability Parameters: A core component of EwE implementation is the development of diet matrices that quantify predator-prey relationships, with each row representing a prey group and each column a predator, with values indicating proportions of prey in predator diets [8]. Vulnerability matrices represent the relative control of prey availability by predators versus environmental factors, with high values indicating top-down control and low values representing bottom-up control [8].

Atlantis: End-to-End Ecosystem Representation

Atlantis employs a more comprehensive, end-to-end approach that integrates physical, biological, and human dimensions of marine ecosystems within a single framework.

• Spatial Structure and Vertical Layering: Atlantis implementations feature complex spatial structuring, such as the Baltic Sea model with 29 sub-areas and 9 vertical layers [10] or the Icelandic waters model with 51 spatial boxes and multiple vertical layers [5]. This explicit spatial representation enables more realistic simulation of biogeochemical processes and species distributions.

• Integrated Biogeochemical and Fisheries Components: Unlike EwE's focus on trophic interactions, Atlantis directly incorporates biogeochemical cycling, with explicit representation of nutrients, primary production, and detritus pathways. The framework also includes sophisticated fisheries sub-models that can simulate fleet dynamics, economic drivers, and management measures [10].

• Complex Functional Group Representation: Atlantis models typically incorporate dozens of functional groups spanning multiple trophic levels and ecosystem components. The Icelandic implementation, for example, includes 20 fish groups (8 at species level), 5 mammal groups, 1 seabird group, 16 invertebrates, 5 primary producers, 2 bacteria groups, and 3 detritus groups [5].

Table 2: Architectural Comparison Between EwE and Atlantis Frameworks

Architectural Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Theoretical Foundation	Mass-balance, trophic interactions	End-to-end ecosystem simulation
Spatial Structure	Optional 2D grid (Ecospace)	Mandatory 3D structure with vertical layers [5] [10]
Temporal Resolution	Typically monthly to annual	Variable, can be daily to seasonal
Functional Groups	Focus on ecological groups	Comprehensive including human dimensions
Key Parameters	Diet matrix, vulnerability [8]	Nutrient loading, fishing pressure [11]
Model Outputs	Biomass trends, trophic indicators	Ecosystem services, management scenarios

Performance Comparison and Experimental Evidence

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Both modeling frameworks undergo rigorous testing and validation, though the specific performance metrics and evaluation approaches differ according to their respective applications and complexities.

• EwE Validation Approaches: EwE models are typically validated by comparing simulated biomass and catch trends against observed time series data. For the Puako, Hawaii coral reef model, outputs included biomass estimates (tons per square kilometer) for multiple functional groups (invertivores, coralivores, planktivores, browsers, grazers, sharks, reef fishes) for 2017 and 2032 under current and alternative management scenarios [8]. The North Sea historical models (1890s vs 1990s) were compared using indicator-based assessments that revealed declines in ecosystem maturity and resilience associated with industrial fisheries [9].

• Atlantis Skill Assessment: Atlantis implementations employ comprehensive skill assessments that evaluate the model's ability to replicate observed time series for commercial groups. The Icelandic waters model evaluation demonstrated particular skill in replicating time-series for commercial groups, with the study noting that "modeling of the recruitment processes was important for some of the groups" [5]. The Strait of Sicily Atlantis implementation tested model skill through comparison of predicted biomass and catch of target species against observed data using multiple quantitative metrics [11].

• Sensitivity Analysis Applications: Both frameworks employ sensitivity analysis to explore model behavior and identify critical parameters. The Icelandic Atlantis implementation used sensitivity analysis to reveal that "saithe, redfish and tooth whales had the greatest effect on other groups in the system" [5]. Similarly, the Strait of Sicily Atlantis identified "nutrient loading and fishing pressure as the major processes influencing the ecosystem trophic spectrum" [11].

Management Strategy Evaluation Capabilities

The ultimate test of ecosystem models lies in their utility for evaluating management strategies and providing actionable advice for decision-makers.

• EwE Management Scenarios: EwE has demonstrated effectiveness in evaluating specific management measures, such as the Puako, Hawaii study which found that "current management is inadequate to prevent further declines in coral reef resources and that improved fishery management can mitigate the detrimental effects of expected bleaching-related coral mortalities" [8]. The study identified "Only Line Fishing" and reduction in fishing effort as scenarios that minimized conflicts between stakeholders.

• Atlantis Holistic Management Evaluation: Atlantis excels in evaluating complex, interacting management challenges, such as the Baltic Sea implementation which tested "several scenarios of nutrient load reductions on the ecosystem and testing sensitivity to different fishing pressures," demonstrating that "the model is sensitive to those changes and capable of evaluating the impacts on different trophic levels, fish stocks, and fisheries associated with changed benthic oxygen conditions" [10].

• Multi-Model Comparison Insights: The Australian multi-model comparison that included both EwE and Atlantis found that "demersal systems appear to be more strongly affected by climate change than pelagic systems, with invertebrate species in shallow waters likely to respond first and to a larger degree" [12]. The study highlighted the value of ensemble modeling, noting that "largest model discrepancies were found between the regional ecosystem models that represent trophic interactions and the species distribution models" [12].

Diagram 1: Comparative workflow illustrating the fundamental differences in application between EwE (rapid assessment) and Atlantis (comprehensive evaluation) frameworks for ecosystem-based management.

Ecosystem modeling requires both conceptual frameworks and practical tools. The following table details key "research reagents" - essential components and resources needed for implementing these modeling approaches.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Ecosystem Modeling Implementation

Research Reagent	Function	EwE Implementation	Atlantis Implementation
Diet Composition Data	Quantifies predator-prey relationships	Diet matrix specifying proportions of prey in predator diets [8]	Integrated feeding parameters with seasonal and size-specific variations [5]
Biomass Estimates	Provides baseline ecosystem state	Initial biomass for functional groups (t/km²) [8]	Initial biomass distributions across spatial boxes [5]
Fisheries Landings Data	Calibrates human impacts	Historical landings time series [9]	Disaggregated catch by fleet and métier [10]
Physical Environment Data	Forces environmental drivers	Temperature, primary production anomalies [12]	High-resolution hydrodynamic model outputs [10]
Vital Rates Parameters	Defines population dynamics	Production-to-biomass (P/B) and consumption-to-biomass (Q/B) ratios [8]	Species-specific growth, reproduction, and mortality functions [5]
Spatial Boundaries	Defines model domain	Management regions or habitat types [9]	Complex polygons with vertical layers [5] [10]

The historical development and adoption patterns of EwE and Atlantis reveal a compelling narrative of two modeling philosophies serving complementary roles in ecosystem-based management. EwE's remarkable achievement of 2,000+ global users demonstrates the critical need for accessible, reasonably parameterized tools that enable rapid ecosystem characterization and preliminary management evaluation. Its mass-balance foundation, relatively modest data requirements, and graduated learning curve have positioned it as an indispensable first tool for ecosystems lacking comprehensive data infrastructure.

Conversely, Atlantis's strategic application in data-rich environments addresses the need for robust management strategy evaluation capable of simulating complex feedbacks between physical, biological, and human dimensions. Its comprehensive architecture, while computationally demanding and resource-intensive, provides unparalleled capability for testing interacting management measures under uncertainty. The framework's implementations in regions like the Baltic Sea [10], Icelandic waters [5], and Strait of Sicily [11] demonstrate its unique value for policy development in contentious management contexts.

Rather than competing paradigms, EwE and Atlantis represent complementary approaches in the ecosystem modeling toolkit. EwE's widespread adoption has democratized ecosystem modeling, building global capacity for ecosystem-based thinking, while Atlantis's strategic applications push the boundaries of management-relevant prediction in complex, multi-stressor environments. The most progressive management agencies increasingly employ both frameworks in sequence - using EwE for initial screening and hypothesis generation, followed by Atlantis implementation for definitive management strategy evaluation. This modeling continuum, leveraging the respective strengths of both approaches, represents the most promising path toward operationalizing ecosystem-based fisheries management in an era of rapid environmental change.

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) has emerged as a holistic approach that moves beyond single-species assessments to consider entire ecological communities and their interactions. Within this framework, two prominent modeling approaches have gained significant traction: Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis. These systems represent fundamentally different computational philosophies for simulating marine ecosystem dynamics. EwE employs a static mass-balance foundation that can be extended to dynamic simulations, while Atlantis constitutes a comprehensive, dynamic biophysical simulation framework [13]. The distinction between these approaches is not merely technical but reflects different conceptualizations of ecosystem functioning, data requirements, and potential management applications.

The selection of an appropriate modeling framework carries substantial implications for management decisions. As ecosystem models grow in complexity, it becomes increasingly challenging to track how imperfect knowledge of parameters or relationships affects predictions and subsequent management decisions [13]. This comparison guide examines the underlying computational frameworks of EwE and Atlantis through the lens of published scientific applications, providing researchers with objective performance data and methodological insights to inform model selection for specific research questions.

Computational Architectures: A Structural Comparison

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE): Mass-Balance Foundation

The EwE modeling suite operates on a three-tiered architecture beginning with Ecopath—a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the ecosystem that accounts for energy flows between functional groups. This foundational component assumes mass balance over a specific period, where the energy entering each functional group (through consumption and production) equals energy exiting (through predation, fishing, and other losses) [14] [3]. The core Ecopath model provides a standardized parameterization that facilitates cross-system comparisons and serves as the initial condition for temporal simulations.

The Ecosim module extends this static foundation into the temporal dimension using a system of differential equations that simulate biomass dynamics under various forcing factors. Ecosim employs foraging arena theory, which posits that only a portion of prey biomass is vulnerable to predation at any given time [3]. This theoretical framework introduces stabilizing mechanisms into predator-prey interactions by effectively providing refuge for prey populations. The spatial extension, Ecospace, enables two-dimensional spatial simulations primarily designed for evaluating marine protected area placement and spatial management strategies [14].

Atlantis: End-to-End Biophysical Simulation

In contrast to the mass-balance approach of EwE, Atlantis represents a comprehensive end-to-end modeling framework that simulates biogeochemical, ecological, fishery, management, and socio-economic processes within marine ecosystems [11] [15]. Rather than beginning with equilibrium assumptions, Atlantis implements a dynamic, process-driven simulation where system states emerge from first principles and mechanistic relationships.

The Atlantis framework incorporates age- and size-structured population dynamics for functional groups, with predation regulated by diet preference matrices subject to mouth-gape limitations and prey availability [13]. This granular representation of population structure allows for more detailed life history simulations compared to the biomass pool approach of EwE. Additionally, Atlantis explicitly represents three-dimensional physical environments, nutrient cycling, and oceanographic processes, forcing biological production using physical inputs such as temperature, salinity, and currents [3] [15]. The model's architecture facilitates the integration of human dimensions, including fishing fleet behavior, management decision processes, and socio-economic factors, creating a truly coupled human-natural system representation.

Visual Comparison of Core Architectures

The fundamental structural differences between EwE and Atlantis can be visualized through their core computational frameworks:

Ecosystem Modeling Architecture Comparison: EwE follows a sequential modular structure (left), while Atlantis implements integrated simultaneous processes (right).

Performance Comparison: Experimental Evidence

Case Study: Lake Victoria Ecosystem Modeling

A direct comparison of EwE and Atlantis was conducted for Lake Victoria in East Africa, where both models were constructed using similar functional groups and historical data spanning more than 50 years [13]. This rigorous intercomparison tested the ecosystem effects of various fishing scenarios, evaluating model behavior at both functional group and ecosystem levels using standardized indicators.

Table 1: Performance Comparison in Lake Victoria Application

Performance Metric	Ecopath with Ecosim	Atlantis
Spatial Resolution	0-dimensional (2D with Ecospace)	3-dimensional spatial dynamics
Structural Complexity	Biomass pools for functional groups	Age- and size-structured populations
Predation Regulation	Fixed diet matrix with foraging vulnerability	Diet preference with gape limitation and prey availability
Primary Calibration	Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis	Model skill assessment against observations
Target Species Predictions	Qualitative consistency with observations	Qualitative consistency with observations
Multispecies Effects	Considerable variation between models	Considerable variation between models
Computational Demand	Moderate	High
Sensitivity Analysis	Feasible for most parameters	Limited to individual components

The Lake Victoria comparison revealed that both models produced coherent qualitative results for target species ("single-species effects") across various fishing scenarios, with considerable variation observed for cascading effects on non-target species ("multispecies effects") [13]. This divergence in multispecies predictions highlights how structural differences between modeling frameworks propagate through ecological networks and affect management-relevant outputs.

Case Study: Tasman and Golden Bays Ecosystem

A similar model intercomparison was conducted for the Tasman and Golden Bays (TBGB) ecosystem in New Zealand, incorporating three modeling approaches: Atlantis (TBGBAM), EwE (TBGBEwE), and a size-spectrum model (TBGB_SS) [3]. The development process followed an iterative approach where the EwE and size-spectrum models were developed as simplifications of the Atlantis framework, enabling structured comparison of dynamics and outputs.

The study found that Atlantis was particularly sensitive to oceanographic forcing variables, with scenario outcomes heavily dependent on the representation of physical processes [3]. The EwE implementation demonstrated utility for exploring fishing impacts in conjunction with environmental trends, while the authors noted that Atlantis excels at "what-if" type questions due to its comprehensive process representation. Importantly, the research team recommended that ecosystem management scenarios should include sensitivity analyses, especially for oceanographic uncertainty, and compare responses across multiple models where feasible.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Model Development Workflow

The TBGB study established a rigorous methodological framework for ecosystem model development and comparison, consisting of six iterative stages [3]:

Ecosystem Model Development Workflow: The iterative process for developing and comparing ecosystem models.

Model Calibration and Validation Protocols

Both EwE and Atlantis employ distinct calibration and validation methodologies reflective of their underlying architectures. EwE utilizes a Monte Carlo approach to examine the sensitivity of simulation results to initial input parameters, allowing for probabilistic assessment of parameter uncertainty [13]. The Ecopath baseline model must achieve mass balance before proceeding to dynamic simulations, with subsequent Ecosim fits evaluated against time series data of biomass and catch.

For Atlantis, comprehensive sensitivity analysis is often computationally prohibitive due to the model's complexity and high parameter dimensionality [13]. Instead, confidence in Atlantis outputs typically relies on model skill assessment through comparison with observed data, evaluating how well the model reproduces historical patterns [13]. The Northeast US Atlantis model (NEUSv2), for example, employed satellite-derived phytoplankton size class data specifically tuned for the region to force primary production, alongside high-resolution physical oceanographic variables [15]. Performance was assessed through the model's ability to reproduce broad spatial patterns, plausible zooplankton biomass, and long-term stability of functional groups.

Table 2: Calibration Approaches for Each Modeling Framework

Calibration Aspect	Ecopath with Ecosim	Atlantis
Initial Balancing	Mass-balance achieved through parameter adjustment	Process representation refined through iteration
Uncertainty Analysis	Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis feasible	Limited to individual components
Time Series Fitting	Ecosim calibrated to historical data	Hindcast comparison with observations
Skill Assessment	Statistical fit to time series data	Qualitative and quantitative pattern evaluation
Performance Metrics	Sum of squares, AIC, other fit statistics	Biomass trends, catch data, indicator behavior

Table 3: Essential Resources for Ecosystem Modeling Research

Resource Name	Type	Function and Application
EwE Software Suite	Modeling Software	Free ecological modeling package with Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace modules [14]
EcoBase	Model Repository	Open-access repository of 229+ published Ecopath models for discovery and meta-analysis [16]
Atlantis Framework	Modeling Software	End-to-end ecosystem modeling platform for integrated biophysical and human dimension simulations [13] [11]
R Statistical Environment	Analysis Tool	Essential for data preprocessing, model output analysis, and running mizer size-spectrum models [3]
Global Ocean Reanalysis Data	Forcing Data	Physical oceanographic variables (currents, temperature, salinity) for Atlantis applications [15]
Satellite Ocean Color Data	Forcing Data	Phytoplankton size class models for primary production forcing in Atlantis [15]

Implementation Considerations for Research Teams

The selection between EwE and Atlantis involves practical considerations beyond their technical capabilities. EwE benefits from a lower entry barrier with freely available software, extensive documentation, and a large repository of existing models that can be adapted to new systems [14] [16]. The recently published EwE textbook and user guide further support implementation [14]. Additionally, the well-defined Ecopath parameterization facilitates systematic literature-based meta-analyses across multiple ecosystems.

Atlantis demands substantial computational resources and expertise across multiple disciplines, including oceanography, ecology, and fisheries science [13] [3]. However, this investment yields a framework capable of simulating complex feedback mechanisms and unexpected ecosystem dynamics that may emerge from nonlinear interactions. The Northeast US Atlantis implementation (NEUSv2) demonstrates how region-specific forcing data can enhance model performance, suggesting that prior investment in observational infrastructure improves Atlantis applications [15].

The comparative analysis of EwE and Atlantis reveals complementary strengths that can be strategically leveraged within ecosystem-based management. EwE provides an accessible framework for rapid policy screening and hypothesis testing, particularly when data limitations preclude more complex implementations. Its mass-balance foundation offers transparency in assumptions and facilitates cross-system comparisons. Atlantis delivers comprehensive process representation capable of simulating unexpected ecosystem dynamics and complex feedback mechanisms, albeit with significant resource requirements.

For research applications, a multimodel ensemble approach provides insurance against the inherent uncertainties of ecosystem modeling [13]. Convergence in predictions across structurally distinct models increases confidence in policy recommendations, while divergent outcomes highlight sensitive system components requiring further research [13]. The simultaneous development and application of both frameworks, as demonstrated in the Lake Victoria and Tasman and Golden Bays case studies, represents a robust methodology for advancing ecosystem modeling science and supporting management decisions in data-limited and data-rich environments alike.

Ecosystem-based management requires sophisticated tools capable of simulating complex marine dynamics across space and time. Within this domain, two prominent modeling frameworks—Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis—offer fundamentally different approaches to representing spatiotemporal processes. EwE, through its Ecosim (time dynamic) and Ecospace (spatial dynamic) modules, employs a biomass-based, two-dimensional representation using regular grids [17] [18]. In contrast, Atlantis implements a three-dimensional, polygon-based structure that integrates physics, biology, and human activity in an end-to-end framework [10] [3] [19]. This guide objectively compares their architectural philosophies, performance under experimental testing, and suitability for addressing distinct marine policy questions, providing researchers with evidence-based selection criteria.

Core Architectural Differences in Spatiotemporal Representation

Spatial Structure and Movement Paradigms

The most fundamental distinction lies in how these frameworks conceptualize and simulate space.

• Ecospace (EwE): Utilizes a 2D regular grid (often rectangular) across the model domain. Organism movement is typically modeled using a Eulerian approach, which analyzes flow patterns from the fixed viewpoint of spatial cells and estimates movements across cell boundaries [17]. This provides an averaged, population-centric view of movement. While Ecospace is primarily 2D, focusing on map-based spatial dynamics [17], it offers an option for a Lagrangian (individual-tracking) approach for multi-stanza groups, forming a foundation for Individual Based Models (IBMs) [17].

• Atlantis: Employs an irregular 3D polygon-based spatial structure. These polygons can be shaped to represent specific ecological features or administrative boundaries (e.g., bathymetric zones, marine protected areas) and are distributed across multiple vertical layers [17] [10] [19]. This allows for a more explicit representation of water column processes and depth-specific interactions. Atlantis is a comprehensive end-to-end model, integrating hydrodynamic, biogeochemical, species community, and fisheries sub-models within its 3D framework [10] [3] [19].

Table 1: Fundamental Spatial and Temporal Capabilities of Ecospace and Atlantis

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim/Ecospace (EwE)	Atlantis
Spatial Framework	2D Regular Grid [17]	3D Irregular Polygons [17] [10]
Movement Paradigm	Eulerian (default); Lagrangian/IBM options [17]	Not Explicitly Stated in Results
Temporal Resolution	Default monthly time steps; adjustable [17]	Not Explicitly Stated in Results
Dimensionality	Primarily 2D (map-based) [17]	3D (horizontal & vertical layers) [10] [19]
Domain Definition	Extent driven by policy question; can model trans-boundary species via immigration/emigration [17]	Polygons allow for variable resolution, e.g., detailed coastal zones, uniform offshore areas [17]
Computational Cost	Generally lower due to 2D structure and coarser time steps [17]	High, due to 3D complexity, numerous parameters, and finer-scale processes [1] [10]

Temporal Dynamics and Computational Trade-offs

Temporal representation is equally critical and is intrinsically linked to spatial complexity.

• Ecosim (EwE): Operates with a default time step of one month, which aligns well with the monthly rates (e.g., production/biomass) used in Ecopath [17]. This scale is suitable for analyzing medium- to long-term (years to decades) fishery and ecosystem impacts. The time step can be refined if the research question demands it, but the model is not designed for very fine-scale (e.g., hourly) physical-biological interactions [17].

• Atlantis: Requires shorter time steps, often on the order of minutes to hours, to maintain numerical stability in its 3D environment, particularly to satisfy the constraints of vertical movement between layers [17]. This increased resolution, combined with the complex interplay of its sub-models, results in a computational cost that is one to two orders of magnitude higher than that of 2D EwE models [17]. Consequently, Atlantis is positioned as a tool for strategic, medium- to long-term management evaluation rather than short-term tactical forecasting [10].

The following diagram summarizes the core structural and logical differences between the two modeling approaches.

Experimental Comparisons and Policy Evaluation Consistency

Empirical comparisons of EwE and Atlantis across diverse ecosystems provide critical insights into their performance and the robustness of their predictions.

Methodology for Model Inter-Comparison

Standard protocols for comparing these structurally distinct models involve several key stages, as demonstrated in studies of Lake Victoria, the Benguela system, and others [1] [20] [21]:

• Independent Model Construction: Separate research teams, or a single team with cross-framework expertise, develop EwE and Atlantis models for the same geographic region and time period.
• Shared Data and Calibration: Models are parameterized using the same foundational data on species biomasses, diets, and fishery catches. Both models are then calibrated (or "forced") to reproduce a known historical timeline of ecosystem change (e.g., 20-30 years) [1] [20].
• Scenario Testing: The calibrated models are used to simulate the effects of alternative management policies, such as different fishing effort levels, spatial closures, or environmental changes [1] [20] [22].
• Performance Metrics: Outcomes are compared using a suite of ecosystem indicators, including:
  • Biomass trajectories of key functional groups and commercial species.
  • Aggregate indicators like total catch, biodiversity indices, and mean trophic level of the catch.
  • Trade-offs between conflicting objectives (e.g., economic yield vs. conservation) [1] [20].

Key Findings from Comparative Studies

Table 2: Summary of Experimental Model Comparisons Across Different Marine Ecosystems

Ecosystem (Study)	Policy Scenarios Tested	Qualitative Agreement	Quantitative Disagreement	Key Takeaway
Lake Victoria [1]	Alternative fishing efforts on Nile Perch & others	High for ranking policies and direction of change	Present for magnitude of biomass changes	Model choice did not alter strategic management advice.
NSW Shelf, Australia [20] [22]	Optimal efforts for economic, conservation, biodiversity goals	Very similar policy rankings and trade-off descriptions	Large differences for individual species	Structurally distinct models can provide consistent qualitative advice.
Southern Benguela [21]	High pressure on small pelagics vs. adult hake	Not Specified	Ecosystem effects most sensitive to model uncertainty	Highlights the need for multi-model testing of key assumptions.

The consensus from these experiments is that while quantitative predictions for individual species often differ significantly between EwE and Atlantis—due to their different representations of processes like predation and population structure—their qualitative advice regarding policy choice is frequently consistent [1] [20] [22]. This suggests that for strategic questions about the relative performance of different management options, both frameworks can provide robust insights.

Choosing and implementing an ecosystem model requires a suite of conceptual and practical tools. The table below details key "research reagents" and their functions in this context.

Table 3: Essential Components for Ecosystem Model Development and Application

Item	Function in Model Development	Relevance to EwE vs. Atlantis
Functional Groups	Aggregates species with similar ecological roles to simplify food-web structure.	A core concept in both frameworks. EwE is biomass-based; Atlantis is often age-/size-structured [1] [3].
Foraging Arena Theory	A model formulation that limits predator-prey encounters to a "vulnerable" prey space, stabilizing dynamics.	Central to Ecosim's dynamic simulations [3]. Not a core component of Atlantis.
Diet Matrix	Quantifies "who eats whom" and in what proportion, defining energy flows.	Essential for both models. In EwE, it can be static; in Atlantis, realized diet can be dynamic based on size and availability [1] [3].
Fishery-Independent Survey Data	Provides time-series of species abundance for model calibration and validation, independent of fishery data.	Critical for calibrating both EwE and Atlantis to historical periods and evaluating their performance [20] [3].
Monte Carlo Sensitivity Analysis	A statistical method to evaluate how uncertainty in input parameters affects model outcomes.	More feasible for EwE due to fewer parameters. Often infeasible for full-scale Atlantis models; sensitivity is tested for individual components [1].
Hydrodynamic Model	Simulates physical ocean processes (currents, temperature, salinity).	Not required for standard EwE applications. Essential for initializing and forcing the physics in Atlantis [10] [19].

The choice between EwE and Atlantis is not about identifying a superior model, but about selecting the most fit-for-purpose tool [17] [1].

• Use Ecopath with Ecosim/Ecospace when your policy questions are inherently focused on trophic interactions and fishery impacts over medium to long terms, when computational resources or data for complex 3D processes are limited, and when a 2D spatial representation is sufficient. Its relative simplicity and lower computational cost allow for faster iteration and comprehensive uncertainty analysis [17] [18].

• Use Atlantis when the research requires explicit simulation of 3D and biogeochemical processes (e.g., eutrophication, oxygen dynamics), when the questions involve complex interactions between multiple human sectors (e.g., fisheries, pollution, energy), and when sufficient data and computational power are available [10] [19]. It is a powerful tool for truly end-to-end, strategic management strategy evaluation.

Ultimately, the convergence of qualitative advice from both models, as evidenced by multiple comparative studies, bolsters confidence in using either for strategic ecosystem-based management. Employing them as an ensemble provides the best insurance against the uncertainties inherent in modeling complex marine systems [1] [3].

Ecosystem models are vital tools for synthesizing our understanding of natural systems and forecasting their responses to anthropogenic pressures. Within these models, representing biological complexity often requires aggregating species into meaningful units. Two predominant approaches for this aggregation are the trophic group and functional group frameworks. The distinction is more than semantic; it fundamentally shapes how ecosystem structure is quantified, how energy flow is simulated, and, ultimately, what management insights a model can provide. Framed within the broader research on Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) versus Atlantis model performance, this guide objectively compares these two representation paradigms. We summarize experimental data, detail methodological protocols, and visualize core concepts to aid researchers in selecting the appropriate approach for their investigations.

Conceptual Definitions and Ecological Basis

Trophic Group Definition

A Trophic Group (TG) is defined as a collection of species that share similar sets of prey and predators, occupying a similar position in the food web [23]. The core principle is structural equivalence, where group membership is determined by the pattern of a species' incoming and outgoing trophic interactions. Historically, food webs were described at the trophic group level to simplify complex trophic relationships and enable cross-system comparisons [23].

Functional Group Definition

A Functional Group (FG) is a collection of species that perform similar ecological functions or processes within an ecosystem, irrespective of their exact taxonomic identity [24]. In food web contexts, functional groups are often defined by the type of consumer-resource interaction they engage in (e.g., primary productivity, herbivory, pollination, predation, decomposition) [24]. The emphasis is on the ecological role rather than solely on connection topology.

Methodological Protocols for Group Detection

Detecting Trophic Groups

A novel algorithm for TG detection uses a mathematical framework analogous to modularity detection but based on trophic similarity [23].

Experimental Protocol:

• Construct the Food Web: Represent the ecosystem as a directed graph where nodes are species and links represent trophic interactions.
• Calculate Trophic Similarity: For every pair of species (i, j), compute the Trophic Similarity Index, ( T(i, j) ): ( T(i, j) = \frac{|Pi \cap Pj| + |pi \cap pj|}{|Pi \cup Pj| + |pi \cup pj|} ) where ( Pi ) and ( pi ) are the sets of predators and prey of species i, respectively. This index quantifies the overlap in predators and prey between two species.
• Compare to Random Expectation: An objective function, ( W(E) ), is maximized. This function sums, for a given partition E of species into groups, the difference between the observed trophic similarity of species within the same group and the expected similarity in a random network.
• Partition Optimization: The optimal partition of species into TGs is the one that maximizes ( W(E) ). This allows the number of groups to emerge as a property of the network's structure without predefinition.

Detecting Functional Groups

The detection of functional groups is often more context-dependent and can be based on a combination of taxonomic knowledge, trait-based analysis, and network topology.

Experimental Protocol [24]:

• Define Ecosystem Functions: Identify the key ecosystem functions of interest (e.g., primary productivity, herbivory, pollination, predation, decomposition).
• Characterize Species Roles: For each species, determine its contribution to the defined functions through direct observation, gut content analysis, stable isotope analysis, and literature review.
• Assign Functional Groups: Aggregate species that contribute to the same ecosystem function into a shared functional group. A single species can contribute to multiple functional groups.
• Link to Network Structure (Optional): The distribution of functional groups can be analyzed in relation to food-web topology. Research shows that functional group diversity is positively correlated with modularity—a network property where groups of species interact more frequently among themselves than with species in other modules [24].

Comparative Analysis: Performance and Data Integration

The following tables summarize key differences and applications of the two grouping approaches based on empirical studies.

Table 1: Conceptual and Methodological Comparison

Aspect	Trophic Group (TG) Approach	Functional Group (FG) Approach
Basis of Aggregation	Structural equivalence; shared predators and prey [23]	Similar ecological function or process [24]
Primary Data	Trophic interaction matrix (who eats whom)	Species traits, diet, and interaction type
Network Property	Aligns with trophic level and regular equivalence [23]	Correlated with modular network architecture [24]
Information Preservation	Effective at simplifying food webs with minimal information loss [23]	Highlights multifunctionality and ecosystem service provision
Spatial Heterogeneity	Not explicitly considered	Can be heterogeneously distributed across a landscape [24]

Table 2: Application in Ecosystem Modeling (EwE Context)

Aspect	Trophic Group (TG) Approach	Functional Group (FG) Approach
Model Simplification	Aggregation into TGs simplifies complexity while preserving information on energy flow [23]	Aggregation into FGs frames the model around ecosystem services and functional diversity
Dynamical Fitting	A trophic-level-related vulnerability setting (vTL) showed relatively good hindcast ability in EwE [25]	Model scenarios are often constructed to evaluate trade-offs between different functional outputs [26]
Management Insight	Focuses on predicting biomass and catch of trophically similar entities [23]	Visualizes and quantifies trade-offs among societal objectives (e.g., conservation vs. catch) [26]

Hierarchical Relationship and Theoretical Visualization

Research on aquatic food webs reveals that TGs and FGs are not opposing concepts but exist in a hierarchical relationship [24] [23]. This structure can be visualized as a two-level organization:

Figure 1: Hierarchical Structure of Groups in Food Webs. Modules partition the web into broad energy pathways (e.g., benthic vs. pelagic). Trophic Groups further partition modules into species with similar trophic connections. Functional Groups (dashed lines) often align with these modules, representing distinct ecosystem processes [24] [23].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Item/Solution	Function in Analysis
Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	A widely used software framework for constructing, balancing, and simulating mass-balance trophic models (Ecopath) and dynamic simulations (Ecosim) [25] [26].
Trophic Interaction Matrix	A binary or weighted matrix detailing predator-prey relationships; the fundamental dataset for TG detection and initial EwE model parameterization [23].
Vulnerability Matrix	In EwE, this matrix defines the predator-prey relationship dynamics (top-down vs. bottom-up control). Its parameterization is critical for model fitting [25] [26].
Stable Isotope Analysis	Used to determine trophic position and dietary sources (e.g., δ¹⁵N, δ¹³C), helping to verify trophic groups and inform diet matrices [24].
Modularity Algorithm	Software (e.g., in R or Python) to detect community structure within networks, helping to identify modules associated with functional group diversity [24].
Jaccard Similarity Index	A metric used to quantify trophic overlap between species, forming the basis for some TG clustering methods [23].

Implementation Strategies and Real-World Ecosystem Applications

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) requires sophisticated modeling tools to simulate the complex interactions within marine food webs and predict the outcomes of management strategies. Within this context, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and the Atlantis framework represent two prominent but philosophically distinct approaches. EwE provides a mass-balanced modeling framework that progresses sequentially from static snapshots to dynamic temporal and spatial simulations, offering a structured methodology for ecosystem exploration. This guide examines the performance and application of the EwE workflow, contextualized within broader comparative research against the Atlantis modeling approach, to inform researchers and fisheries professionals in selecting appropriate methodologies for their specific research questions.

The EwE modeling approach employs a distinctive sequential workflow that bridges static, temporal, and spatial modeling components, allowing researchers to build complexity systematically while maintaining ecosystem balance. Understanding this workflow's capabilities, experimental protocols, and performance metrics relative to more complex end-to-end frameworks like Atlantis provides critical insight for model selection in ecosystem-based management applications.

The EwE Sequential Workflow: Methodological Framework

Core Components and Logical Progression

The EwE framework is built upon three primary components that form a sequential modeling workflow, each addressing different ecological questions and management scenarios [27] [14]:

• Ecopath: Provides a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the ecosystem, representing energy flows between functional groups during a specific period. This serves as the foundational baseline for all subsequent dynamic simulations.
• Ecosim: Enables time-dynamic simulations for policy exploration, allowing researchers to model ecosystem changes under various fishing pressure or environmental conditions.
• Ecospace: Facilitates spatial and temporal dynamic modeling primarily designed for exploring impact and placement of marine protected areas through map-based simulations.

This structured progression requires each step to be completed before advancing, ensuring the model maintains mass balance throughout dynamic simulations. The workflow forces modelers to establish a credible baseline ecosystem state before attempting temporal or spatial projections, providing a systematic approach to complexity management.

Visualizing the EwE Sequential Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the sequential workflow and data dependencies between EwE components:

Figure 1: EwE modeling requires sequential completion of each module, with outputs from earlier stages feeding as inputs to subsequent components.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Ecopath Model Development and Balancing Protocol

The foundational Ecopath module requires strict mass balance where production across all functional groups equals consumption and losses. The core methodology involves [27]:

• Functional Group Definition: Compartmentalize the ecosystem into functional groups representing species, groups of species, or specific life stages based on shared ecological traits.
• Parameter Estimation: For each functional group, collect and input biomass (B), production/biomass (P/B), consumption/biomass (Q/B), and diet composition data from field studies, literature, and empirical measurements.
• Mass Balance Optimization: Iteratively adjust parameters to achieve mass balance where for each group: (Production) = (Catch) + (Predation Mortality) + (Other Mortality). This often requires sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo routines to identify high-leverage parameters.
• Diagnostic Evaluation: Assess ecosystem properties including network analysis, trophic levels, and energy pathways to ensure ecological plausibility.

Input biomass has been identified as a particularly high-leverage parameter whose imprecision disproportionately influences output uncertainty [28]. Production-to-biomass (P/B) ratios also exert significant influence on model behavior and require careful empirical justification.

Ecosim Calibration and Fitting Procedures

Once a balanced Ecopath model is established, Ecosim enables temporal dynamic simulations through a detailed calibration protocol [27] [25]:

• Time Series Compilation: Gather historical data including fisheries catch, abundance indices, environmental drivers, and fishing effort covering the longest possible reference period.
• Vulnerability Parameterization: Set initial vulnerability (v) parameters representing predator-prey interaction strengths. These parameters incorporate density-dependence by representing behavioral ecology responses.
• Goodness-of-Fit Optimization: Use the Fit to Time Series module to minimize sum of squared deviations (SS) between model predictions and observed data through iterative adjustment of vulnerabilities and forcing functions.
• Model Skill Assessment: Evaluate model performance using bias, error, and reliability metrics. Compare alternative vulnerability settings including trophic-level-related (vTL) and depletion-related (vB) configurations when full fitting isn't possible.

Vulnerability-fitted (v-fitted) models demonstrate superior hindcast ability compared to vulnerability-unfitted (v-unfitted) models, though vTL settings show relatively better performance among unfitted alternatives [25]. The calibration process also allows evaluation of model sensitivity to forcing functions through built-in Monte Carlo routines.

Ecospace Spatial Configuration

The Ecospace module extends the calibrated Ecosim model into spatial dimensions through specific methodological steps [27] [29]:

• Spatial Domain Definition: Define the model domain extent and resolution based on the research questions and data availability.
• Habitat Mapping: Assign habitat suitability indices for each functional group across the spatial grid based on physical, oceanographic, and environmental conditions.
• Human Pressure Layer Integration: Incorporate spatial layers representing human activities (fishing effort, offshore wind farms, etc.) and their associated pressures (bottom disturbance, noise, etc.).
• Dispersal Parameterization: Set movement parameters for mobile species groups based on known behaviors and habitat preferences.

In applications like the MSP Challenge platform, Ecospace calculates habitat foraging capacity for each functional group based on foraging arena theory, with results expressed through heatmaps and key performance indicators [29].

Performance Comparison: EwE versus Atlantis Framework

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Table 1: Comparative performance indicators for EwE and Atlantis modeling frameworks

Performance Metric	EwE Framework	Atlantis Framework	Experimental Context
Prediction Precision	Kempton's Q Index and Total System Throughput most responsive indicators [28]	Not specified in results	Response to imprecision under 61 modeling scenarios
High-Leverage Parameters	Input biomass and production-to-biomass ratios [28]	Not specified in results	Sensitivity analysis of input variables
Hindcast Skill	Vulnerability-fitted models show best fitness [25]	Not specified in results	Comparison of v-fitted vs. v-unfitted models
Forecast Robustness	vB setting robust under fishing effort changes [25]	Not specified in results	Reduced and increased fishing effort scenarios
Spatial Management	Ecospace designed for MPA placement [14]	Integrated spatial dynamics	Maritime Spatial Planning applications
Model Balancing	Monte Carlo routines have disadvantages [28]	Different balancing approach	Model construction phase

Methodological and Application Comparisons

Table 2: Methodological approaches and application contexts for EwE versus Atlantis

Characteristic	EwE Framework	Atlantis Framework
Theoretical Foundation	Trophic mass-balance, foraging arena theory	Biogeochemical, individual-based processes
Model Structure	Sequential (Ecopath → Ecosim → Ecospace)	Integrated, end-to-end
Primary Applications	Ecosystem effects of fishing, MPA placement [14]	Comprehensive ecosystem dynamics
Data Requirements	Species-group focused, diet matrices	Physical-biogeochemical coupled system
Temporal Resolution	Flexible, typically monthly to annual	Higher frequency, physical processes
Spatial Implementation	Habitat-based affinity grids [29]	3D hydrodynamic coupling
Management Focus	Strategic policy exploration	Tactical to strategic management
Learning Curve	Moderate, structured workflow	Steeper, integrated complexity

Core Modeling Infrastructure

Table 3: Essential resources and tools for EwE modeling implementation

Resource/Tool	Function	Access/Application
EwE Software Suite	Core modeling environment with Ecopath, Ecosim, Ecospace modules	Free download [14]
EcoBase Repository	Repository of 229+ published Ecopath models for comparison/initialization [16]	Online access via EwE software
Monte Carlo Plugin	Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty evaluation	Built-in EwE routine
Fit to Time Series	Automated calibration to historical data	Core EwE functionality
Vulnerability Settings	Parameterization of predator-prey interactions (v-fitted, vTL, vB)	Key to temporal dynamics [25]
MSP Challenge Platform	Integration of Ecospace for maritime spatial planning [29]	Serious games application

The EwE sequential workflow offers a methodical approach to ecosystem modeling that progresses from conceptual understanding to spatial management scenarios. Its structured methodology provides distinct advantages for researchers investigating fishing impacts, marine protected area design, and policy exploration. The framework's performance in predicting ecosystem indicators demonstrates particular responsiveness in Kempton's Q Index and Total System Throughput, with identifiable high-leverage parameters guiding data collection priorities.

Comparative research between EwE and Atlantis frameworks reveals complementary strengths. EwE provides greater accessibility and a more structured workflow for investigating trophic interactions and fishing impacts, while Atlantis offers more comprehensive physical-biological integration. The selection between these approaches should be guided by research questions, data resources, and management objectives, with EwE particularly suited for investigations centered on fisheries management and spatial planning where its sequential workflow provides logical progression from ecosystem description to management strategy testing.

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) has emerged as a holistic approach for managing fisheries in ways that recognize their potential to alter entire social-ecological systems [20]. Unlike traditional single-species management, EBFM requires tools capable of simulating complex interactions across oceanographic, biological, and human dimensions. Among the modeling frameworks developed for this purpose, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis represent two prominent but structurally distinct approaches [13] [20].

Both models share the ultimate goal of evaluating system-level trade-offs of alternative management strategies but employ fundamentally different architectures and assumptions [13]. This comparison guide examines the implementation of the Atlantis framework, focusing on how it integrates multidisciplinary components to support strategic fisheries management. We evaluate its performance relative to EwE through experimental data and case studies, providing researchers and scientists with objective assessments of their respective capabilities and limitations within the context of EBFM.

Model Frameworks: Architectural Comparison

EwE operates as a whole-ecosystem, biomass-dynamic model that uses a fixed diet matrix and foraging vulnerability to regulate predation dynamics [13]. The framework consists of three primary components: Ecopath for static mass-balanced snapshots, Ecosim for dynamic time-series simulations, and Ecospace for spatial management scenarios. EwE represents trophic interactions through pre-defined diet proportions and vulnerability parameters, making it particularly useful for evaluating fishing impacts across ecosystem compartments [13] [20].

Atlantis is characterized as a whole-ecosystem, end-to-end model that incorporates age- and size-structured population dynamics within a three-dimensional spatial framework [13] [11] [15]. Unlike EwE's biomass-based approach, Atlantis implements individual-based population dynamics for many components and simulates biogeochemical, ecological, fishery, management, and socio-economic processes simultaneously [11] [15]. predation in Atlantis is regulated by a diet preference matrix subject to mouth-gape limitations and prey availability, creating more emergent trophic interactions [13].

Table 1: Fundamental Architectural Differences Between Atlantis and EwE

Feature	Atlantis	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)
Model Structure	Age/size-structured, 3D spatial	Biomass-dynamic, 0-dimensional
Trophic Regulation	Diet preference with gape limitation & prey availability	Fixed diet matrix with foraging vulnerability
Spatial Resolution	High (3-dimensional boxes)	Low (Ecospace provides 2D)
Temporal Resolution	Variable time steps	Typically monthly or annual
Human Dimensions	Integrated socio-economic modules	Limited economic representation
Implementation Complexity	High (thousands of parameters)	Moderate (hundreds of parameters)

Experimental Protocols and Model Evaluation

Case Study: Lake Victoria Ecosystem

Experimental Design

A rigorous model comparison study was conducted for Lake Victoria, East Africa, utilizing both Atlantis and EwE frameworks [13]. The experimental protocol involved:

• Parameterization: Both models were parameterized using the same historical dataset covering a 50-year period, including annual landings data and similar functional group definitions for vertebrate components.
• Calibration: Models were calibrated to reproduce historical biomass and catch trends for key species, including Nile perch (Lates niloticus), Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), and the native silver cyprinid (Rastrineobola argentea).
• Scenario Testing: Multiple fishing scenarios were simulated to evaluate how ecosystem effects of fishing varied between models.
• Performance Metrics: Models were compared using globally-tested ecosystem indicators and functional group-specific responses [13].

Results and Comparative Performance

The Lake Victoria comparison revealed that both models could reproduce historical trends for target species but showed greater variation in predictions for non-target species and trophic cascades [13]. The study highlighted that structural differences significantly influenced multispecies effects, though qualitative advice for target species remained consistent across models.

Case Study: NSW Continental Shelf

Experimental Design

A retrospective analysis compared Atlantis and EwE applications for the New South Wales (NSW) continental shelf and slope ecosystem [20]. The methodology included:

• Historical Baseline: Both models were calibrated to 1976 survey data before large-scale offshore trawl fisheries development.
• Policy Evaluation: Simple management policies representing economic, conservation, and biodiversity objectives were simulated using Ecosim's optimization algorithm.
• Validation: Model projections from 1976-1996 were compared to observed survey data from 1996.
• Trade-off Analysis: A suite of ecosystem indicators was used to rank policies and identify key management trade-offs [20].

Results and Comparative Performance

The NSW study demonstrated that both models could emulate observed changes in biomass for several functional groups, but exhibited different sensitivities to fishing pressure [20]. Atlantis more accurately captured declines in low-productivity species like deepwater dogsharks, while EwE showed better performance for certain teleost species.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics from Case Studies

Performance Metric	Atlantis	EwE	System
Target Species Biomass Prediction	Consistent with observations	Consistent with observations	Lake Victoria
Non-target Species Variability	Higher	Moderate	Lake Victoria
Low-productivity Species Decline	Better representation	Underestimated declines	NSW Shelf
Policy Ranking Consistency	Qualitative agreement	Qualitative agreement	Both Systems
Trophic Cascade Prediction	Divergent from EwE	Divergent from Atlantis	Lake Victoria

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Components for Atlantis Implementation

Successful implementation of the Atlantis framework requires specific data inputs, computational resources, and technical expertise. The following table outlines critical components for developing and applying Atlantis models in marine ecosystem research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Atlantis Implementation

Component Category	Specific Requirements	Function/Purpose
Oceanographic Data	High-resolution physical variables (currents, temperature, salinity) from reanalysis products [15]	Forces physical transport and biogeochemical processes
Biological Data	Species abundance, size/age structure, diet composition, physiological rates [11] [30]	Parameterizes functional groups and trophic interactions
Primary Production Forcing	Satellite-derived phytoplankton size class models [15]	Drives bottom-up ecosystem productivity
Fishery Data	Commercial and recreational catch time series, effort distribution, gear selectivity [30]	Represents fishing mortality and economic drivers
Spatial Framework	Bathymetry, habitat maps, biogeographic boundaries [11] [30]	Defines model spatial structure and connectivity
Calibration Data	Fishery-independent surveys, biomass trends, catch statistics [11] [30]	Validates model performance and reduces uncertainty
Computational Resources	High-performance computing clusters, parallel processing capability	Enables complex simulations and sensitivity analyses

Signaling Pathways and Workflow: Atlantis Model Structure and Implementation

The Atlantis framework integrates multiple ecosystem components through a structured workflow that connects physical forcing to biological responses and human dimensions. The following diagram illustrates the core organizational structure and data flow within a typical Atlantis implementation.

Implementation Workflow

The implementation of an Atlantis model follows a systematic sequence from data acquisition to policy evaluation, as illustrated in the workflow below.

Discussion and Comparative Analysis

Integration of Oceanographic, Biological, and Human Dimensions

Atlantis demonstrates distinctive capabilities in integrating oceanographic processes with biological and human systems. The northeast US Atlantis implementation (NEUSv2) exemplifies this strength through its incorporation of high-resolution physical ocean variables and satellite-derived phytoplankton models that force primary production [15]. This tight coupling enables Atlantis to simulate bottom-up and top-down trophic effects emerging from environmental changes, as demonstrated in the Strait of Sicily application [11].

The human dimension integration in Atlantis extends beyond simple fishery catches to incorporate socio-economic processes and management evaluation. The Main Hawaiian Islands Atlantis model specifically addresses this by simulating existing and alternative fisheries regulations and comparing outcomes under different management scenarios, including socio-ecological impacts on reef-fish stocks and reef condition [30]. This capability to represent coupled social-ecological systems represents a significant advancement over traditional biomass-focused models.

Performance Considerations and Uncertainty

While Atlantis provides comprehensive ecosystem representation, this comes with substantial computational demands and parameterization challenges. With thousands of parameters requiring estimation, full-scale sensitivity analysis is often infeasible [13], necessitating reliance on model skill assessment through comparison with observed data [11]. The Lake Victoria comparison highlighted that despite rigorous parameterization with the best available data, differences in model structure led to variations in predictions, particularly for multispecies effects [13].

The multimodel approach advocated by recent studies provides "insurance" against structural uncertainty [13] [20]. Consistent qualitative advice from both Atlantis and EwE increases confidence in policy recommendations, while divergent results highlight areas where model assumptions influence predictions. This suggests that rather than selecting a single "best" model, robust EBFM should incorporate insights from multiple modeling frameworks.

Atlantis represents a sophisticated implementation framework for integrating oceanographic, biological, and human dimension components in marine ecosystem management. Its end-to-end modeling approach, incorporating age-structured populations within a 3-dimensional spatial context, provides unique capabilities for simulating complex ecosystem dynamics and trade-offs. Experimental comparisons with EwE demonstrate that both models can deliver consistent qualitative advice for target species, but exhibit structural uncertainties particularly for multispecies interactions and trophic cascades.

For researchers and scientists implementing ecosystem approaches to fisheries management, Atlantis offers unparalleled comprehensiveness but requires substantial data resources and computational capacity. The framework's ability to simulate coupled social-ecological systems and evaluate alternative management scenarios under climate change makes it particularly valuable for strategic policy development. Future directions should focus on enhancing model calibration protocols, developing efficient sensitivity analysis methods for high-parameter systems, and formalizing multimodel approaches that leverage the complementary strengths of both Atlantis and EwE frameworks.

As EBFM continues to evolve, the integration of diverse modeling approaches like Atlantis and EwE will be essential for addressing the complex challenges facing marine ecosystems in an era of global change and increasing human impacts.

The move towards ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) requires sophisticated modeling tools capable of simulating complex marine ecosystems and predicting the outcomes of management interventions. Among the most advanced tools available, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and the Atlantis Framework represent two distinct yet complementary approaches to addressing these challenges. EwE originated from NOAA research in the early 1980s to describe energy flow through food webs [18], while Atlantis was developed by Australia's CSIRO as a decision support tool for ecosystem-based management [4]. These modeling frameworks differ fundamentally in their philosophical approaches, technical implementations, and primary applications for fishing policy exploration. This guide provides a systematic comparison of their capabilities, supported by experimental data and implementation case studies, to assist researchers in selecting the appropriate tool for specific management questions related to fishing policies and strategy evaluation.

Model Foundations & Theoretical Frameworks

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE): Mass-Balanced Energy Tracking

The EwE framework employs a mass-balance accounting approach to describe biomass flows within marine ecosystems. The core Ecopath model organizes species into functional groups and uses a system of linear equations to ensure energy conservation [18]. This creates a static snapshot of the ecosystem where predator consumption must balance prey production. The time-dynamic module Ecosim introduces temporal variations through differential equations, while Ecospace adds spatial explicitness by modeling processes across multiple geographic cells [18].

A key strength of EwE is its trophic interaction focus, representing predator-prey relationships through diet composition matrices. The model's backbone is formed by parameter estimates for biomass (B), production/biomass (P/B), consumption/biomass (Q/B), and diet compositions for each functional group [31]. This structure makes EwE particularly adept at simulating trophic cascades and food web-mediated effects of fishing pressure.

Atlantis: Spatially-Explicit End-to-End Simulation

Atlantis adopts a process-oriented, mechanistic approach that simulates the entire marine social-ecological system. It integrates three core sub-models: hydrographic (physical and chemical environment), species community (biological entities), and fisheries (human activities) that interact bidirectionally on spatially and temporally explicit scales [10]. Unlike EwE's mass-balance foundation, Atlantis employs dynamic differential equations to represent system processes.

The framework is designed as a strategic management evaluation tool capable of medium-to-long-term scenario testing rather than short-term tactical forecasts [10]. Its "end-to-end" nature explicitly connects environmental drivers, ecological dynamics, and human dimensions, including assessment, management, and compliance processes [4]. This makes Atlantis particularly valuable for evaluating cross-sectoral management strategies addressing multiple simultaneous pressures such as fishing, climate change, and pollution.

Table 1: Foundational Characteristics of EwE and Atlantis Frameworks

Characteristic	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis Framework
Theoretical Basis	Mass-balance energy accounting	Process-oriented simulation
Primary Focus	Trophic interactions & food web dynamics	Whole social-ecological system integration
Temporal Resolution	Static (Ecopath) to dynamic (Ecosim)	Inherently dynamic with explicit time-steps
Spatial Capabilities	Single box (Ecopath/Ecosim) to spatially-explicit (Ecospace)	Native 3D spatial explicitness with vertical layers
Management Philosophy	Optimizing specific fishing policies	Comparative evaluation of management strategies
Development Origin	NOAA (Polovina, early 1980s) [18]	CSIRO, Australia [4]

Applications in Fishing Policy and Management Strategy Evaluation

EwE Applications for Fishing Policy Optimization

EwE has demonstrated particular effectiveness in analyzing fisheries-induced trophic cascades and optimizing multispecies harvest policies. A representative example comes from the Central Puget Sound EwE model, which included 65 functional groups and was used to evaluate fishing effects across the ecosystem [18]. Simulations revealed that despite significant harvest levels, contemporary fishing mortality did not constitute a major structuring force in the food web, possibly because the ecosystem structure reflected historical heavy fishing pressure [18].

The model further demonstrated how policy changes could trigger complex ecosystem responses. A simulation reducing bald eagle populations by 10% revealed a trophic cascade: increased gull and diving bird populations followed, causing declines in juvenile salmon, herring, mussels, and bottom fish, which subsequently increased zooplankton and shrimp populations [18]. This capacity to trace policy effects through entire food webs makes EwE invaluable for predicting unintended consequences of single-species management decisions.

Atlantis Applications for Management Strategy Evaluation

Atlantis excels in evaluating integrated management strategies addressing multiple simultaneous pressures. The Baltic Sea Atlantis implementation exemplifies this capability, comprising 29 sub-areas, 9 vertical layers, and 30 biological functional groups to test scenarios combining nutrient load reductions with varying fishing pressures [10]. This allowed researchers to assess trade-offs between environmental goals (e.g., reduced eutrophication) and socioeconomic objectives (e.g., fishery profitability).

In the Pacific region, Atlantis has been adapted to evaluate coral reef management strategies by simulating increased or decreased coral cover, changing populations of key species, varying nutrient inputs, and human population growth [4]. The model's ability to incorporate human dimensions—including tourism, economic indicators, and cultural services—enables comprehensive policy assessment beyond purely ecological considerations. The Main Hawaiian Islands implementation specifically evaluates ecosystem effects of the bottomfish fishery and climate change impacts on reef systems [4].

Table 2: Representative Policy Applications and Findings

Application Area	EwE Findings	Atlantis Findings
Fishing Pressure Effects	Termination of fishing may not restore depleted populations due to altered ecosystem states [18]	Capable of evaluating impacts on different trophic levels and fisheries associated with changed benthic conditions [10]
Top Predator Management	10% reduction in eagles triggered trophic cascades through multiple trophic levels [18]	Evaluated ecosystem effects of changing Hawaiian monk seal populations [4]
Multi-pressure Scenarios	Can incorporate environmental forcing functions but limited to predefined relationships	Tests combined effects of climate change, eutrophication, and fishing pressure simultaneously [10]
Spatial Management	Ecospace can model MPAs but with simpler human behavior representation	Spatially explicit approach evaluates area-specific management and cross-sector interactions [4]
Economic Considerations	Limited native economic modeling; requires extensions	Integrated economic evaluation through linkage with specialized models like FISHRENT [10]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

EwE Model Development and Uncertainty Analysis

The standard protocol for developing an EwE model involves sequential phases with distinct data requirements and analytical procedures:

Phase 1: Ecopath Baseline Development

• Functional Group Definition: Aggregate species into ecologically similar groups (typically 30-65 groups)
• Parameter Estimation: Obtain biomass (B), production/biomass (P/B), consumption/biomass (Q/B), and diet composition for each group
• Mass-Balance Calibration: Adjust parameters until energy inputs equal outputs for all groups
• Pedigree Assignment: Classify data quality (local, regional, estimated) for uncertainty analysis [31]

Phase 2: Ecosim Temporal Dynamics

• Time Series Validation: Fit model to historical data (biomass, catch, effort)
• Vulnerability Estimation: Calibrate predator-prey interaction parameters
• Monte Carlo Analysis: Run multiple iterations with parameter uncertainty to evaluate prediction robustness [31]

Phase 3: Ecospace Spatial Implementation (if applicable)

• Habitat Mapping: Assign habitat suitability for each functional group
• Dispersal Rules: Define movement parameters across cells
• Human Activity Distribution: Map fishing effort and other anthropogenic pressures

Atlantis Model Implementation Protocol

The Atlantis implementation follows a comprehensive, iterative protocol:

Phase 1: System Representation

• Spatial Domain Discretization: Divide modeling region into 3D polygons (e.g., 29 sub-areas × 9 layers in Baltic implementation)
• Biological Group Parameterization: Define functional groups with physiological and behavioral parameters
• Hydrodynamic Linkage: Connect with physical-biogeochemical models (e.g., HBM-ERGOM for Baltic) [10]

Phase 2: Human Dimension Implementation

• Fleet Characterization: Define fishing sectors with technical, economic, and behavioral attributes
• Management Rule Specification: Program regulatory procedures and compliance levels
• Economic Linkage: Interface with economic models (e.g., FISHRENT for economic output analysis) [10]

Phase 3: Scenario Testing Framework

• Pressure Scenario Definition: Specify changes in fishing pressure, environmental conditions, and management interventions
• Indicator Selection: Choose ecological, social, and economic performance metrics
• Comparative Analysis: Run multiple management strategies against common scenarios to evaluate trade-offs

The following diagram illustrates the core methodological workflows for both modeling approaches:

EwE and Atlantis Methodological Workflows

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Model Capabilities and Technical Specifications

Table 3: Technical Specification Comparison

Technical Aspect	EwE	Atlantis
Typical Functional Groups	30-65 groups [18]	30+ groups (29 in Baltic) [10]
Spatial Structure	Single box to multiple cells (Ecospace)	Native 3D with vertical layers (e.g., 9 layers) [10]
Temporal Resolution	Monthly to annual time steps	Daily to seasonal time steps
Computational Demand	Moderate (hours to days)	High (days to weeks)
Data Requirements	Moderate (can use literature values)	High (requires extensive local data)
Uncertainty Framework	Advanced (Pedigree, MC, MCMC) [31]	Limited (focused on scenario comparison)
Economic Integration	Basic (requires extensions)	Advanced (direct model linkage) [10]
Management Time Horizon	Short to medium term (0-50 years) [18]	Medium to long term (decades) [10]
Open Source Availability	Yes	Yes

Scenario Testing Performance Metrics

In comparative analyses of model performance, several key metrics emerge:

Ecosystem Structure Representation

• EwE more accurately represents known stock sizes of commercially important species through direct parameterization
• Atlantis better captures biogeochemical processes and their influence on habitat quality
• Both frameworks can achieve realistic phytoplankton biomass levels and diet compositions when properly calibrated [10]

Policy Implementation Realism

• Atlantis more realistically simulates management procedures, including assessment, regulation, and compliance components [4]
• EwE provides more transparent trophic interactions for understanding food web-mediated policy effects
• Atlantis demonstrates superior capability for modeling cross-sectoral interactions (e.g., tourism, pollution, fishing) [4]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Essential Modeling Components and Their Functions

Component	Function in EwE	Function in Atlantis
Biomass (B) Estimates	Core input parameter for each functional group	Initial condition for biological state variables
Production/Biomass (P/B)	Determines production capacity of groups	Derived from physiological processes and environmental conditions
Consumption/Biomass (Q/B)	Defines consumption requirements of consumers	Emerges from bioenergetics and foraging behavior
Diet Composition Matrix	Defines energy flows between functional groups	Informs predation mortality and trophic interactions
Fishery Catch Data	Forces fishing mortality in historical period	Defines one of multiple human pressure sources
Environmental Time Series	External forcing functions (Ecosim)	Directly influences physiological processes
Spatial Habitat Maps	Determines carrying capacity (Ecospace)	Defines species distributions and movement
Economic Parameters	Limited integration in core model	Direct linkage with economic sub-models [10]

The comparative analysis reveals that EwE and Atlantis serve distinct but complementary roles in fisheries management strategy evaluation. EwE excels in fishing policy optimization where trophic interactions dominate management outcomes, offering relatively rapid assessment with moderate data requirements. Its mass-balance foundation provides transparent analytical traction on food-web mediated effects of harvesting policies. In contrast, Atlantis provides a more comprehensive management strategy evaluation platform for complex, multi-pressure scenarios where fishing interacts with environmental change and competing ocean uses.

Selection between these frameworks should be guided by the specific management question, available data resources, and required integration level. For researchers focused specifically on optimizing fishing policies within ecological constraints, EwE offers a more accessible and targeted approach. For strategic evaluation of entire management regimes operating across multiple sectors and pressures, Atlantis provides the necessary integrative capacity despite its steeper resource requirements. Both frameworks continue to evolve, with EwE developing more sophisticated uncertainty analysis and Atlantis improving accessibility and computational efficiency, further enhancing their value for evidence-based fisheries management.

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) has emerged as a holistic approach to managing marine resources, moving beyond single-species assessments to consider entire ecological communities and their interactions [13]. Within this framework, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have become prominent spatial management tools, with international targets aiming to protect significant portions of the world's oceans [32]. Evaluating the potential effectiveness of MPAs requires sophisticated modeling approaches that can predict ecological responses to spatial protection.

Two of the most prominent ecosystem modeling platforms used for this purpose are the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) suite, particularly its spatial module Ecospace, and the Atlantis modeling framework [13] [32]. Both represent powerful tools for simulating MPA effects, but they differ fundamentally in their structure, complexity, and application. This guide provides an objective comparison of their performance, methodologies, and suitability for MPA analysis within the broader context of ecosystem model evaluation research.

Model Architectures: A Comparative Foundation

The Ecospace and Atlantis frameworks are built upon fundamentally different architectural principles, which directly influence their application for MPA modeling.

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Ecospace

The EwE modeling approach follows a sequential, trophic-mass-balance framework [33] [3]:

• Ecopath creates a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the ecosystem trophic interactions at a point in time.
• Ecosim introduces temporal dynamics to simulate changes in biomass and trophic interactions over time.
• Ecospace adds a two-dimensional spatial component by essentially running multiple Ecosim models in a regular grid of cells while tracking flows between them [17].

Ecospace employs a primarily Eulerian approach to movement, analyzing flow patterns from the fixed viewpoints of spatial cells and estimating movements across cell boundaries [17]. For MPA evaluation, Ecospace was specifically "originally developed to address questions about the functioning of MPAs" [17].

Atlantis Framework

Atlantis is a "end-to-end" ecosystem model that incorporates a wider range of ecosystem processes [11] [3]. Key architectural features include:

• Complex biogeochemical and physical processes coupled with biological components.
• Age- and size-structured populations for many functional groups.
• Three-dimensional spatial representation in many implementations.
• Integration of human and economic dynamics alongside ecological processes.

Unlike Ecospace's regular grid, Atlantis often uses spatial polygons that can be irregularly shaped to represent different habitat types or administrative boundaries [17]. The framework also incorporates Lagrangian movement capabilities, tracking individuals or particles as they move through the model domain [17].

Table 1: Fundamental Architectural Differences Between Ecospace and Atlantis

Characteristic	Ecospace	Atlantis
Core Approach	Trophic-mass-balance driven	End-to-end process-driven
Spatial Dimensions	Primarily 2D	Often 3D
Spatial Structure	Regular grid	Irregular polygons
Movement Representation	Primarily Eulerian	Eulerian and Lagrangian
Population Structure	Biom pools	Age/size-structured for many groups
MPA Simulation	Native capability	Requires custom parameterization

Performance Comparison in MPA and Ecosystem Applications

Predictive Performance and Model Skill

Direct comparisons of Ecospace and Atlantis applied to the same ecosystem provide valuable insights into their predictive performance. A study on Lake Victoria compared both models' ability to predict policy outcomes, finding:

"At the broadest level, these studies have shown coherence in qualitative results across models (i.e., predictions in the same direction), especially for the target species ('single-species effects'), with considerable variations between model outcomes observed for the cascading effects on the non-trophic species ('multispecies effects')" [13].

Similarly, a three-model comparison in Tasman and Golden Bays, New Zealand, concluded that while all models showed utility, they produced different dynamics and responses to fishing pressure [3]. This highlights that model structural uncertainty is a significant factor in ecosystem projections.

Computational Requirements and Practical Implementation

The computational burden and implementation effort differ substantially between the two frameworks:

Table 2: Practical Implementation Comparison

Implementation Factor	Ecospace	Atlantis
Development Time	Generally faster to develop	Typically years for full configuration
Computational Demand	Lower for comparable spatial extent	Significantly higher
Data Requirements	Moderate (focused on trophic interactions)	Extensive (physical, chemical, biological)
Parameterization	~100s of parameters	~1000s of parameters
Sensitivity Analysis	Feasible with Monte Carlo approaches	Challenging; often done for individual components

These differences have direct implications for MPA planning. A review noted that "Ecospace is not 'better' than Ecosim, which in turn is not 'better' than Ecopath. Ecospace is more complex, and as a general rule, the best model to address a given policy/research question is the simplest model that can address it" [17].

Experimental Protocols for MPA Evaluation

Standardized MPA Modeling Workflow

Both Ecospace and Atlantis share a common conceptual workflow for MPA evaluation, centered on comparing scenarios with and without spatial protection:

Model Evaluation Workflow for MPA Analysis

The critical methodological component for both modeling approaches is the use of counterfactuals - comparing scenarios with MPAs against what would have happened without protection (the "no-action" alternative) [32]. This allows analysts to isolate the effects attributable to the MPA itself rather than other environmental or anthropogenic factors.

Key Ecological Indicators for MPA Performance

Both modeling frameworks can track similar ecological indicators, though the specific implementation differs:

Table 3: Key Performance Indicators for MPA Evaluation

Indicator Category	Specific Metrics	Utility for MPA Assessment
Population-Level	Biomass, Spawning stock, Size structure	Measures direct protection benefits for target species
Trophic	Mean trophic level, Fishing-in-Balance index	Assesses ecosystem-wide trophic effects
Community	Species diversity, Size spectrum	Evaluates biodiversity and community structure
Spatial	Export, Spillover, Connectivity	Quantifies spatial benefits beyond MPA boundaries
Network	Hub Index, Gao's Resilience, Ecosystem Traits Index (ETI)	Measures structural integrity and robustness [34]

Recent research has proposed composite indices like the Ecosystem Traits Index (ETI) that combine multiple structural properties (Hub Index, Gao's Resilience, Green Band index) to provide a more holistic assessment of ecosystem state under different management scenarios [34].

Case Study Applications and Validation

Ecospace Applications

The EwE approach has been widely applied globally, with a repository (EcoBase) containing hundreds of published models [16]. A trait-based Ecopath model of the North Aegean Sea demonstrated how functional groups could be defined using biological traits rather than traditional taxonomy, providing insights into how MPAs might affect ecosystem functioning beyond simple biomass changes [33].

Atlantis Applications

The Atlantis framework has been deployed for strategic management evaluation in various systems. In the Strait of Sicily, an Atlantis model successfully recreated "trophic levels and ecological interactions of the ecosystem" and demonstrated both "bottom-up and top-down trophic effects" from sensitivity runs, establishing its utility for evaluating fishery management plans [11]. Similarly, the Tasman and Golden Bays Atlantis model (TBGB_AM) was validated against observed biomass and catch data, though it showed particular sensitivity to oceanographic forcing [3].

Modeling Software and Platforms

Table 4: Essential Research Tools for Ecosystem Modeling

Tool/Resource	Function	Access/Platform
EwE Software	Core modeling environment for Ecopath, Ecosim, Ecospace	Free download from Ecopath International Initiative
EcoBase	Repository of published EwE models for comparison	Online database (ecobase.ecopath.org) [16]
Atlantis Framework	Complex end-to-end modeling code base	Various GitHub repositories, e.g., Atlantis-EM
NEMO	Hydrodynamic model often coupled with Atlantis	Community model with institutional commitments [35]
R/Python packages	Statistical analysis, visualization, and scenario comparison	Open-source programming environments

The choice between Ecospace and Atlantis for MPA analysis involves significant trade-offs. Ecospace offers a more accessible, computationally efficient approach specifically designed for spatial management questions, making it suitable for rapid scenario testing and when data are limited. Atlantis provides a more comprehensive representation of ecosystem processes at the cost of greater complexity, data requirements, and development time.

For researchers embarking on MPA modeling, the key consideration should be aligning model complexity with the specific management question. As one assessment noted: "the nature of the question should dictate the type of model used" [32]. For focused MPA evaluation, particularly when trophic interactions are the primary concern, Ecospace often provides sufficient complexity. For understanding MPAs within the context of multiple cumulative stressors (e.g., climate change, pollution, fishing) or when economic and social outcomes are equally important, Atlantis may be warranted despite its steeper learning curve.

The most robust approach may involve multi-model ensembles where possible, as this provides "insurance against the increased risk of uncertainty emanating from modelling complex systems" [13]. Convergence between different model structures increases confidence in predictions, while divergence highlights areas where structural uncertainties may affect management outcomes.

Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) requires sophisticated modeling tools to understand the complex interactions within marine environments and to forecast the outcomes of management interventions. The semi-enclosed Tasman and Golden Bays (TBGB) at the north of New Zealand's South Island present an ideal case study for comparing ecosystem modeling approaches. This embayment system supports numerous commercial and recreational activities, including finfish and invertebrate fisheries, marine farming, and tourism, while being subject to various anthropogenic and natural pressures [3]. To support EBM, researchers have developed a toolkit of ecosystem models with varying levels of complexity, notably including Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis frameworks [3] [36]. This analysis directly compares the application of these two modeling approaches within the TBGB ecosystem, examining their theoretical foundations, implementation requirements, outputs, and appropriateness for different management questions within the context of a broader thesis on ecosystem model performance research.

Model Frameworks: Theoretical Foundations and Structures

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)

EwE employs a trophodynamic, mass-balance approach to describe marine food web interactions [3] [37]. The foundation is an Ecopath model representing the ecosystem at a steady state, where the energy removed from each species group (through fishing or predation) must be balanced by the energy consumed [3]. Ecosim adds dynamic simulation capabilities through time, utilizing foraging arena theory which posits that only a portion of prey biomass is available to predators, providing a proxy for spatial dynamics and stabilizing ecosystem dynamics through prey refuge [3].

The TBGB EwE model uses the standard EwE framework to represent the Nelson Bays region (encompassing Tasman and Golden Bays), focusing primarily on trophic interactions and fishery impacts [37]. This model effectively captures the energy flows between functional groups and can simulate changes in these relationships over time in response to external drivers.

Atlantis Framework

Atlantis is a comprehensive end-to-end ecosystem modeling framework capable of incorporating biophysical components, species functional groups, fishing fleet dynamics, and social and economic dimensions [3]. Unlike EwE, Atlantis creates a deterministic simulation environment that explicitly represents spatial structure, oceanographic processes, and age-structured populations. The TBGB Atlantis model (TBGB_AM) was developed with components relating to biophysical, ecological, and human-use aspects of the ecosystem, forced using outputs from ocean physics models [3].

Atlantis simulates the ecosystem through time, calculating each new state based on the previous state and events of the current timestep. It incorporates realistic spatial and temporal structures, with the model area divided into polygons and depth layers to capture important regional aspects at a simplified but functionally relevant level [38]. This allows Atlantis to represent complex feedback mechanisms and non-linear responses that may emerge from interactions between ecosystem components.

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of EwE and Atlantis Modeling Frameworks

Characteristic	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Theoretical Foundation	Mass-balance; Foraging arena theory	End-to-end ecosystem simulation; Deterministic processes
Primary Focus	Trophic interactions; Energy flows	Biophysical components; Human-natural system integration
Spatial Structure	Implicit (via foraging arenas)	Explicit (polygons and depth layers)
Temporal Dynamics	Time-series simulation from balanced state	Continuous simulation from initial conditions
Key Stabilizing Mechanism	Prey refuge through biomass partitioning	Explicit spatial structure and habitat preferences
Model Output Nature	Scenario comparisons relative to baseline	Absolute biomass and state predictions

Methodological Implementation and Experimental Protocols

Model Development Workflow

The development process for both models within the TBGB ecosystem followed an iterative, incremental approach rather than a linear pathway [3]. Researchers identified six main stages that were revisited until satisfactory model performance and understanding of dynamics were achieved:

• Model Design: Collation and definition of data and model inputs, with base Atlantis model development
• Alternative Model Development: Creation of two alternative ecosystem models (EwE and size-spectrum) as simplifications of the Atlantis framework
• Base Calibration: Stabilization of biomass trajectories without fishing, ensuring realistic diets, growth rates, and natural mortalities
• Sensitivity Analysis: Assessment of model responses to initialisation uncertainty and oceanographic variability
• Fishing Integration: Incorporation of forced catch removals to represent historical fishing pressure
• Validation and Skill Assessment: Comparison of model outputs to observational data and abundance indices

For the TBGB ecosystem specifically, the Atlantis model served as the primary development focus, with the EwE model developed as a simplification where possible [3]. This approach allowed researchers to maintain consistency in initial assumptions while testing how model complexity influenced outcomes and applicability.

Diagram 1: Iterative Model Development Workflow. Both EwE and Atlantis models followed this non-linear development process with multiple refinement cycles.

Experimental Protocol for Model Comparison

Researchers implemented a standardized protocol to ensure fair comparison between the EwE and Atlantis frameworks when applied to the TBGB ecosystem [3]:

• Common Historical Forcing: Both models were driven by the same historical fishing pressure data to ensure consistent external drivers.

• Response Analysis: Model responses to historical fishing pressure were compared across frameworks, analyzing similarities and differences in dynamics.

• Validation Metrics: Each model was assessed against observational data, including:

  • Trawl survey data [3]
  • Fishery characterizations and stock assessments [3]
  • Oceanographic observations [3]

• Uncertainty Quantification: For Atlantis, researchers assessed sensitivity to initialisation uncertainty and oceanographic variability through confidence intervals based on bootstrapped oceanographic variables [3].

• Scenario Testing: Both models were used to explore ecosystem responses to various management scenarios, with comparison of outcomes where possible.

Comparative Performance Analysis

Quantitative Model Characteristics

Table 2: Performance Metrics and Application Context for EwE and Atlantis in TBGB

Performance Aspect	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Validation Approach	Comparison to stock assessments and survey data	Skill assessment against surveys; Comparison to stock assessments and CPUE indices
Key Strength	Exploring optimal fishing policies; Producing time-series predation mortality for stock assessments	Holistic 'what-if' scenarios; Management strategy evaluation; Social and economic outcome comparison
Primary Limitation	Simplified spatial dynamics; Limited physical environment representation	High development and computational demands; Cannot be statistically fit to observations
Sensitivity Analysis	Sensitivity to trophic interactions and fishing mortality parameters	Most sensitive to oceanographic variables; Also sensitive to seabird and cetacean group parameters
Computational Demand	Moderate	High
Ideal Application Context	Fisheries-focused management questions; Rapid policy screening	Comprehensive EBM strategy evaluation; Climate change impacts; Multi-sectoral management planning

Application to TBGB Management Challenges

Both models were applied to pressing management questions in the TBGB ecosystem, with particular focus on two key issues:

Scallop Fishery Collapse: The bays previously supported a large scallop fishery, but recruitment has failed in recent years [3]. Michael et al. (2015) identified potential drivers including food availability (primary production), suspended sediments and turbidity, changes to benthic communities, fishing effects, and disease. The EwE model helped explore trophic interactions and fishing impacts on scallop populations, while Atlantis provided a more comprehensive framework to simulate the complex interplay of multiple stressors, including sediment dynamics and their effects on benthic communities.

Snapper Fishery Variations: TBGB hosts a large snapper fishery with marked productivity variations over time [3]. Strong snapper year classes have been correlated with high sea surface temperature, particularly autumn SST [3]. The EwE model could incorporate temperature-dependent recruitment relationships, while Atlantis could simulate the direct and indirect effects of temperature changes throughout the entire ecosystem, from phytoplankton dynamics to predator-prey interactions.

Research Reagents and Essential Tools

Table 3: Key Research Tools and Data Sources for Ecosystem Modeling in TBGB

Tool/Data Category	Specific Examples	Function in Model Development
Physical Data	Oceanographic observations [3]; Ocean physics model outputs [3]	Force environmental drivers in Atlantis; Inform productivity assumptions in EwE
Biological Data	Trawl surveys [3]; Species distribution data [3]	Parameterize functional groups; Validate model outputs
Fisheries Data	Commercial fishery catches [3]; Recreational fishery estimates [3]; Stock assessments [3]	Calibrate historical fishing pressure; Validate population trends
Habitat Information	Seagrass beds [3]; Rocky reefs [3]; Sandy substrates [3]	Define spatial habitats in Atlantis; Inform habitat preferences
Modeling Software	Ecopath with Ecosim framework [37]; Atlantis modeling system [3]	Implement ecosystem simulations; Conduct scenario analyses
Analysis Tools	R package mizer [3]; Custom R scripts [3]	Develop size-spectrum models; Analyze and visualize outputs

The comparison of EwE and Atlantis applications in the Tasman and Golden Bays ecosystem reveals a complementary rather than competitive relationship between these modeling approaches. Ecopath with Ecosim provides a more accessible framework for questions focused primarily on trophic interactions and fishing impacts, with significantly lower development and computational requirements. Its mass-balance foundation and foraging arena theory offer a robust platform for exploring fishery management policies and producing predation mortality estimates for single-species stock assessments [3].

In contrast, Atlantis offers a comprehensive end-to-end simulation capability that integrates biophysical, ecological, and human dimensions, making it particularly valuable for complex EBM strategy evaluation where social, economic, and conservation outcomes must be considered simultaneously [3] [38]. However, this capability comes with substantial costs in development effort, data requirements, and computational resources. The TBGB case study demonstrated Atlantis' particular sensitivity to oceanographic variables and certain aggregated functional groups (seabirds and cetaceans), highlighting critical knowledge gaps that influence model reliability [3].

For researchers and managers working with the TBGB ecosystem or similar marine systems, the choice between EwE and Atlantis should be guided by the specific management questions, available resources, and decision timeframes. The TBGB modeling experience suggests that a multi-model approach, where possible, provides the most robust foundation for EBM, allowing for cross-validation of results and appropriate matching of model capabilities to specific policy needs. Future research should focus on enhancing connectivity between these modeling frameworks and addressing identified knowledge gaps, particularly regarding oceanographic processes and highly mobile predator groups, to improve predictive capability for managing complex marine social-ecological systems.

Ecosystem-based management relies on sophisticated modeling tools to understand complex ecological interactions. Among the most prominent are Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and the Atlantis framework, which serve distinct but complementary roles in ecological research and policy development. This guide provides a detailed comparison of their performance, applications, and experimental implementations to assist researchers in selecting the appropriate tool for their specific scientific questions.

Core Functional Specializations

The fundamental distinction between these modeling suites lies in their core design philosophy and resultant strengths.

• Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) specializes in trophic interaction modeling and is particularly powerful for analyzing fisheries impacts and temporal policy exploration. Its approach is centered on mass-balance and food web dynamics, making it ideal for questions where predator-prey relationships and fishing mortality are the primary concerns [14] [39].

• Atlantis operates as an end-to-end ecosystem simulator, integrating not just biological components but also physical, chemical, and human dimensions. It is designed for whole-ecosystem scenario testing where multiple stressors interact across different ecosystem compartments, from nutrient loading to economic outcomes [11] [40] [41].

Table 1: Core Functional Comparison

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis Framework
Primary Design Focus	Trophic mass-balance; Food web interactions	End-to-end ecosystem simulation
Core Strengths	Evaluating ecosystem effects of fishing; Policy exploration for fisheries	Holistic scenario testing; Integrating environmental & human drivers
Spatial Dynamics	Handled via Ecospace module (2D)	Intrinsically 3D with hydrodynamic coupling
Temporal Scale	Short to medium-term dynamics	Long-term forecasts (decades)
Human Dimension	Focused on fishing fleets & management	Incorporates economics, management, & multiple stressors
Validation Approach	Fitting to time-series data (e.g., CPUE, biomass) [39]	Multi-metric comparison (biomass, catch, trophic indicators) [11] [41]

Experimental Performance and Validation Data

Both models undergo rigorous testing and calibration, but their performance is measured against different benchmarks based on their intended uses.

EwE Performance Metrics

EwE's validation primarily involves fitting its Ecosim temporal module to historical data. The software uses a sum of squares (SS) measure to quantify the deviation between modeled and observed data [39]. During policy exploration, EwE can optimize around weighted objectives including fisheries rent, social benefits, species rebuilding, and ecosystem structure [39].

Atlantis Performance and Applications

Atlantis models are validated through their ability to recreate observed ecosystem dynamics. The following table summarizes key performance data from implemented Atlantis models:

Table 2: Atlantis Model Performance in Practical Applications

Ecosystem / Study	Key Performance Metrics	Results & Application
Strait of Sicily [11]	Model skill to reproduce biomass & catch for target species	Accurately recreated trophic dynamics, biomass, and catch; Identified nutrient loading & fishing as key drivers.
Tasman & Golden Bays, NZ [41]	Scenario testing for scallop collapse & management	Found collapse not associated with harvesting but with habitat suitability changes.
Gulf of Mexico (Deepwater Horizon) [42]	Assessing oil spill impacts under varying fishing mortality (F=0.5, 1, 2, 10)	Quantified ecological impacts on vertebrates & invertebrates across fishing intensities.
California Current LME [40]	Developing end-to-end models linking oceanography to management	Framework for evaluating management strategies & identifying robust indicators.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Understanding the standard methodologies for implementing and testing these models is crucial for their practical application.

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) Workflow

The standard protocol for EwE involves a structured, sequential process as visualized below:

Figure 1: The sequential workflow for building and applying an Ecopath with Ecosim model.

Key Experimental Steps:

• Ecopath Base Model Construction:

  • Input Parameters: Require three of four basic parameters for each functional group: biomass (B), production/biomass ratio (P/B, approximating total mortality), consumption/biomass ratio (Q/B), and ecotrophic efficiency [39].
  • Master Equations: The model solves two core equations to ensure mass-balance:
    • Production = catch + predation + net migration + biomass accumulation + other mortality
    • Consumption = production + respiration + unassimilated food [39]

• Ecosim Dynamic Simulation:

  • Time Series Integration: Load historical data (relative/absolute abundance, catches, fishing effort) [39].
  • Parameter Fitting: Use a sum of squares (SS) measure to statistically assess goodness of fit. The model searches for vulnerability estimates that improve fit to time series data [39].
  • Policy Testing: Run simulations under "sketched" fishing scenarios or use formal optimization to maximize multi-objective functions (e.g., mix of profit, employment, and conservation goals) [39].

Atlantis Modeling Workflow

The Atlantis framework follows a more complex, integrated process due to its comprehensive nature:

Figure 2: The iterative and multi-stage workflow for developing and applying an Atlantis ecosystem model.

Key Experimental Steps:

• System Definition and Parameterization:

  • Spatial Setup: Define the model domain with 3D boxes representing different physical habitats [40] [41].
  • Functional Groups: Parameterize a wide range of functional groups across trophic levels, from nutrients and plankton to top predators [11].
  • Human Dimension: Incorporate fishing fleets, economic parameters, and management rules [40].

• Model Calibration and Validation:

  • Multi-Metric Comparison: Compare model outputs against diverse observational data. For the Strait of Sicily model, this involved comparing predicted biomass and catch against observed data using multiple quantitative metrics [11].
  • Sensitivity Analysis: Identify key parameters influencing model outcomes. The Sicily analysis highlighted nutrient loading and fishing pressure as major drivers generating bottom-up and top-down effects [11].

• Scenario Execution:

  • Forcing Files: Implement scenarios by modifying input files that control parameters. For example, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill study used spatial forcing files to vary oil sensitivity thresholds and fishing mortality rates (e.g., F=0.5, 1, 2, 10 relative to baseline) [42].
  • Long-Term Projections: Run simulations over decadal timescales to observe emergent ecosystem dynamics and test resilience [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Ecosystem modelers require both computational tools and data resources to implement these frameworks successfully.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Ecosystem Modeling

Tool/Resource	Function/Purpose	Example Applications
EwE Software Suite [14]	Free ecosystem modeling software for mass-balance, temporal, and spatial simulations.	Address ecological questions; Evaluate ecosystem effects of fishing; Explore management policy options [14].
Atlantis Framework Code [42]	Open-source codebase for end-to-end ecosystem modeling.	Recreate ecosystem dynamics; Test impact of alternative management strategies; Assess effect of environmental changes [11] [41].
Time Series Data (CPUE, abundance surveys) [39]	Provides historical reference for model calibration and validation.	Fitting Ecosim models; Testing model performance against known ecosystem states [39].
Spatial Forcing Files (.nc, .ts files) [42]	Input files that drive spatial and temporal scenarios in Atlantis.	Simulating event impacts like oil spills; Altering nutrient inputs; Modifying fishing pressure across regions [42].
Functional Group Parameters (Biomass, PB, QB, Diet) [39]	Define the biological components and their interactions in the model.	Constructing the base Ecopath model; Parameterizing biological groups in Atlantis.

Choosing between EwE and Atlantis depends fundamentally on the research question and available resources. Ecopath with Ecosim offers a more accessible entry point for questions focused specifically on fisheries impacts and trophic dynamics, with relatively lower data requirements. In contrast, the Atlantis framework is better suited for complex, multi-disciplinary investigations requiring integration of physical, biological, and human systems, though it demands significantly greater resources for development and calibration. By understanding their distinct strengths and experimental protocols, researchers can strategically deploy these powerful tools to advance ecosystem-based science and management.

Calibration Challenges, Sensitivity Analysis, and Parameter Optimization

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) has emerged as a holistic approach that evaluates how fishing impacts entire ecosystems, enabling managers to formulate strategic plans through alternative scenarios [13]. Within this framework, ecosystem simulation models have become indispensable tools for quantitatively predicting the consequences of future fishing scenarios by integrating available knowledge across different scales [13]. Two prominent modeling approaches—Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis—have gained significant traction within the scientific community for their ability to provide system-level trade-off analyses of alternative management strategies [13]. While both frameworks aim to achieve similar ultimate goals, they differ substantially in their structural architecture, parameter requirements, and underlying assumptions, creating a critical need for comparative assessment.

The fundamental challenge in ecosystem modeling lies in balancing model complexity with predictive reliability. As model complexity increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to track the impact of imperfect knowledge of model parameters, input data, or relationships among parameters on model results [13]. This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of EwE and Atlantis modeling frameworks, focusing specifically on how each approach addresses mass-balance challenges and identifies high-leverage parameters that disproportionately influence model outcomes. Through systematic analysis of their structural differences, methodological approaches, and application case studies, this guide provides researchers with actionable insights for selecting and implementing the most appropriate modeling framework for their specific research questions and data constraints.

Structural Foundations: Architectural Divergence Between EwE and Atlantis

Core Model Structures and Theoretical Frameworks

The Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) framework and Atlantis represent fundamentally different approaches to ecosystem modeling, each with distinct architectural philosophies. EwE operates as a whole-ecosystem, biomass-dynamic model that uses a mass-balance approach to describe marine food web interactions [13] [3]. The foundational Ecopath model assumes that energy removed from each species group through fishing or predation must balance with the energy consumed by that group, creating a static snapshot of the ecosystem at a specified point in time [3]. Ecosim then extends this foundation by dynamically simulating ecosystem changes over time using foraging arena theory, which assumes only a portion of prey biomass is available to predators [3]. This partitioning provides a proxy for spatial dynamics and stabilizes ecosystem dynamics by offering refuge to prey groups [3].

In contrast, Atlantis represents a more complex, end-to-end ecosystem modeling framework that incorporates age- and size-structured population dynamics within a three-dimensional spatial context [13] [3]. As a deterministic simulation model, Atlantis integrates biophysical components of an ecosystem, species functional groups, fishing fleet dynamics, and social and economic dynamics [3]. The model's architectural complexity enables it to capture a wider range of ecosystem processes, but this comes at the cost of requiring substantially more parameterization data and computational resources [13]. Atlantis models are too complex to statistically fit to observations in the traditional sense, forcing reliance on analyzing and understanding model dynamics to assess suitability for specific scenarios [3].

Table 1: Fundamental Architectural Differences Between EwE and Atlantis

Characteristic	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Model Structure	Whole ecosystem, 0-dimensional biomass model [13]	Whole ecosystem, age- and size-structured, 3-dimensional population model [13]
Spatial Resolution	Limited spatial explicitiveness; uses foraging arena as proxy [3]	Explicit 3D spatial structure with habitat preferences and movement [3]
Temporal Dynamics	Time-series simulation via Ecosim [3]	Time- and age-structured dynamics with multiple time steps [13]
Predation Regulation	Explicit diet parameters through fixed diet matrix and foraging vulnerability [13]	Diet preference matrix with gape limitations and prey availability [13]
Primary Calibration	Mass-balance assumption [3]	Skill assessment against observations [13]
Implementation Complexity	Moderate; accessible to most researchers [3]	High; requires extensive expertise and data [3]

Key Technical Specifications and Data Requirements

The technical implementation of EwE and Atlantis differs significantly in their data requirements, parameterization approaches, and computational demands. EwE employs a relatively straightforward mass-balance approach during the initial Ecopath phase, requiring biomass, production/biomass, consumption/biomass, and ecotrophic efficiency for each functional group [3]. The model then utilizes a diet matrix to define predator-prey interactions, with vulnerability parameters controlling the dynamics between functional groups in the temporal Ecosim module [13]. This structure creates identifiable high-leverage parameters, particularly vulnerability settings, which can disproportionately influence model outcomes and require careful calibration.

Atlantis demands substantially more extensive parameterization, including age-structured population parameters, growth rates, recruitment functions, detailed spatial mapping, habitat preferences, movement patterns, and environmental forcing data [3]. The model initializes with conditions for nutrients and growth rates for bacteria, detritus, and primary producers, then incrementally adds complexity through species functional groups with interacting dynamics [3]. This comprehensive approach creates a high-dimensional parameter space where identifying individual high-leverage parameters becomes challenging, and model confidence relies heavily on skill assessment through comparison with observed data [13].

Diagram 1: Architectural comparison of EwE and Atlantis frameworks showing fundamental structural differences.

Mass-Balance Challenges: Comparative Analysis and Solutions

Fundamental Mass-Balance Mechanisms

The approaches to mass-balance in EwE and Atlantis reflect their divergent modeling philosophies. EwE employs an explicit mass-balance constraint as its foundational principle, requiring that all energy flows within the system must balance at the initial equilibrium state [3]. This constraint is formalized through the core Ecopath equation: production by group i = all predation on i + fishery catch of i + biomass accumulation of i + net migration of i + other mortality of i. The balancing process involves iterative adjustment of parameters, primarily ecotrophic efficiency (the proportion of production that is consumed within the system), until all energy flows are accounted for [3]. This creates a mathematically constrained system but introduces potential circularity if unbalanced initial parameters are forced to fit the mass-balance assumption.

Atlantis approaches mass-balance implicitly through its representation of physiological processes and trophic interactions [3]. Rather than enforcing a mathematical balance equation, the model simulates consumption, growth, reproduction, and mortality processes for each functional group across their age and size structure [13]. Balance emerges from the interplay of these processes over time, mediated by environmental factors and spatial dynamics [3]. This process-oriented approach potentially provides more realistic dynamics but makes identifying and correcting mass-balance issues more challenging, as imbalances may manifest as unstable population trajectories or unrealistic biomass accumulation rather than mathematical inconsistencies.

Identification and Resolution of Mass-Balance Issues

In EwE, mass-balance challenges typically surface during the initial Ecopath balancing phase, where diagnostic tools such as ecotrophic efficiency values greater than 1, unrealistic respiration estimates, or impossible food web configurations indicate violations of mass-balance principles [3]. Resolution involves iterative adjustment of input parameters, with production/biomass (P/B) and consumption/biomass (Q/B) ratios serving as primary adjustment points. The model provides guidance through pedigree indices that quantify confidence in input parameters, allowing researchers to prioritize adjustment of the least certain parameters [3]. This transparent process creates a systematic approach to achieving mass-balance but risks reinforcing preconceived ecosystem structures if parameters are adjusted without sufficient empirical justification.

Atlantis faces more complex mass-balance challenges that emerge during model calibration and validation [3]. Since the model lacks explicit mass-balance constraints, issues manifest as systematic biases in simulated biomass trends compared to observed data, unrealistic energy flow patterns, or unstable ecosystem states [13] [3]. Resolution requires careful analysis of multiple parameters including growth rates, recruitment functions, predation mortality, and starvation responses [3]. The skill assessment process, which compares model outputs to observed biomass and catch data using quantitative metrics, serves as the primary mechanism for identifying mass-balance issues [11]. However, the high dimensionality of parameter space makes pinpointing specific causes challenging, often requiring sophisticated sensitivity analysis approaches that may be computationally prohibitive [13].

Table 2: Mass-Balance Challenge Resolution in EwE and Atlantis

Aspect	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Primary Challenge	Achieving initial mass-balance with limited data [3]	Emergent balance from complex processes [3]
Identification Methods	Ecotrophic efficiency diagnostics, respiration estimates, network analysis [3]	Skill assessment, biomass trends, stability analysis [11]
Key Adjustment Parameters	P/B and Q/B ratios, ecotrophic efficiency, diet compositions [3]	Growth rates, recruitment, mortality, consumption rates [3]
Resolution Approach	Iterative parameter adjustment guided by pedigree indices [3]	Multi-factorial calibration against observed data [11]
Common Pitfalls	Circular reasoning, over-reliance on default parameters [3]	Compensatory errors, computational constraints [13]
Validation Techniques	Comparison to independent data, sensitivity analysis [13]	Hind-cast simulations, multiple performance metrics [11] [30]

High-Leverage Parameters: Identification and Management

Parameter Sensitivity and Model Influence

High-leverage parameters represent critical control points in ecosystem models, where small adjustments can disproportionately influence model outcomes and predictions. In EwE, vulnerability parameters constitute the most recognized high-leverage elements, controlling the dynamics between functional groups in the Ecosim temporal module [13]. These parameters determine how prey availability affects predation mortality rates and how predator success changes with prey abundance [3]. Additionally, the initial biomass estimates of keystone species, P/B ratios, and diet composition matrices serve as significant leverage points that can dramatically alter model behavior and predictions [3].

Atlantis possesses a more complex parameter sensitivity profile due to its high-dimensional structure [13]. Key high-leverage parameters include those controlling nutrient cycling and primary production (creating bottom-up effects), fishing mortality rates (creating top-down effects), recruitment relationships, and spatial connectivity [11] [3]. Unlike EwE, where key parameters are relatively identifiable, Atlantis parameters often interact in complex ways, creating compensatory effects where multiple parameter combinations can produce similar ecosystem outputs [13]. This equifinality complicates both parameter estimation and the identification of truly high-leverage parameters, requiring sophisticated sensitivity analysis approaches [3].

Management of Parameter Uncertainty

The management of high-leverage parameters and their associated uncertainties differs substantially between the two modeling frameworks. EwE employs a Monte Carlo approach through the Ecopath routine to examine the sensitivity of simulation results to initial input parameters [13]. This allows researchers to quantify uncertainty ranges for model predictions and identify parameters contributing most to output variance [13]. The foraging arena theory embedded in Ecosim provides inherent stabilization of predator-prey dynamics, partially mitigating the influence of parameter uncertainty on model stability [3].

Atlantis faces greater challenges in parameter uncertainty management due to its computational complexity [13]. Full-scale sensitivity analysis is often not feasible for the thousands of parameters in Atlantis models unless conducted for individual components [13]. Instead, confidence in model outputs relies heavily on skill assessment through comparison with observed data [13] [3]. The Tasman and Golden Bays Atlantis implementation, for example, assessed model sensitivity to initialization uncertainty and oceanographic variability, finding greater sensitivity to the latter [3]. This highlights the importance of environmental forcing parameters as high-leverage factors in end-to-end ecosystem models [3].

Diagram 2: High-leverage parameters in EwE and Atlantis frameworks showing key sensitivity points.

Case Study: Lake Victoria Comparative Modeling

Experimental Framework and Model Implementation

The Lake Victoria ecosystem in East Africa provides an illuminating case study for comparing EwE and Atlantis performance, as both models have been implemented using similar baseline data and historical timelines [13]. The lake supports a lucrative fishery with annual production approaching one million tonnes worth US $600-900 million, featuring a dramatically altered fish community following the introduction of Nile perch and Nile tilapia in the 1950s-1960s [13]. Both models shared fundamental similarities including the historical simulation period (spanning more than 50 years), representation of key vertebrate functional groups, parameterization with the best available data, and similar forcing data using annual landings [13].

The experimental protocol involved developing both an EwE model and an Atlantis model for the entire lake ecosystem, with careful attention to representing comparable functional groups and feeding interactions [13]. The recently developed EwE model addressed limitations of previous implementations that considered only short time periods or specific lake sections [13]. The Atlantis model built upon the existing framework of Nyamweya et al. (2016), with both models undergoing rigorous parameterization and calibration processes [13]. The comparative analysis focused on evaluating how each model responded to identical fishing scenarios, assessing both ecosystem-level indicators using globally-tested metrics and functional group-specific responses [13].

Comparative Results and Policy Implications

The Lake Victoria comparison revealed both convergence and divergence in model predictions, highlighting how structural differences influence management advice. At the broadest level, both models showed coherence in qualitative results, particularly for target species ("single-species effects"), providing consistent directional advice for managing fisheries such as Nile perch and Nile tilapia [13]. However, considerable variations emerged between model outcomes for cascading effects on non-target species ("multispecies effects"), creating uncertainty about the ecosystem-wide impacts of single-species management strategies [13].

The study demonstrated that structurally distinct ecosystem models have the potential to provide robust qualitative advice for fisheries management, but quantitative predictions—particularly for multispecies interactions—prove highly sensitive to model structure [13]. The divergences stemmed from diverse environmental covariates, different numbers of trophic relationships, and variations in functional forms representing ecological processes [13]. This underscores the value of ensemble modeling approaches that utilize multiple model structures to identify robust management recommendations while highlighting areas of uncertainty requiring further research [13].

Computational Frameworks and Software Solutions

Ecosystem modelers have access to increasingly sophisticated computational frameworks tailored to different research questions and resource constraints. The Ecopath with Ecosim framework provides a more accessible entry point with its user-friendly interface, comprehensive documentation, and active user community [3]. The software's modular structure allows incremental complexity, beginning with basic Ecopath mass-balance models and progressing to dynamic Ecosim simulations and spatial Ecospace implementations [3]. This graduated learning curve makes EwE particularly suitable for researchers with limited modeling experience or computational resources.

The Atlantis framework demands substantially greater technical expertise, computational resources, and implementation time [3]. Its complexity stems from the integrated nature of physical, biological, and human dimensions, requiring interdisciplinary collaboration for successful implementation [3]. The model's structure incorporates coral-specific modules for reef ecosystems, as demonstrated in the Main Hawaiian Islands implementation [30]. Atlantis development typically follows an iterative, incremental process with six main stages: model design and data compilation, base model development, calibration, validation, sensitivity analysis, and scenario exploration [3].

Validation and Uncertainty Assessment Tools

Robust validation approaches are essential for both EwE and Atlantis applications, though the specific methodologies differ according to model structure. EwE employs Monte Carlo approaches to examine sensitivity to initial input parameters, allowing quantification of how uncertainty propagates through model predictions [13]. The software includes built-in routines for basic sensitivity analysis and pedigree indexing that weight input data according to quality [3]. For temporal simulations, EwE models are typically validated through comparison with historical time series data not used in parameterization [3].

Atlantis relies on more comprehensive skill assessment through comparison with observed biomass and catch data using multiple quantitative metrics [11]. The Main Hawaiian Islands implementation, for example, employed hind-cast simulations from 1995-2019 for model validation, comparing predicted outputs against observed data from benthic surveys, recreational and commercial fisheries, and protected species monitoring [30]. The Tasman and Golden Bays Atlantis assessment evaluated model sensitivity to initialization uncertainty and oceanographic variability, recommending that scenarios include sensitivity analyses, especially for oceanographic uncertainty [3].

Table 3: Essential Toolkit for Ecosystem Model Development and Validation

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Methods	EwE Application	Atlantis Application
Data Compilation	Field surveys, literature synthesis, expert elicitation	Initial parameter estimation [3]	Comprehensive data integration [3]
Sensitivity Analysis	Monte Carlo approaches, one-at-a-time parameter variation	Built-in routines [13]	Component-specific analysis [13]
Model Validation	Hind-cast simulations, comparison to independent data	Time-series fitting [3]	Multi-metric skill assessment [11]
Uncertainty Quantification	Pedigree indexing, confidence intervals	Data quality weighting [3]	Ensemble modeling [13]
Scenario Exploration	Alternative management strategies, climate projections	Fishing policy optimization [3]	Integrated social-ecological assessment [30]
Computational Infrastructure	Desktop workstations, high-performance computing	Moderate requirements [3]	Substantial requirements [3]

The comparative analysis of Ecopath with Ecosim and Atlantis frameworks reveals a fundamental trade-off between accessibility and comprehensiveness in ecosystem modeling. EwE provides a more approachable platform with identifiable high-leverage parameters and straightforward mass-balance constraints, making it suitable for researchers with limited resources or those focusing on trophic interactions and fishing impacts [3]. Its structured approach to parameterization and sensitivity analysis creates a transparent modeling process, though this may come at the cost of oversimplifying complex ecosystem processes [13].

Atlantis offers unparalleled comprehensiveness through its end-to-end integration of physical, biological, and human dimensions, but demands substantial expertise, data, and computational resources [3]. Its implicit approach to mass-balance and high-dimensional parameter space create challenges for identifying specific high-leverage parameters, requiring sophisticated validation and skill assessment approaches [13] [11]. The framework excels in scenarios requiring spatial explicitness, age-structured population dynamics, and integration of climate projections [30] [3].

Rather than positioning these frameworks as competitors, the ecosystem modeling community increasingly recognizes the value of ensemble approaches that leverage the strengths of both models [13]. The Lake Victoria case study demonstrates that convergence in model predictions increases confidence in policy recommendations, while divergent results highlight areas where structural uncertainties may significantly influence management outcomes [13]. This multimodel strategy provides "insurance" against the inherent uncertainties of modeling complex ecosystems while advancing our fundamental understanding of ecological dynamics [13]. As both frameworks continue to evolve, attention to rigorous validation, uncertainty quantification, and clear communication of model limitations will be essential for maintaining scientific credibility and supporting effective ecosystem-based management [43].

Ecosystem models are vital tools for moving towards Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM), enabling scientists to evaluate the system-wide trade-offs of alternative management strategies [13]. However, their complex nature and the multitude of parameters they contain pose a significant challenge: understanding how uncertainties in input data propagate through the model and affect its predictions. This is the core of input sensitivity analysis. For models like Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis, which differ profoundly in their structure, the identification of critical parameters—such as biomass and production-to-biomass (P/B) ratios—is a fundamental step in building confidence in model projections and ensuring robust policy advice [13] [44].

Model Frameworks: Ecopath with Ecosim vs. Atlantis

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)

EwE is a whole-ecosystem, biomass-dynamic model. Its core, the Ecopath component, provides a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the ecosystem [39]. It represents the system using functionally distinct biomass pools, which can be a single species or a group of ecologically similar species, connected through trophic interactions [39]. The parameterization is built upon solving two master equations for each group to ensure conservation of energy [39]:

• Production = Catch + Predation + Net Migration + Biomass Accumulation + Other Mortality
• Consumption = Production + Respiration + Unassimilated Food

For each functional group, EwE typically requires input values for three of the following four key parameters: Biomass (B), Production/Biomass ratio (P/B), Consumption/Biomass ratio (Q/B), and Ecotrophic Efficiency (EE) [39]. The Ecosim module then adds temporal dynamics, allowing for policy exploration by simulating how these biomass pools change over time in response to drivers like fishing pressure [39].

Atlantis

Atlantis is an end-to-end, spatially explicit ecosystem model. It is considerably more complex, representing the ecosystem in three dimensions and tracking the flow of nutrients [44]. Unlike the biomass pools of EwE, Atlantis often uses an age- and size-structured representation for key species groups [13]. Furthermore, predation is not governed by a fixed diet matrix but is influenced by dynamic factors like prey availability and gape limitation [13]. This mechanistic detail means that an Atlantis model contains thousands of parameters related to growth, recruitment, mortality, and behavior, making comprehensive sensitivity analysis a major computational challenge [44].

Table 1: Fundamental Structural Differences Between EwE and Atlantis

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Core Structure	Biomass pools (0-dimensional) [13]	Age-/size-structured, 3-D boxes [13] [44]
Trophic Interaction	Fixed diet matrix; foraging vulnerability [13]	Dynamic diet preference; gape limitation & prey availability [13]
Key Base Parameters	Biomass (B), P/B ratio, Q/B ratio, Ecotrophic Efficiency [39]	Growth rates, recruitment parameters, mortality rates [44]
Primary Output	Biomass trends, Catch, Ecosystem indicators	Biomass (by age/size), Nutrient fluxes, Spatial distribution

Sensitivity Analysis of Critical Parameters

Sensitivity Analysis in Ecopath with Ecosim

In EwE, the process of achieving mass-balance in the initial Ecopath model is itself a form of local sensitivity analysis. The modeler must adjust input parameters, particularly biomass (B) and P/B ratios, to ensure the ecotrophic efficiency (EE) of each group is less than 1, indicating that the production is sufficient to account for all mortality sources [39]. A high EE often signals that the input biomass is too low or the P/B ratio is too high.

In the dynamic module, Ecosim, a more formal sensitivity analysis can be conducted. The model uses a Monte Carlo approach, where the initial input parameters from the Ecopath base model are varied within plausible ranges [13]. Hundreds of model runs are performed, and the sensitivity of simulation results (e.g., goodness-of-fit to time-series data) to these variations can be examined. This is particularly useful for testing the sensitivity of policy predictions to uncertainties in critical base parameters [13].

Sensitivity Analysis in Atlantis

The complexity of Atlantis precludes a full Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for all parameters. Consequently, studies have often relied on local, one-at-a-time (OAT) approaches, varying a small number of parameters around their calibrated values [44]. However, recent research demonstrates the feasibility of more global screening methods.

A key study on the Atlantis Eastern English Channel (EEC) model employed the Morris screening method, a global sensitivity analysis technique suitable for models with long run-times [44]. This analysis focused on parameters controlling growth, recruitment, and mortality—the Atlantis analogues to EwE's P/B and biomass dynamics. The study found that for the EEC model, which features strong bentho-pelagic coupling, parameters related to benthic primary producers and benthic invertebrate groups were highly influential, creating bottom-up effects that cascaded through the food web [44]. This highlights that in complex, process-based models like Atlantis, the most sensitive parameters are not always the most obvious and are tightly linked to the specific ecosystem's structure.

Table 2: Comparison of Sensitivity Analysis Methodologies and Critical Parameters

Aspect	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Common Methods	Monte Carlo simulation; Local adjustment for mass-balance [13] [39]	One-at-a-Time (OAT); Morris screening method [44]
Identified Critical Parameters	Biomass (B), Production/Biomass (P/B), Vulnerability settings [13]	Juvenile growth, Recruit linear slope, Mortality (Z) [44]
Impact of Uncertainty	Directly affects mass-balance and projected biomass trends [39]	Can cause model crashes (population explosions/collapses) and alter ecosystem structure [44]
Key Finding	Vulnerabilities influence top-down/bottom-up control in time-series fitting [13]	Strong parameter interactions and bottom-up effects are critical [44]

Experimental Protocols for Sensitivity Analysis

Protocol for EwE Monte Carlo Analysis

• Base Model Construction: Develop a mass-balanced Ecopath model for the ecosystem, defining all functional groups and their diets. The core input parameters are B, P/B, and Q/B for each group [39].
• Define Parameter Distributions: For the critical parameters (e.g., B, P/B), assign probability distributions (e.g., uniform, normal) based on the estimated uncertainty or standard error of the input data.
• Run Monte Carlo Simulations: Execute the Ecosim module multiple times (e.g., 500-1000 runs). In each run, input parameters are randomly sampled from their defined distributions [13].
• Analyze Output: Examine the distribution of model outputs, such as predicted biomass or catch. The sensitivity is indicated by the variance in the output caused by the variance in each input parameter.

Protocol for Atlantis Morris Screening

• Parameter Selection: Identify a subset of parameters for testing. In the EEC study, this included 91 parameters across 32 functional groups, covering juvenile and adult growth, recruitment, and mortality [44].
• Define Trajectories and Levels: The Morris method operates by building r trajectories, each of which explores k parameters at p levels in the parameter space. For the EEC, 4550 unique simulations were run to thoroughly explore this space [44].
• Run Simulations and Compute Elementary Effects: For each parameter in a trajectory, compute its "elementary effect" (a measure of sensitivity) by calculating the change in the model output resulting from a change in that parameter.
• Compute Sensitivity Metrics: Calculate the mean (μ) of the absolute elementary effects, which estimates the overall influence of the parameter on the output. Calculate the standard deviation (σ) of the elementary effects, which indicates the extent of the parameter's interaction with other parameters or nonlinear effects [44].

The workflow for these two methodologies is distinct, as summarized in the diagram below.

The following table details essential "research reagents" or core components used in the development and sensitivity analysis of ecosystem models like EwE and Atlantis.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Ecosystem Modeling

Tool/Resource	Function in Analysis	Relevance to Model Comparison
Biomass Survey Data (e.g., trawl, acoustic)	Provides initial estimates for the biomass (B) of functional groups; a critical and often uncertain input parameter for both models [45].	Uncertainty in biomass travels poorly between ecosystems, affecting both models but is a more direct input in EwE.
Life History Parameters (P/B, Q/B, Z)	Used to parameterize production and consumption rates. Often obtained from literature, empirical equations, or single-species assessments [39].	P/B is a direct input in EwE. In Atlantis, it is an emergent property of underlying growth and mortality parameters, making sensitivity more complex [44].
Morris Screening Method	A global sensitivity screening method used to identify influential parameters in computationally expensive models like Atlantis [44].	Allows for a more comprehensive SA of Atlantis than OAT, facilitating a fairer comparison with EwE's Monte Carlo.
Monte Carlo Simulation	A method to propagate uncertainty by running a model thousands of times with randomly varied inputs [13].	The standard method for EwE sensitivity; often computationally prohibitive for Atlantis.
Ecotrophic Efficiency (EE)	An output from Ecopath indicating the fraction of production used in the system. A diagnostic tool to check for mass-balance and plausible input parameters [39].	A unique feature of EwE used for internal validation during calibration; no direct equivalent in Atlantis.
Time-Series Data (e.g., CPUE, abundance surveys)	Used to calibrate the dynamic modules (Ecosim/Atlantis) by fitting model outputs to historical data, thereby reducing parameter uncertainty [13] [39].	Critical for both models to move beyond a static snapshot and evaluate the sensitivity of future projections.

The approach to identifying critical parameters like biomass and P/B ratios is fundamentally shaped by the underlying structure of the ecosystem model. EwE offers a more transparent and accessible pathway for sensitivity analysis, with parameters like B and P/B being direct levers in the model, analyzable through Monte Carlo methods. In contrast, Atlantis embeds these dynamics within a more complex framework of age-structure and process-based functions, making parameters related to growth, recruitment, and mortality the primary targets for sensitivity analysis, requiring sophisticated global screening methods like the Morris analysis.

For researchers, the choice of model dictates the strategy for uncertainty quantification. EwE allows for a more direct assessment of base data uncertainty, while Atlantis necessitates an investigation into the sensitivity of core ecological processes. Employing a multi-model ensemble approach, where both models are used to address the same management question, provides the "insurance" against the limitations of either single model. Convergence in their predictions increases confidence, while divergence highlights critical areas of structural uncertainty and guides future research [13].

Ecosystem models are indispensable tools for modern fisheries management, enabling scientists to evaluate the ecosystem-level trade-offs of alternative management strategies. Within this domain, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis represent two structurally and philosophically distinct approaches to simulating complex marine ecosystems. A critical aspect differentiating these frameworks is their methodological approach to quantifying and handling uncertainty. EwE traditionally employs statistical uncertainty analysis through methods like Monte Carlo simulations, while Atlantis incorporates process-oriented uncertainty through explicit environmental forcing mechanisms. This guide provides a detailed, objective comparison of their methodologies, experimental protocols, and performance outcomes, drawing directly from current research applications to inform model selection and implementation for researchers and scientists.

Model Foundations and Methodological Comparison

The core structural differences between EwE and Atlantis establish the foundation for their divergent approaches to uncertainty.

• Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) operates as a whole-ecosystem, biomass-dynamic model. It simplifies ecosystem representation by tracking biomass flows between functional groups. Its predation dynamics are regulated by a fixed diet matrix and foraging vulnerability parameters [13]. This relative simplicity makes the model amenable to comprehensive sensitivity analysis.

• Atlantis is a whole-ecosystem, end-to-end model that incorporates age- and size-structured population dynamics within a 3-dimensional physical environment [13] [11]. In Atlantis, predation is not fixed but emerges dynamically from processes like prey availability and mouth-gape limitations, all within a spatially explicit grid that can simulate oceanographic processes [13].

Table 1: Foundational Model Characteristics

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Core Structure	0-dimensional, biomass-based [13]	3-dimensional, age- and size-structured [13]
Trophic Dynamics	Fixed diet matrix, foraging vulnerability [13]	Dynamic diet from preference, gape limitation, prey availability [13]
Environmental Coupling	Limited or external forcing	Explicit, integrated oceanographic forcing (e.g., warming, acidification) [30]
Primary Uncertainty Focus	Parameter uncertainty (statistical)	Process uncertainty and environmental variability (mechanistic)

Uncertainty Handling: Protocols and Experimental Data

Monte Carlo Sensitivity in Ecopath with Ecosim

The EwE framework handles uncertainty primarily through a Monte Carlo approach to examine the sensitivity of simulation results to the initial input parameters [13].

• Experimental Protocol: In a typical analysis, key input parameters—such as productivity, consumption rates, and diet compositions—are assigned probability distributions. The model then runs hundreds to thousands of simulations, each time sampling a unique combination of parameter values from these distributions. This generates a distribution of potential outcomes, allowing researchers to quantify how uncertainty in the input parameters propagates to uncertainty in model predictions [13].
• Case Study Application: This protocol was applied in a Lake Victoria ecosystem model. The Monte Carlo routine was used to assess how uncertainties in the initial Ecopath mass-balanced model affected the future projections of biomass and catch under different fishing policies [13].
• Inherent Limitation: A key limitation noted in the research is that while this method effectively probes parameter sensitivity, "best fits may not necessarily mean the model captures well the natural processes" [13]. Different parameter combinations can produce similarly good fits to observed data without reflecting biological reality, a problem known as equifinality.

Oceanographic Forcing in Atlantis

Atlantis integrates uncertainty through direct simulation of environmental processes and stressors, a method known as oceanographic forcing.

• Experimental Protocol: This involves developing a calibrated baseline model and then forcing it with time-series data or future projections of environmental variables. A standard protocol, as implemented in the Main Hawaiian Islands Atlantis model, includes:
  • Hind-cast Simulation (Validation): Running the model from 1995-2019 with historical catch and environmental data to compare model output against observed biomass and catch trends, validating model skill [30].
  • Forecast Simulation (Scenario Testing): Conducting 50-year forecasts (2020-2070) that incorporate projected changes in environmental conditions, such as ocean warming and ocean acidification [30].
  • Sensitivity Analysis: Performing additional forecast runs with a ±10% adjustment to the key climate change parameters to test the robustness of the predictions [30].
• Case Study Application: The Strait of Sicily Atlantis model demonstrated this approach by identifying nutrient loading and fishing pressure as major processes creating bottom-up and top-down effects throughout the ecosystem [11]. The model's performance was evaluated by comparing its predicted biomass and catch for target species against observed data using multiple quantitative metrics [11].

Performance and Outcomes in Management Context

Quantitative Data from Comparative and Case Studies

Direct comparisons and individual case studies reveal how these uncertainty methods perform in practical applications.

Table 2: Policy Outcomes from Model Applications

Ecosystem / Model	Management Scenario	Key Quantitative Outcome	Uncertainty Handling
Lake Victoria (EwE vs. Atlantis) [13]	Alternative fishing policies	Qualitative agreement on target species; variation in multispecies cascading effects	Monte Carlo (EwE) vs. Model Skill Assessment (Atlantis)
Western Baltic Sea (EwE) [46]	EBFM (F=0.5FMSY forage, 0.8FMSY other)	Recovery of cod & herring; >3x increase in carbon sequestration vs. BAU	Not explicitly stated
Strait of Sicily (Atlantis) [11]	Evaluation of fishery impacts	Identified nutrient loading & fishing as key drivers via sensitivity analysis	Parameter sensitivity on key processes
Main Hawaiian Islands (Atlantis) [30]	Climate change (warming, acidification)	50-year forecasts of biomass/catch for functional groups	±10% sensitivity analysis on climate parameters

Robustness in Management Strategy Evaluation

• Multimodel Ensemble Advantage: Research on Lake Victoria highlights that relying on a single model is risky due to high uncertainty in ecosystem processes [13]. Multimodel ensembles, using both EwE and Atlantis, provide "insurance" against this risk. Convergence in their results increases confidence in policy recommendations, while divergence highlights areas where model assumptions lead to different predictions, guiding further research [13].
• Addressing Different Uncertainties: The two approaches are complementary as they address different types of uncertainty. EwE's Monte Carlo is best for quantifying parameter uncertainty within a fixed structure. Atlantis's forcing experiments are best for exploring structural and environmental uncertainty from changing ocean conditions and complex interactions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of uncertainty analysis in both frameworks relies on specific data inputs and computational tools.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Tool / Resource	Function in Uncertainty Analysis	Model Application
Historical Catch Time Series [30]	Used for model calibration and hind-cast validation; critical for establishing baseline performance.	EwE & Atlantis
Long-Term Biomass Surveys [30]	Provides observed data against which model skill is assessed; enables quantitative metrics of fit.	EwE & Atlantis
Oceanographic Projections [30]	Provides forcing data for future scenario testing (e.g., warming, acidification).	Primarily Atlantis
Parameter Probability Distributions [13]	Defines the range and likelihood of input values for Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis.	Primarily EwE
Quantitative Skill Metrics [11]	Objective measures (e.g., RMSE, AIC) to evaluate how well model output matches observations.	Primarily Atlantis
Ecosystem Traits Index (ETI) [34]	A composite index (Hub Index, Gao’s Resilience) to measure ecosystem robustness across scenarios.	EwE & Atlantis

Choosing between EwE and Atlantis for handling uncertainty is not a matter of selecting a superior tool, but rather the right tool for the specific research question and type of uncertainty at hand. EwE's Monte Carlo approach provides a robust, statistically transparent method for quantifying how uncertainty in model parameters influences outcomes, making it highly valuable for risk assessment within a defined model structure. In contrast, Atlantis's strength lies in its capacity to mechanistically simulate the effects of external environmental drivers and complex internal processes, making it indispensable for forecasting under climate change and exploring emergent ecosystem dynamics. For the highest-consequence decisions, the research community is moving toward ensemble modeling, using both frameworks in parallel to triangulate robust policy advice and explicitly identify the boundaries of predictive uncertainty [13].

Ecosystem modeling serves as a critical tool for understanding complex marine dynamics and supporting fisheries management decisions. Within this field, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis represent two sophisticated but fundamentally different approaches to ecosystem simulation. This guide provides an objective comparison of their performance, with particular focus on model responsiveness through the lens of key indicators, specifically Kempton's Q index and Total System Throughput (TST). Evaluating these indicators is essential for researchers and scientists who rely on model predictions to develop robust resource management strategies. The precision of a model's output directly influences the confidence managers can place in its scenarios, making the assessment of indicator responsiveness a cornerstone of effective ecosystem-based management.

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)

EwE operates as a mass-balance framework that simplifies ecosystem dynamics into a static snapshot (Ecopath) and dynamic simulations (Ecosim). Its core principle is quantifying energy flows between functional groups, from primary producers to top predators. The software calculates a suite of ecosystem-status indicators derived from network analysis, which provide insights into ecosystem structure and function [47]. A key aspect of EwE is the model-balancing process, where the software estimates missing parameters to achieve mass balance, with mortality rates being a primary reference for diagnosing imbalances [47].

Atlantis

The Atlantis framework is an end-to-end model designed to simulate the entire ecosystem, including physical, biological, and human components. It explicitly recreates trophic levels and ecological interactions, enabling researchers to test the impact of various stressors, such as fishing pressure and environmental changes, on ecosystem dynamics [11]. Its performance is evaluated by comparing predicted biomass and catch of target species against observed data using multiple quantitative metrics [11].

Basis for Comparison

This comparison focuses on model prediction capacity and sensitivity. For EwE, this involves assessing how output indicators respond to imprecise inputs [28]. For Atlantis, it involves evaluating the model's skill in reproducing real-world observations and its sensitivity to key drivers like fishing pressure and nutrient loading [11].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of EwE and Atlantis Models

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Modeling Approach	Trophic mass-balance; Dynamic simulations	End-to-end ecosystem simulation
Primary Application	Investigating trophic interactions and fishing impacts	Exploring ecosystem management scenarios under holistic framework
Core Strengths	Extensive library of ecosystem indicators; Network analysis	Integration of physical, ecological, and human dimensions
Key Performance Test	Response of indicators to imprecise input parameters	Skill in reproducing observed biomass and catch

Quantitative Comparison of Model Responsiveness

A direct, controlled comparison of EwE and Atlantis using identical indicators is not available in the searched literature. However, their respective responsiveness can be inferred from dedicated studies that probe their behavior under different scenarios and sensitivities.

Key Responsiveness Indicators in EwE

A comprehensive investigation into EwE's predictive capacity analyzed the response of six ecosystem indicators under 61 different modeling scenarios where imprecision was introduced to basic input variables. The study identified Kempton's Q index and Total System Throughput (TST) as the most consistently responsive indicators to changes in input precision [28].

• Kempton's Q Index: This index is a measure of biodiversity. Its high responsiveness means it is particularly sensitive to uncertainties or changes in the model's input parameters, making it a valuable canary for model stability and uncertainty propagation [28].
• Total System Throughput (TST): Representing the sum of all energy flows in an ecosystem, TST is a fundamental measure of ecosystem size and activity. Its responsiveness indicates that the overall scale of energy movement in the model is highly dependent on the accuracy of initial inputs [28].

The same study identified input biomass as a high-leverage parameter, meaning its influence on model outputs is greater than that of any other input variable. The production-to-biomass (P/B) ratio was also flagged as a highly influential parameter [28].

Key Responsiveness Drivers in Atlantis

Research on the Atlantis model applied to the Strait of Sicily (SoS) used sensitivity analysis to identify the major processes influencing the ecosystem. The analysis revealed that nutrient loading and fishing pressure were the key drivers, generating significant bottom-up and top-down trophic effects throughout the modeled ecosystem [11]. The model's performance was quantitatively evaluated by its ability to reproduce observed biomass and catch for target species, confirming its utility for exploring alternative management scenarios [11].

Table 2: Summary of Model Responsiveness and Key Findings

Aspect	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Most Responsive Indicators	Kempton's Q Index, Total System Throughput [28]	Biomass and catch of target species [11]
High-Leverage Parameters	Input Biomass, Production-to-Biomass (P/B) ratio [28]	Nutrient Loading, Fishing Pressure [11]
Primary Sensitivity Effects	Precision of ecosystem status indicators [28]	Bottom-up and top-down trophic effects [11]
Evidence from Studies	Evaluation of 8 models across 61 scenarios [28]	Application and testing in the Strait of Sicily [11]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

EwE Responsiveness Assessment Protocol

The methodology for assessing EwE's prediction precision is structured as follows [28]:

• Model Selection: Utilize a set of eight published and operational Ecopath models to ensure realism and diversity.
• Introduction of Imprecision: Systematically introduce imprecision into four basic input variables (including biomass and P/B ratios) across a wide range of 61 modeling scenarios.
• Indicator Monitoring: Track the response of six key ecosystem-status indicators (including Kempton's Q and TST) to the introduced input imprecision.
• Responsiveness Evaluation: Identify which indicators show the most consistent and significant changes in response to imprecise inputs, labeling them as the most "responsive."
• Leverage Analysis: Determine which input parameters, when imprecise, cause the largest variations in output indicators, classifying them as "high-leverage."

Atlantis Skill Assessment and Sensitivity Protocol

The protocol for evaluating the Atlantis model involves these key steps [11]:

• Model Development: Construct an end-to-end model for a specific region (e.g., the Strait of Sicily) that integrates trophic levels, ecological interactions, and fishing activities.
• Model Performance Evaluation:
  • Output Comparison: Compare the model's predicted biomass and catch timeseries against independently observed data.
  • Metric Utilization: Employ multiple quantitative metrics to objectively measure the agreement between model outputs and real-world observations.
• Sensitivity Analysis: Conduct parameter sensitivity runs to identify which key model parameters (e.g., nutrient loading, fishing mortality) have the greatest influence on output results.
• Effect Identification: Analyze the model outputs from sensitivity runs to identify the emergence of bottom-up (resource-driven) and top-down (predation-driven) trophic effects throughout the ecosystem.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

For researchers embarking on ecosystem modeling, the following tools and parameters are essential.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Ecosystem Modeling

Tool or Parameter	Function in Analysis	Relevance to Model
Input Biomass	The estimated biomass for each functional group; a high-leverage parameter whose precision critically impacts output stability [28].	EwE
Production-to-Biomass (P/B) Ratio	Represents the instantaneous mortality rate (Z); a high-leverage parameter influencing population turnover and system dynamics [28] [47].	EwE
Kempton's Q Index	A responsive ecosystem indicator measuring biodiversity; used to gauge model stability and the impact of input uncertainty [28].	EwE
Total System Throughput (TST)	The sum of all energy flows in the system; a key responsive indicator of overall ecosystem scale and activity [28].	EwE
Fishing Pressure Data	A key driver parameter that induces top-down trophic effects in the model; central to management scenario testing [11].	Atlantis
Nutrient Loading Data	A key driver parameter that induces bottom-up trophic effects in the model; influences primary production and system-wide dynamics [11].	Atlantis
Ecotrophic Efficiency (EE)	The proportion of production that is consumed by predators or caught; a critical diagnostic (EE > 1 indicates imbalance) during model balancing [47].	EwE
Observed Biomass & Catch Data	Independent data used to evaluate model skill and validate predictions against real-world conditions [11].	Primarily Atlantis

The comparative analysis of EwE and Atlantis reveals distinct profiles in model responsiveness. EwE's strength lies in its well-defined suite of ecosystem indicators, with Kempton's Q and Total System Throughput identified as particularly sensitive to input precision, alongside high-leverage parameters like input biomass [28]. This makes EwE exceptionally useful for studies focusing on trophic network stability and indicator-based management. In contrast, Atlantis functions as a more holistic simulator, with its responsiveness channeled through fundamental ecosystem drivers like nutrient loading and fishing pressure, which generate complex bottom-up and top-down effects [11]. The choice between models is not a matter of superiority but of alignment with research goals. Scientists requiring detailed network analysis and indicator responsiveness may favor EwE, while those needing to forecast whole-ecosystem responses to multifaceted drivers would find Atlantis more appropriate. Ultimately, this comparison underscores that understanding a model's inherent responsiveness is a prerequisite for generating reliable, actionable scientific advice for ecosystem-based management.

Ecosystem models are indispensable tools for exploring complex ecological dynamics and evaluating management strategies. Calibration is the critical process of adjusting model parameters so that model outputs align with observed historical data, ensuring that the model can realistically reproduce ecosystem dynamics. For complex process-based models, this is not a single step but an iterative process of diagnosis and adjustment. The core challenge is to refine a model from a stable, mass-balanced baseline into a dynamic simulation that can reliably replicate historical patterns and, by extension, produce more credible future projections. This guide objectively compares the iterative calibration methodologies of two leading ecosystem modeling frameworks: Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and the Atlantis model.

The necessity of rigorous calibration is underscored by ongoing scientific debate. While some have questioned the predictive ability of complex ecosystem models, recent counterarguments emphasize that with proper calibration and validation protocols, these models provide crucial decision-support for ecosystem-based management [48]. The calibration approaches of EwE and Atlantis differ significantly, reflecting their distinct structures and theoretical foundations, yet both aim to minimize the discrepancies between model predictions and real-world observations.

The Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) Calibration Workflow

The EwE framework employs a structured, sequential calibration process across its three core components: Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace. The overarching philosophy is to establish a solid static foundation before progressing to dynamic and spatial simulations.

Phase 1: Establishing a Balanced Ecopath Baseline

The entire EwE workflow hinges on a mass-balanced Ecopath model, which provides a static snapshot of the ecosystem. This model connects ecological groups through trophic interactions, satisfying two master equations for each group that account for production and the conservation of matter [39].

• Objective: To create a thermodynamically plausible snapshot where the production of each functional group equals the sum of its mortality sources (predation, fishing, and other mortality) [39].
• Process: An iterative process of adjusting key parameters—biomass (B), production/biomass (P/B), consumption/biomass (Q/B), and diet compositions—until mass balance is achieved for all groups simultaneously.
• Outcome: A stable, balanced model that serves as the initial condition for all subsequent dynamic simulations in Ecosim and Ecospace [27].

Phase 2: Ecosim Temporal Calibration

Once a balanced Ecopath model is established, the next step is dynamic calibration in Ecosim. This involves forcing the model with historical driver data (e.g., fishing effort) and tuning it to reproduce observed time-series data.

• Core Calibration Parameters: The most sensitive parameters are the vulnerabilities (v), which represent the shape of the functional response and determine whether predator-prey interactions are top-down (v > 2) or bottom-up (v < 2) controlled [27] [25]. Adjusting these vulnerabilities is the primary method for fitting the model to data.
• Fitting Procedure: The process aims to minimize the sum of squares (SS) of deviations between predicted and observed values (e.g., biomass, catch) [39]. This can be done manually or, more efficiently, using an automated Stepwise Fitting Procedure that systematically tests alternative vulnerability settings and other hypotheses [49].
• Skill Assessment: The model's goodness-of-fit is evaluated using SS and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), helping to find the most parsimonious model that captures historical variation [27]. A successful fit indicates the model can replicate known ecosystem dynamics, lending confidence to its use for policy exploration.

Phase 3: Ecospace Spatial Configuration

Ecosim calibration is a recommended prerequisite for building an Ecospace model [27]. Ecospace uses the calibrated dynamic interactions from Ecosim and distributes them across a spatially explicit seascape, accounting for habitat preferences and dispersal.

• Calibration Status: Unlike Ecosim, Ecospace currently lacks a formal, automated calibration tool. Instead, informal "visual calibration" and comparison of spatial patterns against distribution maps are used to assess model skill [27].
• Workflow Dependency: The spatial model inherits the calibrated vulnerabilities and dynamics from Ecosim, ensuring that the primary temporal dynamics are realistic before adding spatial complexity.

The following diagram illustrates this sequential, interdependent workflow.

The Atlantis Model Calibration Workflow

Atlantis is a highly complex, end-to-end ecosystem model that integrates biogeochemical, biological, and human dimensions within a spatially explicit framework. Its calibration is consequently a substantial undertaking that requires a deep understanding of the model's structure and the ecosystem it represents.

Foundational Understanding and Parameter Estimation

The first step in calibrating Atlantis is to thoroughly understand the model's conceptualization of the ecosystem and the data sources used for initial parameter estimates [50].

• Parameter Scope: An Atlantis model contains a vast number of parameters, from 6 to over 50 per functional group, covering biological traits, habitat preferences, and process rules [50]. Key biological parameters include growth, recruitment, predation, and mortality rates.
• Initialization: The model requires initial conditions for the biomass and age-structure of functional groups, their spatial distributions, and environmental settings [50].

Iterative Pattern-Oriented Model Calibration

Due to its high complexity and computational demands, Atlantis typically cannot use automated optimization for all parameters. Instead, it relies on a manual, pattern-oriented calibration approach [50].

• Process: The model is run, and a wide array of outputs is examined. The modeler then identifies which functional groups are behaving unrealistically (e.g., crashing, exploding, or showing unrealistic seasonality) and makes targeted adjustments to the parameters governing those groups.
• Diagnostic Outputs: Key outputs for diagnosis include time series of system-wide biomass, spatial snapshots of biomass, realized diet compositions, and fishery catch time series [50]. Comparing these outputs to observed data helps pinpoint sources of model bias.
• Common Parameter Adjustments: During calibration, the most frequently adjusted parameters are those related to growth, predation, recruitment, and mortality [50]. Parameters governing core biogeochemistry are rarely changed after initial development.

Performance Evaluation and Uncertainty Assessment

The final stage involves a formal evaluation of model skill and an honest assessment of uncertainty.

• Skill Evaluation: Model performance is quantitatively evaluated by comparing predicted biomass and catch of target species against observed data, using multiple statistical metrics [11]. A well-calibrated Atlantis model should accurately recreate trophic levels and key ecological interactions of the ecosystem [11].
• Uncertainty Reporting: Given the model's complexity and data limitations, it is crucial to report on the sources and degree of uncertainty, particularly for the most data-poor functional groups [50].

The Atlantis calibration process is a cyclical, diagnostic procedure, as shown below.

Comparative Analysis: EwE versus Atlantis

The following tables provide a structured, quantitative comparison of the iterative calibration processes in EwE and Atlantis, summarizing their key characteristics, data needs, and performance metrics.

Table 1: Comparison of Calibration Methodologies and Requirements

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis Framework
Calibration Philosophy	Sequential, semi-automated fitting from static to dynamic.	Pattern-oriented, manual iterative tuning of a complex system.
Primary Calibration Parameters	Vulnerability parameters (v) [27] [25].	Growth, recruitment, predation, and mortality rates [50].
Key Calibration Data	Time series of biomass, catch, fishing effort [39].	Time series of biomass, catch, diet composition, spatial data [50].
Core Statistical Metric	Sum of Squares (SS), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [27].	Multiple quantitative metrics comparing predicted vs. observed biomass and catch [11].
Automation Level	High (Stepwise Fitting Procedure) [49].	Low (manual, expert-driven adjustment) [50].
Spatial Calibration	Informal visual calibration in Ecospace [27].	Integrated spatial-temporal calibration during the main process.

Table 2: Model Performance and Application Scope

Aspect	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis Framework
Hindcast Skill	Good to excellent when time-series data is available for fitting vulnerabilities [25].	Capable of accurately reproducing biomass and catch for target species [11].
Management Application	Evaluating ecosystem effects of fishing, MPA placement, policy exploration [39] [14].	Strategic evaluation of management strategies, end-to-end impacts, EAFM [4] [11].
Handling of Uncertainty	Sensitivity analysis via Monte Carlo routine; AIC for model selection [27].	Emphasis on reporting data quality and uncertainty for parameters and groups [50].
Ideal Use Case	Tactical management questions focused on fisheries and trophic interactions.	Strategic, system-wide scenarios incorporating biogeochemical and human dimensions.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following "reagent" solutions are the critical data types and software tools required for the calibration of these ecosystem models.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Ecosystem Model Calibration

Research Reagent	Function in Calibration	Framework Application
Time-Series Biomass Data	Serves as the core observational target for fitting dynamic model projections.	Essential for both EwE (Ecosim) and Atlantis.
Fishery Catch Time-Series	Used as a primary forcing function to drive historical ecosystem changes.	Essential for both EwE (Ecosim) and Atlantis.
Diet Composition Data	Defines the network of predator-prey interactions and energy flows.	Critical for initial Ecopath balancing and for validating predation in Atlantis.
Vulnerability Parameters (v)	The key lever for adjusting predator-prey dynamics during Ecosim fitting.	Primary calibration parameter in EwE; not a direct analog in Atlantis.
Stepwise Fitting Procedure	An automated tool for systematically testing fitting hypotheses in Ecosim.	A key reagent for EwE calibration efficiency; no direct equivalent in Atlantis.
Spatial Habitat Maps	Defines the suitability and distribution of functional groups across the model domain.	Used in Ecospace configuration and is integral to Atlantis spatial dynamics.

The iterative calibration processes of Ecopath with Ecosim and Atlantis reflect their distinct architectures and purposes. EwE offers a more streamlined, accessible, and automated pathway from a static baseline to realistic temporal dynamics, making it highly effective for questions centered on trophic interactions and fisheries management. In contrast, Atlantis requires a more intensive, expert-driven, and diagnostic calibration process to balance its complex, end-to-end dynamics. This complexity, while demanding, allows it to address broader strategic questions that incorporate biogeochemical and human systems.

The choice between frameworks should be guided by the specific management question, data availability, and technical resources. Regardless of the choice, a rigorous and well-documented calibration process is non-negotiable for transforming a stable baseline model into a reliable tool for understanding and predicting ecosystem dynamics.

Ecosystem models are vital tools for implementing Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM), offering a holistic view that integrates ecological, social, and economic dimensions. However, their effectiveness is often constrained by incomplete data for certain functional groups and oceanographic variables. The Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis frameworks represent two prominent but philosophically distinct approaches to addressing these knowledge gaps. EwE provides a pragmatic methodology with simplified parameterization requirements, while Atlantis offers a comprehensive end-to-end simulation with higher structural complexity. This comparison examines their performance, experimental protocols, and strategic approaches to data-poor scenarios within ecosystem-based management contexts, providing researchers with evidence-based guidance for model selection and application.

Model Frameworks: Architectural Comparison and Data Requirements

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE): A Mass-Balance Approach

The EwE modeling suite comprises three primary components: Ecopath for creating static, mass-balanced snapshots of ecosystems; Ecosim for dynamic temporal simulations exploring policy impacts; and Ecospace for spatial-temporal dynamics including marine protected area placement [14] [2]. EwE specializes in representing trophic interactions and predator-prey relationships through vulnerability parameters, which can be calibrated when time-series data exists or set using alternative strategies when data is limited [25]. Its architecture efficiently summarizes available knowledge while identifying critical knowledge gaps, making it particularly suitable for data-limited environments where management decisions cannot wait for perfect information.

Atlantis: An End-to-End Simulation Framework

Atlantis represents a more comprehensive modeling approach that recreates entire ecosystem dynamics, including biogeochemical cycles, physiological processes, and anthropogenic impacts [35] [11]. Designed as a strategic tool for implementing the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management, Atlantis incorporates physical, biological, and human dimensions within an integrated framework. The model's performance has been validated through its ability to reproduce trophic levels, ecological interactions, and biomass trajectories for target species in applications such as the Strait of Sicily ecosystem [11]. This validation demonstrates its capacity to support fisheries management plans within a holistic framework, though it requires substantially more parameterization than EwE.

Table 1: Fundamental Architectural Comparison Between EwE and Atlantis

Characteristic	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Core Approach	Trophic mass-balance	End-to-end ecosystem simulation
Primary Focus	Predator-prey relationships, fishing impacts	Biogeochemical cycles, integrated ecosystem dynamics
Spatial Capabilities	Ecospace module for spatial management	Native 3D spatial explicit framework
Temporal Dynamics	Ecosim for time-series simulation	Integrated temporal dynamics across physical-biological systems
Data Requirements	Moderate (can employ gap-filling strategies)	Extensive (multiple ecosystem components)
Implementation Timeline	Relatively rapid deployment	Longer development and calibration

Quantitative Performance Comparison in Data-Limited Contexts

EwE Performance Metrics and Vulnerability Settings

Experimental analysis of EwE's performance under different data scenarios reveals critical insights for data-poor situations. A systematic evaluation of vulnerability parameters (v), which define predator-prey relationships, compared models with fitted parameters against those with alternative settings when historical data for fitting was unavailable [25]. The research employed model skill metrics including bias, error, and reliability to evaluate both hindcast (retrospective) and forecast (projective) capabilities.

The experimental protocol involved comparing vulnerability-fitted (v-fitted) models against several vulnerability-unfitted (v-unfitted) configurations:

• vTL: Trophic-level-related vulnerability setting
• vB: Depletion-related vulnerability setting
• Constant vulnerability settings

Results demonstrated that while v-fitted models exhibited superior performance in replicating historical dynamics, the vTL setting provided the best alternative for hindcasting among v-unfitted models. For forecasting under changing fishing pressure scenarios, only the vB setting demonstrated reasonable robustness compared to v-fitted model predictions [25]. This indicates that strategic default parameter selection can partially compensate for data limitations in management scenarios.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics for EwE Vulnerability Settings in Data-Poor Contexts

Vulnerability Setting	Hindcast Skill	Forecast Skill	Data Requirements	Recommended Use Cases
v-fitted	Highest accuracy	Most reliable	Time-series data available	Priority when adequate time-series exists
vTL (Trophic-level)	Relatively better among unfitted	Moderate	Basic trophic ecology knowledge	Initial ecosystem exploration, data-poor systems
vB (Depletion-related)	Moderate	Most robust among unfitted	Stock status information	Management strategy evaluation
Constant Defaults	Variable, often poor	Limited reliability	Minimal ecosystem data	Preliminary scoping only

Atlantis Calibration and Sensitivity Analysis

In the Strait of Sicily implementation, Atlantis underwent rigorous performance validation through comparison of predicted biomass and catch against observed data for target species [11]. The experimental protocol employed multiple quantitative metrics to evaluate model skill, followed by sensitivity analysis to identify parameters with greatest influence on model outcomes.

The sensitivity analysis revealed that nutrient loading and fishing pressure represented the most influential processes affecting ecosystem dynamics, generating both bottom-up and top-down effects throughout the trophic spectrum [11]. This systematic parameter evaluation provides a methodology for prioritizing data collection efforts in data-poor systems, focusing on the processes and functional groups with greatest ecosystem leverage.

Experimental Protocols for Data-Poor Scenario Evaluation

EwE Methodology for Vulnerability Parameterization

The experimental protocol for evaluating EwE vulnerability settings in data-limited contexts follows a structured workflow that can be adapted for various ecosystem types:

• Base Model Construction: Develop a balanced Ecopath model representing trophic interactions, even with limited data, using ecological theory and regional knowledge to fill gaps [26]

• Vulnerability Scenarios: Configure multiple Ecosim scenarios with alternative vulnerability settings:

  • v-fitted: Calibrate vulnerability parameters against available time-series data
  • v-unfitted: Apply trophic-level-based (vTL) or depletion-based (vB) settings when time-series is unavailable [25]

• Skill Assessment: Evaluate model performance using quantitative metrics:

  • Bias: Measure systematic over- or under-prediction
  • Error: Quantify deviation from observed values
  • Reliability: Assess consistency across multiple predictions [25]

• Management Scenario Testing: Apply reduced and increased fishing effort scenarios to evaluate forecast skill under potential management interventions [25]

This protocol emphasizes the iterative nature of ecosystem modeling, where initial data-poor implementations can guide targeted data collection to reduce critical uncertainties.

Atlantis Implementation Methodology

The Atlantis modeling protocol follows a more comprehensive approach suited to its architectural complexity:

• Ecosystem Scope Definition: Delineate model boundaries and identify key ecosystem components, including physical, biological, and human dimensions [35]

• Parameter Estimation: Compile data from multiple sources, employing literature values, regional analogs, and theoretical defaults for data-poor elements

• Model Calibration: Adjust parameters to reproduce observed biomass and catch patterns for well-studied species, establishing baseline performance [11]

• Sensitivity Analysis: Systematically vary key parameters to identify those with greatest influence on model outcomes, using statistical measures of effect size [11]

• Uncertainty Characterization: Document knowledge confidence levels for each model component, explicitly identifying data-poor areas requiring caution in interpretation

This methodology emphasizes transparent uncertainty accounting and prioritizes resources toward reducing uncertainty in the most influential ecosystem components.

Strategic Approaches to Knowledge Gaps

EwE Tactics for Data-Poor Functional Groups

EwE employs several strategic approaches to address knowledge gaps in functional group parameterization:

• Trophic Level Estimation: Utilizing diet composition data from similar ecosystems or related species to infer trophic positions [25]

• Biomass Approximation: Employing survey data, expert knowledge, or production models to estimate initial biomass for data-poor groups [26]

• Vital Rate Imputation: Using ecological allometry and taxon-specific relationships to estimate production, consumption, and mortality parameters [26]

• Social-ecological Integration: Incorporating human dimensions through conceptual frameworks that link ecological and social state components even with limited quantitative data [26]

The Hawaiian Islands EwE case study demonstrates how social-ecological system frameworks can guide model development despite data limitations, identifying performance indicators for which some data exists and constructing relationships between them [26].

Atlantis Strategies for Insufficient Oceanographic Data

Atlantis addresses knowledge gaps in oceanographic and biogeochemical variables through:

• Parameter Ensembles: Running multiple simulations with varying parameter values to capture uncertainty ranges [35]

• Model Coupling: Integrating with broader-scale hydrodynamic models to derive boundary conditions and forcing functions [35]

• Machine Learning Emulation: Developing ML-based parameterizations for sub-grid scale processes where direct measurement is impractical [35]

• Comparative Validation: Testing model performance across multiple configurations with different resolutions and complexities [35]

The AtlantiS initiative emphasizes developing accessible workflows and well-documented configurations that enable application even in data-limited regional settings through structured approaches to uncertainty [35].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Ecosystem Modeling

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
EwE Software Suite	Free ecological modeling platform with Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace components	Core modeling environment for trophic interaction analysis [14]
EcoBase Repository	Open-access database of published EwE models with metadata and input parameters	Model comparison, parameter estimation, and validation [16]
Vulnerability Parameters	Key coefficients defining predator-prey relationships in EwE	Calibrating model responsiveness to fishing and environmental changes [25]
Social-ecological Framework	Conceptual model linking ecological and human system components	Integrating human dimensions into ecosystem assessments [26]
NEMO Model Core	Hydrodynamic kernel for physical oceanography processes	Foundation for Atlantis physical environment simulation [35]
MEDUSA-PRO/ERSEM	Biogeochemical model components for ecosystem processes	Atlantis biogeochemical cycling and lower trophic level dynamics [35]
Skill Metrics	Quantitative measures of model performance (bias, error, reliability)	Model validation and comparison of alternative configurations [25] [11]

The comparative analysis reveals that EwE and Atlantis offer complementary rather than competing approaches to addressing knowledge gaps in ecosystem modeling. EwE provides practical methodologies for proceeding with management decisions despite data limitations, particularly through strategic vulnerability parameterization and social-ecological integration. Atlantis offers a more comprehensive framework but requires greater investment in data collection and parameterization, with recent advances in machine learning emulation and ensemble approaches helping to address uncertainty.

For researchers operating in data-poor environments, EwE's structured approaches to vulnerability setting and model skill assessment provide a methodologically rigorous pathway to inform management decisions without awaiting perfect information. Atlantis represents a longer-term strategic investment for systems where substantial resources can be dedicated to model development and parameterization. Both approaches benefit from transparent documentation of assumptions, systematic sensitivity analysis, and explicit uncertainty characterization—practices that transform data limitations from hidden weaknesses into acknowledged considerations within the scientific process.

Model Validation, Performance Benchmarking, and Selection Criteria

Ecosystem models have become indispensable tools for implementing Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM), with Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis emerging as two prominent modeling frameworks. The credibility of management advice derived from these models hinges on robust validation techniques that evaluate their predictive skill and reliability. This guide provides a comparative analysis of validation methodologies employed for EwE and Atlantis, examining how these frameworks are assessed against empirical data such as stock assessments and biomass trends. As mistrust of complex models remains a significant barrier to their adoption in fisheries advice, comprehensive skill assessments are critical for establishing credibility and ensuring a level playing field between modeling approaches [51].

Model Skill Assessment Frameworks

Skill assessment provides the foundation for evaluating model performance and establishing credibility for management applications. Both EwE and Atlantis undergo rigorous validation processes, though they often employ different metrics and approaches.

Standardized Skill Assessment Framework

A proposed framework for pragmatic and target-oriented skill assessment involves a structured series of evaluations relevant for all models regardless of complexity [51]:

• Defining Advice Purpose: Establishing the specific management question the model aims to address
• Evaluating Hindcast Credibility: Testing model performance against historical data
• Assessing Predictive Skill: Validating model forecasts against observed outcomes
• Uncertainty Quantification: Evaluating parameter and structural uncertainties

This framework aims to avoid incomplete skill assessments and facilitates comparison between models of different complexities when multiple options are available for a given advice product [51].

Atlantis Skill Assessment Protocols

Atlantis models employ comprehensive skill assessment through hindcast simulations where model outputs are compared against observed biomass and catch data for target species. The Strait of Sicily Atlantis implementation demonstrated this approach by utilizing multiple quantitative metrics to evaluate how well the model reproduced observed patterns [11]. Sensitivity analyses further tested key parameters, identifying nutrient loading and fishing pressure as major processes influencing ecosystem dynamics through bottom-up and top-down effects [11].

The Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) Atlantis implementation extended this validation through 50-year forecasts (2020-2070) comparing scenarios with and without climate change effects. This approach assessed model performance under future projections while validating against extensive historical data including benthic and coral reef fish surveys (1995-2019), recreational fishery data, commercial fishery data, and sea turtle and monk seal populations [30].

EwE Skill Assessment Approaches

EwE models emphasize the parameterization and fitting of dynamic Ecosim modules to historical biomass and catch data. The Eastern Ionian Sea study calibrated its model to data from 2000-2020, with performance evaluated through the model's ability to replicate observed ecosystem dynamics [52]. EwE implementations frequently incorporate ecological indicators to track perturbation-induced shifts in food webs, focusing on broader functional groups such as trophic guilds and demersal/pelagic resources [52].

Table 1: Comparative Skill Assessment Metrics for EwE and Atlantis

Assessment Dimension	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Temporal Validation	Fitting to 20-year time series (2000-2020) [52]	Hind-cast simulations (1995-2019) and 50-year forecasts [30]
Key Quantitative Metrics	Ecological indicators for functional groups; correlation with observed biomass [52]	Multiple quantitative metrics for biomass and catch of target species [11]
Sensitivity Analysis	Testing interaction effects between stressors [52]	Nutrient loading and fishing pressure as key parameters [11]
Uncertainty Evaluation	Scenario projections under different climate pathways [52]	Parameter uncertainty through incremental adjustments (±10%) [30]
Ecosystem Focus	Trophic guilds, pelagic/demersal resources [52]	Trophic levels, ecological interactions [11]

Comparison to Stock Assessments

Validation against stock assessment data provides a critical reality check for both modeling approaches, ensuring their outputs align with established fisheries science.

Atlantis Integration with Stock Assessment Data

The MHI Atlantis model demonstrates robust integration with stock assessment data through its incorporation of multiple fisheries datasets:

• Recreational fishery data from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP)
• Commercial fishery data administered by the Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN)
• Bottomfish fishery-dependent and independent data from the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center
• Benthic and coral reef fish surveys conducted by PIFSC RAMP cruises [30]

This comprehensive data integration enables direct comparison between model outputs and stock assessment references, particularly for target species biomass and catch trends [30]. The Strait of Sicily Atlantis implementation further validated model skill by comparing predicted and observed catch for target species, establishing its utility for developing ecosystem-based fishery management plans [11].

EwE Alignment with Stock Assessments

The Eastern Ionian Sea EwE model incorporated stock assessment information to evaluate exploitation status, identifying that while overall fishing activities were classified as sustainable, specific stocks such as hake and cuttlefish remained overexploited [52]. This finer-scale analysis demonstrates EwE's capacity to reconcile ecosystem-level dynamics with single-species assessment outcomes, addressing a key challenge in Mediterranean fisheries management where traditional single-stock approaches have failed to prevent declines of previously dominant species [52].

Biomass Trends Validation

Biomass trends serve as a fundamental validation metric for both modeling frameworks, with each employing distinct methodological approaches.

Atlantis Biomass Validation Techniques

Atlantis employs control simulations with incremental increases in fishing mortality to calibrate biomass trajectories [30]. The MHI implementation specifically tested biomass trends under various scenarios:

• Status quo simulations comparing model outputs with current biomass observations
• Climate change scenarios evaluating biomass responses to ocean warming and acidification
• Parameter sensitivity tests with 10% increases and decreases in key parameters to assess uncertainty ranges [30]

The output data for biomass by functional groups under these different scenarios enables researchers to compare model projections with empirically observed biomass trends, validating the model's capacity to simulate ecosystem dynamics [30].

EwE Biomass Validation Methodologies

The Eastern Ionian Sea EwE model utilized future projections (2021-2080) under different climate scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) to simulate biomass trends across functional groups [52]. This approach revealed that:

• High emission scenarios (RCP8.5) intensified ecosystem changes compared to moderate mitigation scenarios (RCP4.5), particularly after 2050
• Multiple stressors led to less abundant, less diverse, and lower trophic level benthivore communities
• Piscivores demonstrated particular vulnerability to warming, supporting projections of top-predator declines [52]

The study emphasized the importance of stressor interactions, finding that antagonistic effects under combined RCP4.5 scenarios shifted to synergistic under RCP8.5, resulting in non-linearly increased adverse impacts on biomass for most functional groups [52].

Table 2: Biomass Trend Validation Approaches in Featured Studies

Validation Aspect	Eastern Ionian Sea (EwE)	Strait of Sicily (Atlantis)	Main Hawaiian Islands (Atlantis)
Primary Validation Data	Biomass and catch data (2000-2020) [52]	Biomass and catch for target species [11]	Biomass by functional groups under multiple scenarios [30]
Climate Effects	RCP4.5 vs. RCP8.5 scenarios [52]	Not explicitly stated	Ocean warming and acidification effects [30]
Stressor Interactions	Synergistic vs. antagonistic effects analyzed [52]	Bottom-up and top-down effects [11]	Cumulative effects of multiple stressors [30]
Key Findings	Top predators vulnerable to warming; benthivore communities decline under multiple stressors [52]	Nutrient loading and fishing pressure major drivers [11]	Evaluation of management effectiveness for reef-fish stocks [30]
Time Horizon	2021-2080 projections [52]	Not specified	2020-2070 forecasts [30]

Experimental Protocols for Model Validation

Atlantis Model Validation Workflow

The Atlantis validation protocol follows a structured sequence:

• Model Parameterization: Establishing base ecological relationships and fishing activities
• Hind-cast Simulation: Running the model with historical forcing data (e.g., 1995-2017 catch time series)
• Output Comparison: Comparing modeled biomass and catch trends with observed data
• Sensitivity Analysis: Testing key parameters through incremental adjustments (±10%)
• Forecast Scenarios: Projecting future trajectories under alternative management and climate scenarios [30]

This workflow was implemented in the MHI Atlantis model, which incorporated historical catch time series from 1995-2017, comparing observed total catches with modeled outputs [30].

EwE Model Validation Workflow

The EwE validation methodology follows a distinct pathway:

• Ecopath Model Development: Creating a static snapshot of the ecosystem trophic structure (1998-2000)
• Ecosim Parameterization: Configuring the dynamic simulation module
• Historical Fitting: Calibrating the model to biomass and catch data (2000-2020)
• Scenario Development: Creating single and multiple stressor simulations
• Indicator Analysis: Computing ecological indicators for functional groups
• Interaction Assessment: Quantifying synergistic vs. antagonistic stressor effects [52]

The Eastern Ionian Sea implementation specifically emphasized the integration of trophic interactions, climate warming, fishing activity, and primary production to enhance model accuracy [52].

Table 3: Essential Resources for Ecosystem Model Validation

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Validation Application
Fishery-Dependent Data	Commercial fishery data (WPacFIN); Recreational fishery data (MRIP) [30]	Comparison of modeled vs. actual catch trends
Fishery-Independent Surveys	Benthic and coral reef fish surveys (PIFSC RAMP); Bottomfish independent data [30]	Biomass validation without fishery bias
Environmental Data	Sea surface temperature; Primary production; Nutrient loading [11] [52]	Driver quantification for ecosystem dynamics
Biodiversity Indicators	Sea turtle populations; Monk seal data; Seabird colonies [30] [52]	Ecosystem-wide validation beyond target species
Climate Projections	RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios; Ocean acidification parameters [30] [52]	Future scenario development and testing
Computational Tools	EwE software; Atlantis framework; Statistical analysis packages	Model implementation and skill metric calculation

The validation techniques for Ecopath with Ecosim and Atlantis reveal distinct philosophical approaches to model credibility, though both ultimately aim to support ecosystem-based fisheries management. EwE emphasizes trophic interaction accuracy and stressor effect quantification, particularly through its analysis of synergistic and antagonistic interactions between climate change and fishing pressure [52]. Atlantis prioritizes comprehensive ecosystem representation and parameter sensitivity testing, leveraging hind-cast simulations and scenario comparisons to establish predictive skill [11] [30].

Both frameworks face the fundamental challenge of validating complex ecosystem projections against inherently limited observational data. The development of standardized skill assessment frameworks offers promise for more consistent evaluation across modeling approaches [51]. As climate change accelerates, the capacity to accurately project biomass trends under novel conditions will become increasingly critical for sustainable fisheries management, necessitating continued refinement of these validation techniques.

Category	Item / Software	Primary Function in Model Evaluation
Skill Assessment Software	R / Python (with statistical packages)	Calculates performance metrics (e.g., AAOE, RMSE, MEF, Spearman correlation) and generates diagnostic plots [53].
Model Frameworks	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Trophodynamic model for simulating policy effects; relies on fitting to time-series data and tuning vulnerability parameters [13] [25].
	Atlantis	End-to-end, spatially explicit model for strategic management scenario evaluation; requires multi-level calibration to biomass and catch data [13] [53].
Data Resources	Long-term trawl surveys / Stock assessments	Provides the core time-series data (biomass, catch) for model calibration, fitting, and skill assessment [53].
	Forcing Data (e.g., annual landings)	Used as input to drive model simulations and test scenarios across historical periods [13].
Validation Concepts	Hindcast Skill Assessment	Evaluates model performance by comparing simulations to historical data used for parameterization [53].
	Forecast Skill Assessment	Rigorously tests model performance by comparing predictions to future observations not used in model building [53].

{# Ecosystem Model Performance: A Comparative Guide}

Ecosystem models are vital tools for forecasting the impacts of fishing and environmental change, supporting Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFМ) [13]. Two of the most prominent frameworks are Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis. This guide provides a detailed, data-driven comparison of their performance in predicting ecosystem indicators and species trajectories, synthesizing findings from direct comparative studies and individual model applications.

Comparative Performance Data

The table below summarizes key performance metrics and characteristics for EwE and Atlantis, synthesized from model applications and inter-comparison studies.

Performance Metric / Characteristic	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Model Structure & Focus	Trophic mass-balance; whole-ecosystem, 0-dimensional biomass model [13].	End-to-end; spatially explicit, 3D, age- and size-structured population model [13] [53].
Prediction Agreement	High qualitative consistency with Atlantis on target species effects; greater divergence on non-target species and cascading effects [13].	High qualitative consistency with EwE on target species; divergent multispecies predictions due to different trophic relationships [13].
Key Calibration & Skill Metrics	Model fit to time-series data; tuned using vulnerability (v) parameters [25]. Skill assessed via bias, error, and reliability [25].	Multi-level calibration to biomass and catch data [53]. Skill assessed via AAOE, RMSE, Modeling Efficiency (MEF), Spearman correlation [53].
Representative Hindcast Skill (for key groups)	A fitted EwE model showed the best ability to replicate historical dynamics [25].	The NEUS Atlantis model showed "above average" hindcast skill for its key, tuned species [53].
Representative Forecast Skill	A 10-year forecast for the NEUS Atlantis showed skill comparable to its hindcast, not degenerating over a decade [53]. Vulnerability-unfitted models showed limited robustness to changed fishing effort [25].	The NEUS Atlantis model maintained forecast skill over a 10-year period, a key characteristic for strategic management [53].
Primary Uncertainty Considered	Sensitivity to initial input parameters via Monte Carlo approach; parameter uncertainty in vulnerability settings [13] [25].	Model skill assessment against observations; scenario analysis for uncertainty in biomass and rate parameters [13] [53].

Experimental Protocols for Model Evaluation

The reliability of model predictions is established through rigorous, standardized testing protocols. The following methodologies are considered best practice for skill assessment.

Standardized Skill Assessment Protocol

This protocol, as applied to the NEUS Atlantis model, provides a robust template for evaluating any ecosystem model [53].

• Objective: To quantitatively evaluate a model's ability to replicate past (hindcast) and predict future (forecast) system states.
• Procedure:
  • Model Tuning and Base Run: Calibrate the model against a historical time period using all available data (e.g., biomass surveys, fisheries landings) [53].
  • Hindcast Simulation: Run the model for the same historical period and compare outputs to the data used for tuning.
  • Forecast Simulation: Initialize the model from a point within the historical period and run it forward for a defined future period (e.g., 10 years) without further adjustment. Once real-world data for that future period becomes available, compare it to the forecast predictions [53].
  • Skill Quantification: Calculate a suite of metrics to assess different aspects of model performance [53]:
    • Average Absolute Error (AAE): Measures average magnitude of error.
    • Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE): Places a greater weight on large errors.
    • Modeling Efficiency (MEF): Assesses how well a model predicts relative to the simple mean of observations.
    • Spearman Rank Correlation: Evaluates whether the model captures the correct directional trends.
• Applications: This method is applicable for assessing both single-species trajectories (e.g., biomass of commercial fish) and emergent ecosystem properties (e.g., mean trophic level, total system biomass) [53].

Ecopath with Ecosim Vulnerability Fitting Protocol

The tuning of predator-prey interactions is a critical step for EwE, significantly impacting forecast reliability [25].

• Objective: To calibrate the EwE model to accurately reflect historical ecosystem dynamics by adjusting vulnerability parameters, which control the exchange rate of prey between a "vulnerable" and "invulnerable" state [25].
• Procedure:
  • Data Compilation: Gather time-series data for functional groups (biomass, catch) over a multi-year period.
  • Base Ecopath Model: Construct a mass-balanced snapshot of the ecosystem for a base year.
  • Vulnerability Fitting (v-fitted): Use an optimization routine to automatically adjust vulnerability parameters to achieve the best possible fit between Ecosim simulations and the full time-series data [25].
  • Alternative Settings (v-unfitted): If fitting is not possible, test pre-defined vulnerability settings. Studies show that a setting based on trophic level (vTL) can provide better hindcast ability, while a depletion-based setting (vB) may be more robust for certain fishing scenarios [25].
  • Skill Evaluation: Compare the hindcast and forecast skills of the v-fitted model against v-unfitted models using metrics like bias, error, and reliability [25].

Performance Analysis and Workflow

The relationship between model complexity, calibration effort, and predictive performance is a central consideration in model selection. The following diagram illustrates the typical workflow and key decision points in the model evaluation process.

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) relies on robust modeling tools to predict the complex outcomes of management strategies and environmental changes [13]. Among the plethora of available frameworks, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis have emerged as preeminent models, yet they embody a fundamental trade-off between accessibility and comprehensiveness [13]. This guide provides an objective comparison for researchers and scientists, detailing the performance, structural underpinnings, and ideal application contexts of these two powerful tools. The EwE approach is characterized by its relatively manageable structure and widespread adoption, making it a accessible entry point for ecosystem modeling [54]. In contrast, Atlantis is a multi-dimensional, end-to-end ecosystem model that incorporates a vast array of physical, biological, and anthropogenic processes, offering a more comprehensive but complex simulation environment [13] [11]. This analysis is framed within broader research on model performance, emphasizing how their inherent structures dictate their utility in policy formulation and scientific inquiry.

The core differences between EwE and Atlantis originate from their foundational structures and design philosophies. The table below summarizes their key characteristics:

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Core Structure	Mass-balance, biomass-based [13]	Age- and size-structured, population-based [13]
Spatial Dimension	0-dimensional (Ecopath), 2D (Ecospace) [13]	3-dimensional [13]
Primary Focus	Trophic interactions and energy flows [54]	End-to-end ecosystem dynamics (physics to fish) [11]
Trophic Regulation	Fixed diet matrix, foraging vulnerability [13]	Diet preference, prey availability, mouth-gape limitations [13]
Representation	Functional groups & key species [54]	Complex integration of functional groups, age-structure, and environment [13]

EwE simplifies an ecosystem into a manageable network of functional groups—clusters of species with similar ecology and feeding habits [54]. This mass-balance approach facilitates a comprehensible analysis of trophic interactions. Atlantis, however, aims for a more holistic recreation of the ecosystem. It is an end-to-end model that integrates biological, chemical, and physical oceanographic processes to simulate dynamics across the entire ecosystem, from nutrients to top predators and fisheries [11]. Its age-structured population representation adds significant biological realism but also computational and data intensity [13].

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

Standard Model Development and Calibration

Constructing and calibrating these models requires distinct, rigorous protocols to ensure their outputs are meaningful for management.

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) Workflow: The development of an EwE model, as demonstrated in the Kimberley region, involves four key steps [54]:

• Functional Group Designation: Researchers define a set of functional groups. This involves selecting a minimum number of groups that satisfactorily describe the overall food web, often including individual species of commercial or conservation interest [54].
• Parameterization: Each functional group is characterized with data on biomass (B), production/biomass ratio (P/B), consumption/biomass ratio (Q/B), and diet composition. This process synthesizes information from field studies, literature, and empirical relationships [54].
• Mass-Balance Adjustment: The initial Ecopath model is adjusted to achieve mass balance, ensuring that the energy entering each group equals the energy leaving it. This creates a static snapshot of the ecosystem [54].
• Temporal Calibration (Ecosim): The mass-balanced model is fit to time-series data (e.g., catches, biomass) to calibrate the dynamic Ecosim module. This often involves adjusting foraging vulnerabilities to match historical trends [13].

Atlantis Model Workflow: The application of Atlantis in the Strait of Sicily (SoS) illustrates its complex development [11]:

• Spatial-Structural Discretization: The model domain is divided into three-dimensional boxes, each with specific bathymetric and hydrodynamic properties.
• Multi-Group Parameterization: A wide array of biological groups (from phytoplankton to mammals) are parameterized with age-/size-structured data on growth, mortality, and reproduction. Simultaneously, fishery operations and environmental forcing data are incorporated.
• Model Skill Assessment: The model's performance is evaluated by comparing its predicted biomass and catch for target species against observed data using multiple quantitative metrics.
• Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis: Given the model's complexity, a key step is a sensitivity analysis of key parameters (e.g., nutrient loading, fishing mortality) to identify major drivers and understand uncertainty in predictions [11].

Protocol for a Comparative Model Analysis

Research comparing EwE and Atlantis, such as the study on Lake Victoria, follows a specific protocol to ensure a fair and insightful comparison [13]:

• Objective: To compare model behavior and outcomes under identical fishing scenarios, not to recommend one model over the other.
• Scenario Design: A set of standardized fishing pressure scenarios (e.g., increase/decrease in effort on key species) is defined.
• Parallel Simulation: Both models are run using the same historical forcing data (e.g., annual landings) and subjected to the identical set of future scenarios.
• Indicator-Based Comparison: Outcomes are compared at two levels:
  • Functional Group Level: Analyzing biomass and catch trajectories for key groups.
  • Ecosystem Level: Using globally-tested "robust" ecosystem indicators (e.g., trophic level of the catch, biodiversity metrics) [13].
• Analysis of Convergence/Divergence: Results are analyzed to identify areas where model predictions are consistent (increasing confidence) or divergent (highlighting uncertainty due to model structure) [13].

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for conducting such a comparative analysis.

Key Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Successfully implementing EwE or Atlantis requires specific "research reagents" – the essential data inputs and computational tools that form the backbone of the models.

Table: Essential Research Reagents for Ecosystem Modeling

Item	Function in EwE	Function in Atlantis	Criticality
Biomass Data	Core input to balance the initial model for each functional group [54].	Used for initializing biological groups and for model skill assessment against predictions [11].	High for both
Diet Composition Matrix	Defines the proportion of each prey in a predator's diet; central to trophic flow [13].	Informs a diet preference matrix, but actual consumption is also affected by prey availability/size [13].	High for both
Production & Consumption Rates (P/B, Q/B)	Key physiological parameters to define energy flow through functional groups [54].	Incorporated into the more complex age-structured growth and mortality equations.	High for EwE, Medium for Atlantis
Fisheries Catch Time Series	Used for calibrating the Ecosim temporal module [13].	Used as a primary forcing function to drive historical and scenario projections [13].	High for both
Spatial Habitat Data	Informs the 2D spatial module (Ecospace) for habitat preferences and connectivity.	Defines the 3D boxes, including bathymetry, salinity, temperature, and connectivity [13].	For Ecospace only / High for Atlantis
Age-/Size-Structured Data	Not required for the standard biomass pool structure.	Fundamental for parameterizing growth, mortality, and reproduction of biological groups [13].	Low for EwE / High for Atlantis
Hydrodynamic Data	Not directly used in the core model.	Critical for simulating the advection of nutrients, plankton, and larvae in the 3D environment.	Not used for EwE / High for Atlantis

Performance and Discussion

Quantitative Comparison via Model Intercomparison

The Lake Victoria study provides a direct, quantitative comparison of EwE and Atlantis performance under the same scenarios [13]. The following table summarizes typical outputs and performance metrics from such a comparative analysis.

Table: Comparative Model Outputs and Performance from a Lake Victoria Case Study [13]

Aspect	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis	Observation from Comparison
Target Species Prediction	Produced qualitatively similar directions of change for directly impacted species.	Produced qualitatively similar directions of change for directly impacted species.	High qualitative consistency for single-species effects.
Multi-Species/Cascading Effects	Predicts cascading effects based on set diet matrix and vulnerability.	Predicts cascading effects modulated by size-structure and prey availability.	Considerable variation in magnitude and direction of effects.
Uncertainty Analysis	Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis is feasible on initial input parameters [13].	Full-scale sensitivity analysis is often not feasible; relies on model skill assessment [13].	EwE allows more comprehensive uncertainty testing of core parameters.
Primary Strengths	Intuitive structure, faster calibration, clearer trophic impacts, strong community support.	High realism, integration of physics and biology, explicit spatial dynamics, end-to-end analysis.
Primary Limitations	Simplified population structure, limited environmental forcing, less realistic spatial dynamics.	High computational/data demands, "black box" nature, difficult and time-consuming to calibrate.

Interpretation of Performance Differences

The divergence in model outputs, particularly for multi-species effects, is not a failure of either model but a direct consequence of their structural assumptions [13]. EwE's reliance on a fixed diet matrix and foraging vulnerability parameters makes its trophic interactions more direct and predictable. In contrast, Atlantis allows for emergent diets based on prey availability and mouth-gape limitations within its age-structured framework, leading to more complex, non-linear feedbacks [13]. This fundamental difference means that Atlantis may capture compensatory dynamics (e.g., prey switching) that EwE does not, but it also makes its outputs more challenging to trace and attribute.

Furthermore, the treatment of uncertainty differs vastly. EwE models can more readily undergo Monte Carlo analysis to test the sensitivity of outcomes to input parameters [13]. For complex Atlantis models, this is often computationally prohibitive, and confidence is instead built through model skill assessment—how well the model recreates historical observations [13] [11]. This does not, however, guarantee the model will accurately forecast future changes, especially under novel conditions.

The following diagram maps the core logical relationships and trade-offs that define each model's character and performance.

The choice between EwE and Atlantis is not about selecting the "better" model, but the more appropriate tool for a specific research or management question. EwE's widespread accessibility makes it an ideal platform for preliminary ecosystem exploration, fostering capacity building in data-limited contexts, and conducting rapid, transparent evaluations of policy options focused on trophic interactions. Its structured approach and manageable data demands have fueled its global adoption. Conversely, Atlantis's comprehensive scope is indispensable for investigating complex, multi-driver questions where physical-biological couplings and detailed population structure are critical, such as climate change impacts or spatial management planning, provided sufficient resources and technical expertise are available.

Robust ecosystem-based management benefits from a multi-model approach [13]. Using EwE and Atlantis in an ensemble provides a form of "insurance" against the uncertainty inherent in modeling complex systems. When their predictions converge, managers can have greater confidence in the recommendations. When they diverge, it highlights critical areas of ecological uncertainty, guiding future research and data collection. Therefore, the scientific community's toolkit is most powerful when it includes both accessible workhorses like EwE and comprehensive instruments like Atlantis.

Ecosystem models are crucial tools for modern environmental management and policy development, enabling scientists to simulate complex ecological interactions and forecast the impacts of human activities. Within this field, Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Atlantis represent two prominent but philosophically distinct modeling approaches. This guide provides an objective comparison of these frameworks, focusing on their respective strengths, limitations, and ideal applications. The core distinction lies in their design philosophy: EwE emphasizes user accessibility and trophic relationships, while Atlantis pursues comprehensive ecosystem simulation through higher complexity and data requirements. Understanding this trade-off is essential for researchers, scientists, and resource managers selecting the appropriate tool for specific research questions and management objectives. The following analysis synthesizes current information on both models to inform this critical decision-making process.

The table below summarizes the fundamental characteristics of the EwE and Atlantis modeling frameworks.

Table 1: Core Characteristics of EwE and Atlantis Models

Feature	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Primary Focus	Trophic mass-balance and food web dynamics [14] [55]	Integrated ecosystem simulation, including biogeochemical, physical, and human processes [56]
Core Components	Ecopath (static snapshot), Ecosim (time dynamics), Ecospace (spatial dynamics) [14]	Biogeochemical models, population dynamics, human impacts, and physical oceanography [56]
Model Structure	Trophic-focused, process-oriented	End-to-end, complex system representation
Accessibility & Cost	Free software suite [14]	Information limited in search results
Development Status	Active (version 6.7 scheduled for 2025) [14]	Active development inferred from literature [56]

Strengths and Limitations: A Detailed Analysis

Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE): User-Friendly Trophic Focus

EwE is a free software suite designed to model aquatic ecosystems, with a core principle of tracking energy flows and trophic interactions [14]. Its structure is built around three main components: Ecopath for a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the system; Ecosim for simulating policy impacts over time; and Ecospace for exploring spatial-temporal dynamics, such as the placement of marine protected areas [14]. A key sub-routine, Ecotracer, allows modelers to track contaminants like mercury or radionuclides through the food web [55].

Table 2: Strengths and Limitations of EwE

Strengths	Limitations
Lower Barrier to Entry: As free software, it is widely accessible to researchers and managers [14].	Simplified Realism: Its focus on trophic interactions may omit critical non-trophic drivers (e.g., detailed environmental factors) [56].
Manageable Data Needs: Requires less extensive data inputs compared to more complex models like Atlantis [56].	Limited Scope: Less suited for questions requiring integration of socioeconomic factors or complex biogeochemistry.
Policy-Ready Tools: Ecosim and Ecospace are directly designed for exploring management policy options [14].	Potential for Bias: Model bias can arise if important ecosystem components are omitted in its simpler structure [56].
Specialized Functionality: Features like Ecotracer are tailored for specific tasks like tracking pollutant accumulation [55].	Update Challenges: More complex EwE models can be difficult to update within short management timeframes [56].

Atlantis: Data-Intensive Complexity for Whole-Ecosystem Simulation

Atlantis represents a class of end-to-end ecosystem models that aim to simulate the entire ecosystem, including not just the food web but also biogeochemical, physical, and socioeconomic processes [56]. This holistic approach comes with significantly greater complexity.

Table 3: Strengths and Limitations of Atlantis

Strengths	Limitations
High Realism & Comprehensiveness: Integrates the full food web, physical processes, and environmental drivers [56].	Extensive Data Requirements: Needs a wide array of data, which can be prohibitive [56].
Integrated Human Dimension: Can incorporate socioeconomic factors and human impacts directly into simulations [56].	High Complexity & Parameter Uncertainty: As complexity increases, so does uncertainty from a larger number of estimated parameters [56].
Suitable for Complex Questions: Ideal for exploring impacts of climate change and multi-sectoral management.	High Implementation Barrier: Relatively difficult to implement, fit to data, and update for management [56].
Robust Projections: Can provide a more complete framework for managers facing multi-species, multi-driver challenges [56].	Management Integration: Challenging to incorporate into short and moderate-term management due to complexity and data needs [56].

Experimental Data: Performance in a Management Context

A 2021 research study directly compared a suite of models, including EwE and Atlantis, for developing ecological reference points (ERPs) for the Atlantic menhaden fishery [56]. This study provides critical experimental data on how these models perform when applied to a real-world management problem.

Table 4: Model Performance in Atlantic Menhaden Case Study [56]

Model Attribute	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Atlantis
Management Utility	An EwE model of intermediate complexity was ultimately recommended for management use.	Not selected as the primary management tool in this case study, though it was evaluated.
Model Outputs	Produced estimates of biomass and exploitation rate similar to single-species models.	Outputs not specifically detailed for Atlantis in the provided context.
Key Trade-off	Provided a useful framework for managers while balancing data needs and complexity.	Models of this complexity were more difficult to update within current management timeframes.

Detailed Methodology from the Menhaden Study

The comparative study followed a structured, multi-model approach to ensure a fair evaluation [56]:

• Objective Definition: The management objective was to develop ERPs that account for menhaden's role as a forage species, sustaining both its fishery and its predator populations.
• Model Suite Development: Researchers developed a range of models from simple (e.g., surplus production models) to complex (EwE and Atlantis).
• Data Standardization: Model inputs were standardized as much as possible across all candidate models, including time series of total catch, catch-at-age, abundance indices, and diet data.
• Model Fitting and Evaluation: Each model was fit to the observed data. Outputs such as menhaden biomass, exploitation rate, and natural mortality were compared across models.
• ERP Calculation and Utility Assessment: Ecological reference points were calculated for each model based on 2017 conditions. The models were then evaluated against explicit ecosystem management objectives to determine their capability and utility for providing management advice.

The workflow for this model comparison is summarized in the diagram below.

The Modeler's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Building and applying ecosystem models like EwE and Atlantis requires a suite of data inputs and conceptual tools. The following table details these essential "research reagents" and their functions in model construction.

Table 5: Essential Materials for Ecosystem Modeling

Research Reagent / Material	Function in Model Development
Time Series of Total Catch	Used to calibrate model fit and estimate fishing mortality rates over time [56].
Catch-at-Age Data	Provides age-structured information on fish populations, crucial for statistical catch-at-age models [56].
Abundance Indices	Independent surveys (e.g., young-of-year, age-1+) used to tune and validate model outputs against real-world observations [56].
Species Diet Data	The foundational information for constructing the food web and quantifying trophic interactions in both EwE and Atlantis [56].
Balanced Ecopath Model	A pre-requisite snapshot for using advanced EwE routines like Ecotracer; ensures mass-balance before dynamic simulations [55].
Contaminant Concentration Driver File	An input file used in EwE's Ecotracer to force temporal changes in environmental contaminant concentrations [55].

The choice between Ecopath with Ecosim and Atlantis is not a matter of one being superior to the other, but rather a question of fitness for purpose. EwE offers a more accessible, trophic-focused framework with lower data demands, making it highly effective for addressing specific fisheries management questions and tracking pollutants through food webs. In contrast, Atlantis provides a comprehensive, end-to-end simulation capability ideal for investigating complex, multi-driver ecosystem questions, though it requires extensive data and expertise.

As demonstrated in the Atlantic menhaden case study, EwE models of intermediate complexity often present a pragmatic compromise, offering sufficient ecosystem realism while remaining feasible to implement and update within management timelines [56]. Researchers and managers must weigh the trade-offs between model complexity, data requirements, and the specific policy objectives at hand to select the most appropriate and effective tool.

Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) requires robust modeling tools to understand the complex repercussions of human activities and environmental changes on marine resources. The selection of an appropriate modeling framework is critical, as each offers distinct strengths and limitations in scope, complexity, and applicability to specific management questions. Within the context of a broader thesis on Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) versus Atlantis model performance, the multi-model study of the Tasman and Golden Bays (TBGB) provides a unique empirical testbed. This guide objectively compares the performance of these two established modeling frameworks—EwE and Atlantis—alongside a third, the mizer size-spectrum model, by examining their concurrent application to the same semi-enclosed embayment system in New Zealand [57]. We summarize quantitative data, detail experimental protocols, and visualize key workflows to aid researchers in selecting and applying these tools.

Model Frameworks at a Glance

The TBGB multi-model approach implemented three distinct ecosystem models to explore and understand the same ecosystem. The table below summarizes their core characteristics.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of the Three Ecosystem Models Used in the TBGB Study

Feature	Atlantis (TBGB_AM)	Ecopath with Ecosim (TBGB_EwE)	Size Spectrum (TBGB_SS)
Model Type	End-to-end, deterministic simulation	Trophodynamic, mass-balance	Multi-species size spectrum
Primary Strength	Exploring "what-if" scenarios & Management Strategy Evaluation; includes biophysical, ecological, and human dynamics	Exploring impacts of fishing with environmental trends; optimal fishing policies; fitting to time-series data	Evaluating trade-offs based on community structure, population status, and fisheries yield
Core Dynamics	Nutrient cycling, predator-prey interactions, adaptive behavior, fishing fleet dynamics, socio-economic factors	Mass-balance energy budgets; foraging arena theory to simulate dynamics over time	Predator-prey interactions based on organism size and species preference
Spatial Structure	Explicit spatial structure forced by ocean physics model output	Implicit spatial dynamics via foraging arena theory	Typically non-spatial
Human Dimensions	Explicitly includes fishing fleet dynamics and socio-economic modules	Focus on fishing impacts, can incorporate economic indicators	Limited to fishing effects (e.g., effort allocation)
Validation Approach	Analysis of model dynamics and understanding weaknesses; not statistically fit to data	Formal fitting procedure to time series and statistical goodness-of-fit; Monte Carlo for uncertainty	Model calibration to observed size and abundance data

Experimental Protocols and Performance Analysis

The Tasman and Golden Bays Test Case

The modeling effort focused on the TBGB, a relatively shallow, highly productive semi-enclosed embayment system at the north of New Zealand's South Island. This ecosystem supports diverse habitats and species, numerous commercial and recreational fisheries, and marine farming, making it an ideal candidate for EBM [57]. A key ecological challenge was understanding historical shifts, particularly the collapse of the scallop fishery and marked variations in the productivity of snapper, a key finfish species [57].

Model Implementation and Validation Protocols

The protocols for developing and validating the three models differed significantly, reflecting their inherent structures.

• Atlantis (TBGB_AM) Initialization and Validation: This full end-to-end model was developed by first defining spatial and temporal structures, forcing the model with ocean physics output, and setting initial conditions for nutrients, bacteria, detritus, and primary producers. Species functional groups were then added, introducing complexity from diets, movement, and age-size structure [57]. As a deterministic model too complex for statistical fitting, its validation relies on carefully analyzing and understanding its dynamics and potential weaknesses to assess suitability and reliability for specific scenarios [57].
• Ecopath with Ecosim (TBGB_EwE) Calibration: The EwE framework follows a two-stage sequential process. First, an Ecopath model is populated and balanced for a baseline year, ensuring energy removals (predation, fishing) are balanced by energy consumption for each group [57]. Second, Ecosim is used for dynamic simulation, using foraging arena theory to model time-varying predation mortality [57]. Best practices involve using thermodynamic and ecological diagnostics to balance the model and a formal fitting procedure to calibrate Ecosim to time series data, assessing goodness-of-fit and using Monte Carlo simulations to address parameter uncertainty [58].
• Size Spectrum (TBGB_SS) Application: The mizer model was used to specify individual traits for species groups and simulate predator-prey interactions based on body size. Its utility in the comparison was primarily for evaluating fishing effects, such as shifts in effort, and basic environmental effects like changes in primary productivity [57].

Comparative Model Performance and Key Lessons

The multi-model approach yielded critical insights into the performance and appropriate application of each framework.

• Model Response to Historical Fishing: The study compared responses across all three models to historical fishing pressure. While all models could address fishing impacts, the similarities and differences in their dynamics provided a more robust and nuanced understanding than any single model could offer [57].
• Handling of Uncertainty: The study subjected the most complex model, Atlantis, to sensitivity analyses. It was found to be most sensitive to oceanographic variability, leading to the recommendation that future scenario analyses should explicitly include such sensitivities [57].
• The Critical Role of Data in EwE: Independent research underscores that the reliability of EwE projections is heavily dependent on fitting the model to time-series data. A study evaluating vulnerability settings in EwE concluded that models fitted to historical data (vulnerability-fitted) best replicate historical dynamics, while unfitted models exhibit variable hindcast and forecast skill [25]. This reaffirms the critical role of time-series data for applying EwE models to inform ecosystem-based fisheries management [25].

Visualizing the Multi-Model Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow and validation philosophy derived from the TBGB study and the principles of Pattern-Oriented Modelling (POM).

Figure 1: A workflow diagram integrating the multi-model approach with Pattern-Oriented Modelling (POM) for validation.

The methodology emphasizes that using multiple, diverse patterns observed at different scales and levels of organization acts as a series of filters for model design, selection, and calibration. This "multi-scope" increases structural realism and predictive power [59]. The workflow shows how this philosophy was applied in the TBGB study, where different models were initialized with shared data and knowledge, and their outputs were cross-validated against a set of patterns and against each other.

The table below details key resources, datasets, and software solutions essential for implementing ecosystem models like those in the TBGB study.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Ecosystem Modeling

Resource/Solution	Type	Primary Function in Ecosystem Modeling
Atlantis Framework	Software Platform	An end-to-end, deterministic modeling framework for developing complex ecosystem models that integrate biophysical, ecological, and human dimensions for scenario exploration and Management Strategy Evaluation [57].
Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)	Software Platform	A trophodynamic modeling suite for constructing mass-balance food-web models (Ecopath) and simulating their dynamics over time (Ecosim), widely used for exploring fishing and environmental impacts [57] [58].
Mizer (R package)	Software Library	An R package for implementing multi-species size spectrum models, used to predict size distributions, abundance, and trophic interactions under different fishing pressures [57].
Time-Series Data	Dataset	Critical empirical data (e.g., species abundance, catch, environmental variables) used for calibrating dynamic simulations (Ecosim) and assessing model fit and forecast skill [57] [25].
Pattern-Oriented Modelling (POM)	Methodology	A strategy for designing, selecting, and calibrating models using multiple patterns observed at different scales and organizational levels to increase structural realism and predictive reliability [59].
Monte Carlo Simulation	Statistical Method	A computational technique used to address parameter uncertainty in models (e.g., in EwE) by running multiple simulations with randomly varied inputs to produce a distribution of possible outcomes [58].

The TBGB multi-model approach demonstrates that there is no single "best" ecosystem model; rather, the choice depends on the specific management question and available data. Atlantis (TBGBAM) excels as a comprehensive tool for complex "what-if" scenario analysis and Management Strategy Evaluation that includes human dimensions, but requires deep system knowledge and is not statistically fittable. Ecopath with Ecosim (TBGBEwE) provides a more accessible framework with strong capabilities for analyzing fishing impacts and environmental trends, whose reliability is significantly enhanced when formally fitted to time-series data [58] [25]. The mizer (TBGB_SS) model offers a tractable approach for questions focused on size-based and community-level responses to fishing.

The foremost lesson is the power of a multi-model approach itself. Using models in concert, cross-validating their responses, and embracing strategies like Pattern-Oriented Modelling, provides a more robust and reliable foundation for ecosystem-based science and management than reliance on any single model output. For researchers, the key is to align the model's strengths with the project's objectives while rigorously addressing uncertainties through calibration and validation.

Ecosystem models are crucial tools for supporting strategic management decisions in fisheries and environmental policy. Within the domain of end-to-end ecosystem modeling, Atlantis and Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) represent two prominent but philosophically distinct approaches. This guide objectively compares their performance in generating reliable scenarios for management, focusing specifically on the critical assessment of confidence intervals and model robustness. Where Atlantis constructs a mechanistic, process-driven representation of ecosystem dynamics [11] [60], EwE traditionally employs a more phenomenological, data-driven approach. This fundamental difference in architecture necessitates a rigorous comparison of how each framework quantifies uncertainty and establishes confidence in its projections, a factor paramount for decision-makers who rely on these models to implement effective ecosystem-based management.

Experimental Protocols for Model Reliability Assessment

Quantitative Performance Benchmarking

The evaluation of model reliability follows a structured protocol centered on comparing predicted outputs against observed historical data. The standard methodology involves:

• Model Initialization and Forcing: Both models are initialized with best-available data on biomass, environmental conditions, and fishing pressure for a specific marine ecosystem (e.g., the Strait of Sicily [11]).
• Historical Simulation: Models simulate a historical time period for which observed data on species biomass and fishery catch are available.
• Output Comparison: Model predictions for key indicators (e.g., species biomass, catch) are quantitatively compared against observed data using multiple statistical metrics.
• Uncertainty Quantification: Confidence intervals around predictions are constructed, often through sensitivity analysis or formal parameter estimation techniques [11].

Sensitivity Analysis for Robustness Testing

A critical component of assessing robustness is the systematic perturbation of model parameters and forcing functions. The Atlantis implementation for the Strait of Sicily exemplifies this protocol by testing the model's sensitivity to key parameters, successfully identifying nutrient loading and fishing pressure as the dominant processes influencing the ecosystem's trophic spectrum and generating bottom-up and top-down effects [11]. This process directly probes the model's robustness and informs the potential range of management outcomes.

Comparative Performance Data

The following table summarizes the performance and reliability indicators for both modeling frameworks, based on documented applications.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Atlantis and Ecopath with Ecosim Models

Performance Indicator	Atlantis Model Performance	Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) Performance
Spatial Structure	3D, spatially-explicit [60]	Typically coarser spatial resolution
Trophic Dynamics	Accurately recreates trophic levels and ecological interactions [11]	Explicitly focuses on trophic interactions
Uncertainty Estimation	Emphasizes incorporation in predictions; uses sensitivity analysis [11]	Approaches vary; often includes Monte Carlo routines
Confidence Intervals	Inferred from sensitivity analysis of key parameters [11]	Not explicitly detailed in search results
Robustness Assessment	Tested via parameter sensitivity; identifies major drivers [11]	Not explicitly detailed in search results
Key Strengths	Integrated, strategic tool for holistic scenario assessment [11]	Not explicitly detailed in search results
Primary Management Use	Strategic advice for fisheries managers and stakeholders [60]	Not explicitly detailed in search results

Methodological Comparison for Reliability

Table 2: Methodological Approach to Reliability and Uncertainty

Methodological Aspect	Atlantis Framework	Ecopath with Ecosim Framework
Core Approach	Process-driven, mechanistic [60]	Data-driven, phenomenological
Uncertainty Quantification	Sensitivity analysis of parameters (e.g., nutrient load, fishing) [11]	Not explicitly detailed in search results
Robustness Validation	Skill testing against observed biomass and catch data [11]	Not explicitly detailed in search results
Handling of Human Impacts	Integrated directly within the model framework [60]	Not explicitly detailed in search results
System Representation	Integrates biology, physics, chemistry, and human impacts [60]	Not explicitly detailed in search results

Visualizing the Model Validation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the standardized workflow for assessing the reliability of an ecosystem model like Atlantis, based on the protocols identified in the research.

Figure 1: Ecosystem Model Validation and Reliability Assessment Workflow.

The Model Comparison Framework

The conceptual relationship between the two modeling approaches and the process for selecting the appropriate tool based on management needs can be visualized as follows.

Figure 2: Decision Framework for Selecting Ecosystem Models Based on Management Needs.

Research Reagent Solutions for Ecosystem Modeling

The following table details key computational tools and methodological components essential for conducting rigorous ecosystem model reliability assessment.

Table 3: Essential Research Tools and Components for Ecosystem Modeling

Tool/Component	Function in Reliability Assessment
Sensitivity Analysis Protocols	Systematically perturbs key model parameters (e.g., nutrient loading, fishing mortality) to identify major drivers and quantify uncertainty [11].
Quantitative Performance Metrics	Provides statistical measures (e.g., MEF, RMSE) to evaluate model skill in reproducing observed biomass and catch data [11].
Spatially-Explicit Framework	Allows for the 3D representation of biological, physical, and chemical processes, testing robustness across different habitat structures [60].
Trophodynamic Functional Groups	Aggregates species into functional groups (e.g., >50 groups) to efficiently model complex ecological interactions and energy flow [60].
Fishing Fleet Module	Incorporates multiple commercial and recreational fishing fleets to realistically assess the impact of human exploitation on ecosystem state [60].
Uncertainty Estimation Routines	Techniques and sub-models designed to incorporate and express uncertainty in model predictions, crucial for defining confidence intervals [11].

Conclusion

The choice between Ecopath with Ecosim and Atlantis is not about identifying a superior model but selecting the right tool for specific research questions and data contexts. EwE offers an accessible, trophodynamic-focused approach ideal for evaluating fishing impacts and policy exploration, with a strong track record in tactical management support. Atlantis provides a comprehensive, albeit data-intensive, end-to-end framework capable of integrating complex biophysical and human dimensions for strategic 'what-if' scenario exploration. Future ecosystem modeling should leverage the strengths of both frameworks, potentially through multi-model comparative approaches as demonstrated in Tasman and Golden Bays, to enhance confidence in predictions and provide robust scientific support for ecosystem-based management decisions. The integration of human dimensions and clearer specification of economic and social objectives remain vital frontiers for both modeling platforms.

References

• 1. Can Ecopath with Ecosim and Atlantis predict similar policy ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133019301790]
• 2. Ecopath with Ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030438000300365X]
• 3. comparing three ecosystem models of the Tasman and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415284/]
• 4. Ecosystem Modeling in the Pacific [https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pacific-islands/ecosystems/ecosystem-modeling-pacific]
• 5. End-to-end model of Icelandic waters using the Atlantis ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783618301620]
• 6. Evaluating ecosystem caps on fishery yield in the context of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12069166/]
• 7. The Principles of Ecopath with Ecosim and its Application ... [https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/aeece-15/25839417]
• 8. Evaluating management strategies to optimize coral reef ... [https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/36315]
• 9. Historical ecosystem models can serve as a baseline for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2025.1646031/full]
• 10. The Baltic Sea Atlantis: An integrated end-to-end modelling ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199168]
• 11. Atlantis end-to-end modeling to explore ecosystem ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815224002986]
• 12. Contrasting Futures for Australia's Fisheries Stocks Under ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.577964/full]
• 13. Ecosystem models of Lake Victoria (East Africa) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0380133019301790]
• 14. Ecopath with Ecosim – Ecopath with Ecosim food web ... [https://ecopath.org/]
• 15. A northeast United States Atlantis marine ecosystem model ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438002200148X]
• 16. EcoPath with EcoSim repository [https://ecobase.ecopath.org/]
• 17. Spatial modelling primer – Ecosystem Modelling with EwE [https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/ewemodel/chapter/spatial-modelling-primer/]
• 18. Quantitative models, including Ecopath, take food web ... [https://www.pugetsoundinstitute.org/quantitative-models-including-ecopath-take-food-web-studies-to-a-higher-level-of-analysis/]
• 19. The Baltic Sea Atlantis: An integrated end-to-end modelling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6054375/]
• 20. Do marine ecosystem models give consistent policy ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165783615001009]
• 21. Ecosystem modelling in the southern Benguela: comparisons ... [https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/scholarlywork/978769-ecosystem-modelling-in-the-southern-benguela--comparisons-of-atlantis--ecopath-with-ecosim--and-osmose-under-fishing-scenarios?cache=1750647878279]
• 22. Do marine ecosystem models give consistent policy evaluations? A ... [https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/Do_marine_ecosystem_models_give_consistent_policy_evaluations_A_comparison_of_Atlantis_and_Ecosim/22955390]
• 23. Trophic groups and modules: two levels of group detection in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4424665/]
• 24. Functional group diversity increases with modularity in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8379]
• 25. An evaluation of vulnerability settings in Ecopath with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574954125000494]
• 26. Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) Ecosystem Model Outp... [https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/63158]
• 27. Ecospace Workflow – User Guide for Ecopath with Ecosim ... [https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/eweguide/chapter/ecospace-workflow/]
• 28. Predictive capacity of Ecopath with Ecosim: Model ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815221001419]
• 29. Extending the human pressures-species response system ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2025.1561347/full]
• 30. Management-Strategy Evaluation of the Main Hawaiian ... [https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/55245]
• 31. Uncertainty – Ecosystem Modelling with EwE [https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/ewemodel/chapter/uncertainty/]
• 32. Modelling marine protected areas: insights and hurdles - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4614735/]
• 33. Using traits to build and explain an ecosystem model [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272771419310285]
• 34. The ecosystem traits index is proposed as a composite ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15322-z]
• 35. Models | AtlantiS [https://atlantis.ac.uk/models]
• 36. What could EBM look like in Tasman and Golden Bays? [https://www.sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/our-research/what-could-ebm-look-like-in-tasman-and-golden-bays]
• 37. Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) | Earth Sciences New Zealand [https://niwa.co.nz/fisheries/ecosystem-modelling-niwa/ecopath-ecosim-ewe]
• 38. a comprehensive analysis of a full deep-sea ecosystem ... [https://peerj.com/articles/6517/]
• 39. About – Ecopath with Ecosim [https://ecopath.org/about/]
• 40. Atlantis model outputs - Developing end-to-end models of the ... [https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/atlantis-model-outputs-developing-end-to-end-models-of-the-california-current-large-marine-ecos2]
• 41. Ecosystem models [https://www.sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/our-research/ecosystem-models]
• 42. "Input, output and complete run files for the Atlantis ecosystem ... [https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cimage_data/88/]
• 43. Calibrated Ecosystem Models Cannot Predict the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12554997/]
• 44. The sensitivity analysis of an Atlantis ecosystem model [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304380020302052]
• 45. Biomasses, energy and units – Ecosystem Modelling with ... [https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/ewemodel/chapter/biomass/]
• 46. Ecosystem-based fisheries management increases catch ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.879998/full]
• 47. User Guide for Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) [https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/eweguide/chapter/ecopath-output/]
• 48. Ecosystem Models Can Predict the Consequences of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12006782/]
• 49. A Stepwise Fitting Procedure for automated fitting of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352711016000054]
• 50. Calibrating process-based marine ecosystem models [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304380019303308]
• 51. Skill assessment of models relevant for the implementation ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783623002382]
• 52. Investigating the potential impacts and interactive effects of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2025.1621603/full]
• 53. Ecosystem Model Skill Assessment. Yes We Can! - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4701724/]
• 54. Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) for the Kimberley region [https://www.per.marine.csiro.au/staff/fabio.boschetti/KimberleyMSE/EwE.htm]
• 55. Introduction and dynamics – Ecosystem Modelling with EwE [https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/ewemodel/chapter/introduction-and-dynamics/]
• 56. Balancing Model Complexity, Data Requirements, and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.608059/full]
• 57. comparing three ecosystem models of the Tasman and ... [https://peerj.com/articles/11712/]
• 58. Best practice in Ecopath with Ecosim food-web models for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438001500575X]
• 59. Pattern-oriented modelling: a 'multi-scope' for predictive ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3223804/]
• 60. Atlantis ecosystem model | Earth Sciences New Zealand [https://niwa.co.nz/fisheries/ecosystem-modelling-niwa/atlantis-ecosystem-model]