Ecosystem modeling in the Northeastern United States: a comment on Sivel et al

Abstract Sivel et al. reviewed ecosystem models applied in the Northeast US (NEUS). Their conclusions and recommendations have significant implications for the use and adoption of ecosystem modeling in the NEUS, elsewhere in the USA, and around the world, especially in the context of operational management of living marine resources. Sivel et al. claim that NEUS ecosystem modeling (1) has no standards for evaluation, (2) largely has not considered climate change, (3) has not largely considered or been used in management strategy evaluations, (4) has had modelers in the NEUS that mostly do not communicate with ecosystem modelers in other regions, (5) has not updated or been cognizant of ecological theory as seen in outputted indicators, and (6) has not been used to advance ecosystem-based (fisheries) management nor that any advancement of EBM is occurring. Their conclusions are based on incomplete information and, as a result, are inaccurate. Their recommendations are general or self-evident enough such that no one would disagree with them, but are also dated in that they miss that such recommendations have already been made (often decades earlier) and are already being adopted. I refute all of this with factual evidence that was not included in their review. Because these ecosystem models are used in an operational context, the implications that these models were not adequately built, reviewed, or used undermines confidence in their application. I conclude with a few other lessons for the broader marine science community. I share the authors’ goal to increase the potential move of NEUS, US, and global fisheries management towards ecosystem-based management frameworks, and trust that this commentary provides a more complete status of the state of NEUS (and broader) ecosystem modeling employed operationally for living marine resource management. I provide the comments herein not to discourage Sivel et al., but rather (1) to encourage them and the entire community to consider some of the broader things that can be commonly missed in reviews like what they presented, and (2) to ensure that misleading messages that can be damaging to the ecosystem modeling enterprise are corrected.