The Eelgrass Tool explains the indirect relationship between nutrient concentration and the depth at which eelgrass is able to grow at; this is the best and only model for obtaining a good ecological state. Thus, allowing for it to be easily misused. This paper researches the pros and cons of the Eelgrass Tool, and why and how different papers come to different conclusions, based on the same data. Furthermore, this tool was evaluated from holistic and reductionistic viewpoints. One problem found was that the eelgrass takes a lot longer rehabilitating than disappearing, which the Eelgrass Tool has not considered. For the Eelgrass Tool to work, more factors need to be considered. Although there are numerous factors, which affect the eelgrass, it is incredibly complex to determine the major factor, especially as eelgrass is used as an indicator for different water bodies. When discussing the Eelgrass Tool it is viable to also include the contradicting arguments between DHI and DCE. When viewed from a reductionist perspective, the Eelgrass Tool is found to be a sufficient model which thrives from the models simplicity, whereas holism argues that the model is too simplistic to describe a system as complex as a given biotope which in turn leads to wrong conclusions based on over simplifications of factors.
|Uddannelser||Basis - International Naturvidenskabelig Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||19 jan. 2014|
- DHI and DCE
- Eelgrass Tool