Rethinking Ecology – Challenging Current Thinking in Ecological Research Rethinking Ecology – Challenging Current Thinking in Ecological Research (original) (raw)
Related papers
Trends in Ecological Research during the Last Three Decades – A Systematic Review
PLoS ONE, 2013
It is thought that the science of ecology has experienced conceptual shifts in recent decades, chiefly from viewing nature as static and balanced to a conception of constantly changing, unpredictable, complex ecosystems. Here, we ask if these changes are reflected in actual ecological research over the last 30 years. We surveyed 750 articles from the entire pool of ecological literature and 750 articles from eight leading journals. Each article was characterized according to its type, ecological domain, and applicability, and major topics. We found that, in contrast to its common image, ecology is still mostly a study of single species (70% of the studies); while ecosystem and community studies together comprise only a quarter of ecological research. Ecological science is somewhat conservative in its topics of research (about a third of all topics changed significantly through time), as well as in its basic methodologies and approaches. However, the growing proportion of problem-solving studies (from 9% in the 1980s to 20% in the 2000 s) may represent a major transition in ecological science in the long run.
Ecology as a field produces philosophical anxiety, largely because it differs in scientific structure from classical physics. The hypothetical deductive models of classical physics are simple and predictive; general ecological models are predictably limited, as they refer to complex, multi-causal processes. Inattention to the conceptual structure of ecology usually imposes difficulties for the application of ecological models. Imprecise descriptions of ecological niche have obstructed the development of collective definitions, causing confusion in the literature and complicating communication between theoretical ecologists, conservationists and decision and policy-makers. Intense, unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is typical of the Anthropocene, and knowledge of ecology may provide solutions to lessen the intensification of species losses. Concerned philosophers and ecologists have characterised ecological niche theory as less useful in practice; however, some theorists maintain that is has relevant applications for conservation. Species niche modelling, for instance, has gained traction in the literature; however, there are few examples of its successful application. Philosophical analysis of the structure, precision and constraints upon the definition of a ‘niche’ may minimise the anxiety surrounding ecology, potentially facilitating communication between policy-makers and scientists within the various ecological subcultures. The results may enhance the success of conservation applications at both small and large scales.
EDITORIAL Open Access Ecology and eScience
2014
Comprehending the gifts of ecology Stress ecology, climate change, human well-being, and global sustainability are popular items (Naeem et al. 2009). Given all the challenges in a developing world where the global population is supposed to reach 9.15 billion in 2050 (Pimentel et al. 1999; United Nations Population Division 2010), policy makers are, for the first time, keen on concrete assessments of our world, looking with interest and fear to ecological models. Although the discussion between scientists and politicians is known to be difficult, too many recent catastrophes during a single year- from the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (De Gouw et al. 2011) up to the ongoing radioac-tive Fukushima wreckage (Schiermeier 2011)- rapidly forced a better and constructive interaction between
Contemporary Visions of Progress in Ecology and Thoughts for the Future
Ecology and Society, 2004
Although ecological research is progressing rapidly, the answers to certain key questions continue to elude us. This paper considers several of the contemporary challenges facing ecology. (1) Terminology is voluminous and often poorly defined, resulting in inefficient communication. (2) The concept of scale affects our inferences about system structure and function, requiring us to continue an almost heuristic investigation of breaks, domains, and integration. New tools that more explicitly incorporate scalar issues will need to be developed for progress to take place in the field of ecology. (3) Increasingly, it is expected that applied questions will be solved in less than a year. This demand for solutions from ecologists often produces short-term and inadequate responses. (4) How can ecologists improve communication between subdisciplines, with undergraduate students, and with the public? How will ecology be done in the future, and by whom? We provide some background to these observations and questions, and offer some potential solutions from the viewpoint of young practicing ecologists.
Oikos
When we sent Alan Berryman a first draft of this essay for review, he sent us back an unpublished manuscript that discussed similar questions and possible solutions (Berryman 1999, 2002). Consequently, we decided to submit these two essays together in the hope of stimu-lating ecologists to think about how they define and use the population concept. The population concept is cen-tral to ecology and evolution. The definition of a population represents a fundamental problem for un-derstanding ecological dynamics, and it has wide impli-cations for applied issues such as management and conservation. Further, the population concept merges evolution and ecology, because interactions between conspecific individuals, as well as between species (ene-mies, mutualists, etc.) and the environment are reflected in survival and reproduction rates. These rates deter-mine population dynamics and thus represent the basic elements of natural selection and microevolutionary forces (Futuyma 1986). Theref...
Ecology and evolution, 2015
Aims and Scope Ecology and Evolution is the peer-reviewed journal for rapid dissemination of research in all areas of ecology, evolution and conservation science. The journal gives priority to quality research reports, theoretical or empirical, that develop our understanding of organisms and their diversity, interactions between them, and the natural environment. Ecology and Evolution gives prompt and equal consideration to papers reporting theoretical, experimental, applied and descriptive work in terrestrial and aquatic environments. The journal will consider submissions across taxa in areas including but not limited to micro and macro ecological and evolutionary processes, characteristics of and interactions between individuals, populations, communities and the environment, physiological responses to environmental change, population genetics and phylogenetics, relatedness and kin selection, life histories, systematics and taxonomy, conservation genetics, extinction, speciation, adaption, behaviour, biodiversity, species abundance, macroecology, population and ecosystem dynamics, and conservation policy. Ecology and Evolution features original research articles, reviews, editorials, and hypotheses. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper. Ecology and Evolution publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from a select group of prestigious journals published by Wiley-Blackwell. Ecology and Evolution is a Wiley Open Access journal, one of a new series of peer-reviewed titles publishing quality research with speed and effi ciency. For further information visit the Wiley Open
No going back for species and ecosystems
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2010
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.