Cited by 58Marine and fisheries researchFish Ecology and Management StudiesOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes

Using ecosystem modeling to evaluate trade-offs in coastal management: Effects of large-scale river diversions on fish and fisheries

Open access
de Mutsert, Kim, Lewis, Kristy, Milroy, Scott, Buszowski, Joe, Steenbeek, Jeroen·2017·Ecological Modelling

Abstract

A coupled ecosystem modeling approach was used to evaluate how select combinations of large-scale river diversions in the lower Mississippi River Deltaic Plain may affect the distribution, biomass, and landings of fish and shellfish over decades relative to a future without action. These river diversions are controlled openings in the riverbank of the Mississippi River designed to reintroduce sediment, water, and nutrients into hydrologically isolated coastal wetlands in order to mitigate wetland loss. We developed a spatial ecosystem model using Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software, and prepared it to receive output from a Delft3D hydrodynamic model coupled to primary production models. The Delft3D model provided environmental drivers including salinity, temperature, Chl a , total suspended solids, and change in wetland cover as a result of simulated river diversions over decadal model runs. Driver output was averaged either daily, monthly, or annually depending on the parameter. A novel oyster-specific subroutine is introduced in this paper to incorporate information at daily intervals in Ecospace, while Ecospace runs on a monthly time step. The ecosystem model simulates biomass and distribution of fish and shellfish species, and landings of targeted fisheries species, as a result of environmental changes projected for a preliminary set of management scenarios designed to evaluate and screen select combinations of river diversions. Abundant local field samples and landings da…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.06.029

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Mutsert, K., Lewis, K., Milroy, S., Buszowski, J., & Steenbeek, J.
Affiliations
  • St. Mary's College of Maryland (US)
  • University of Southern Mississippi (US)
  • Ecopath International Initiative (ES)
Venue
Ecological Modelling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
360
Pages
14-26
ISSN
0304-3800 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2735288378
Cited by
58
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecological Modelling (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Aquila Digital Community (University of Southern Mississippi) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
CPRA
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Oceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Keywords
coastal wetland restoration, Mississippi Delta, fish landings, salinity, species redistribution, Gulf menhaden, spotted seatrout, decision support system, Ecopath with Ecosim

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review