Ecology after 100 years: Progress and pseudo-progress

Has the science of ecology fulfilled the promises made by the originators of ecological science at the start of the last century? What should ecology achieve? Have good policies for environmental management flowed out of ecological science? These important questions are rarely discussed by ecologists working on detailed studies of individual systems. Until we decide what we wish to achieve as ecologists we cannot define progress toward those goals. Ecologists desire to achieve an understanding of how the natural world operates, how humans have modified the natural world, and how to alleviate problems arising from human actions. Ecologists have made impressive gains over the past century in achieving these goals, but this progress has been uneven. Some sub-disciplines of ecology are well developed empirically and theoretically, while others languish for reasons that are not always clear. Fundamental problems can be lost to view as ecologists fiddle with unimportant pseudo-problems. Bandwagons develop and disappear with limited success in addressing problems. The public demands progress from all the sciences, and as time moves along and problems get worse, more rapid progress is demanded. The result for ecology has too often been poor, short-term science and poor management decisions. But since the science is rarely repeated and the management results may be a generation or two down the line, it is difficult for the public or for scientists to decide how good or bad the scientific advice has been. In ecology over the past 100 years we have made solid achievements in behavioural ecology, population dynamics, and ecological methods, we have made some progress in understanding community and ecosystem dynamics, but we have made less useful progress in developing theoretical ecology, landscape ecology, and natural resource management. The key to increasing progress is to adopt a systems approach with explicit hypotheses, theoretical models, and field experiments on a scale defined by the problem. With continuous feedback between problems, possible solutions, relevant theory and experimental data we can achieve our scientific goals.     

The policy chicken and the science egg. Has applied ecology failed the transgenic crops debate?

Ecology has a long history of research relevant to and impacting on real-world issues. Nonetheless problems of communication remain between policy-makers and scientists because they tend to work at different levels of generality (policy deals with broad issues, science prefers specific questions), and complexity (policy-makers want simple answers, ecologists tend to offer multi-factorial solutions) and to different timescales (policy-makers want answers tomorrow, ecologists always seem to want more time). These differences are not unique to the debate about the cultivation of transgenic crops. Research on gene flow is used to illustrate how science and policy are intimately bound together in a value-laden, iterative and messy process unlike that characterised by the ‘encounter problem—do science—make policy’ model. It also demonstrates how the gap between science and policy is often characterised by value-laden language. Scientists involved in ERA for transgenic crops may find their engagement with policy- and decision-makers clouded by misunderstanding about what one should expect from the other. Not the least of these, that science can define harm, is explored in a discussion of the UK Farm Scale Evaluations of herbicide-tolerant GM crops. The varied responses to these extensive trials highlight the problems of linking specific scientific experiments with broad policy objectives. The problems of applied ecology in the transgenic crops debate are not unique but may differ from other areas of environmental policy in the intense politicisation of the debate, the emphasis on assessment of risk and the particularly broad policy objectives.     

Marine metapopulations: a useful concept?

We discuss the potential and limitations of the metapopulation concept in marine ecology. The usefulness of the concept in terrestrial ecology is neither based on its simplicity or generality nor on overwhelming empirical evidence. The usefulness is in the questions which are asked when the metapopulation concept is applied. These questions address spatial phenomena and processes on different spatial scales. They help in acknowledging that every population, be it terrestrial or marine, has a spatial organization. Understanding this spatial organization is also important for tackling specific applied problems, i.e. to avoid overexploitation of living marine resources or for configuring marine reserves. The 'openness' of coastal populations, whose larvae enter larval pools or which are holoplanktonic, is no reason for not asking the questions implied by the metapopulation concept. For marine ecology, the real problem is to delineate populations, which then may possibly correspond to the 'local populations' of metapopulations. Thus, the answer to the question in the title of this paper, whether 'marine metapopulation' is a useful concept, is 'yes', if the concept is considered a working hypotheses, if the concept is explicitly defined, and if the questions linked to the concept are clearly stated. Even if it eventually transpires that only very few marine metapopulations actually exist, marine ecology would still have gained some important new insights. Electronic Publication     

Human welfare and its connection to nature: What have we learned from crop pollination studies?

Human welfare depends on the function of natural systems. This idea is paradigmatic to ecologists and has been the theme of a growing branch of applied ecology. I examine the narrative of human dependence on nature by considering the literature on crop pollination by animals and its importance for food production. Making the connections between human welfare and natural systems is seen as a way to better motivate society to make better decisions, but the debate around crop pollination has been surprisingly contentious. There have been confusing messages, disagreements on the facts, an unfortunate focus on dire projections for the future and a lesser focus on solutions. Most of these problems arise not from poor science but instead from poor communication of complex ideas and differences in perspective, such as the deep disciplinary gap between agricultural scientists and ecologists. By understanding these problems, we can improve the way we do our science and communicate our ideas. I argue that ecologists should continue to communicate the principle that human welfare depends on the function of natural systems and discuss how we can do so in a way that is more genuinely connected to society's needs, such as growing food. If we succeed, we will be changing an intellectually interesting conversation into a dialogue that influences how society interacts with nature.     

A triage framework for managing novel,hybrid, and designed marine ecosystems

The novel ecosystem (NE) concept has been discussed in terrestrial restoration ecology over the last 15 years but has not yet found much traction in the marine context. Against a background of unprecedented environmental change, managers of natural marine resources have portfolios full of altered systems for which restoration to a previous historical baseline may be impractical for ecological, social, or financial reasons. In these cases, the NE concept is useful for weighing options and emphasizes the risk of doing nothing by forcing questions regarding the value of novelty and how it can best be managed in the marine realm. Here, we explore how the concept fits marine ecosystems. We propose a scheme regarding how the NE concept could be used as a triage framework for use in marine environments within the context of a decision framework that explicitly considers changed ecosystems and whether restoration is the best or only option. We propose a conceptual diagram to show where marine NEs fit in the continuum of unaltered to shifted marine ecosystems. Overall, we suggest that the NE concept is of interest to marine ecologists and resource managers because it introduces a new vocabulary for considering marine systems that have been changed through human actions but have not shifted to an alternate stable state. Although it remains to be seen whether the concept of marine NEs leads to better conservation and restoration decisions, we posit that the concept may help inform management decisions in an era of unprecedented global marine change.     

Policy Language in Restoration Ecology

Relating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy‐relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision‐makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy‐specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with “climate change” or “global warming” in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision‐making processes.     

Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology

In the past decade, ecologists have witnessed vast improvements in our ability to collect animal movement data through animal-borne technology, such as through GPS or ARGOS systems. However, more data does not necessarily yield greater knowledge in understanding animal ecology and conservation. In this paper, we provide a review of the major benefits, problems and potential misuses of GPS/Argos technology to animal ecology and conservation. Benefits are obvious, and include the ability to collect fine-scale spatio-temporal location data on many previously impossible to study animals, such as ocean-going fish, migratory songbirds and long-distance migratory mammals. These benefits come with significant problems, however, imposed by frequent collar failures and high cost, which often results in weaker study design, reduced sample sizes and poorer statistical inference. In addition, we see the divorcing of biologists from a field-based understanding of animal ecology to be a growing problem. Despite these difficulties, GPS devices have provided significant benefits, particularly in the conservation and ecology of wide-ranging species. We conclude by offering suggestions for ecologists on which kinds of ecological questions would currently benefit the most from GPS/Argos technology, and where the technology has been potentially misused. Significant conceptual challenges remain, however, including the links between movement and behaviour, and movement and population dynamics.     

Consider a Spherical Lizard: Animals, Models, and Approximations

Ecologists and physiologists have used biophysical models toanswer questions and investigate hypotheses about animal biologyfor over 20 years, but many investigators do not use such techniquesbecause such modelling is perceived as an arcane art. Indeed,there is no magic strategy to allow all ecologists to modelany biophysical problem accurately by means of simple recipes.In practice, biophysical ecology depends heavily on mathematicaland engineering principles. But, it need not be impenetrable.Here we discuss relatively simple models that can be incorporatedinto many ecological studies. We also discuss some of the importantapproximations and assumptions inherent in our treatments ofradiative, convective, evaporative, and conductive heat transfer.In so doing, we hope to encourage the use of such models, andto engender an appreciation of when and under what conditionspredictions from such models are most likely to be misleading.Thus, we hope to help ecologists to get into and, hopefully,out of trouble in biophysical ecology.     

Terrestrial ecologists ignore aquatic literature: Asymmetry in citation breadth in ecological publications and implications for generality and progress in ecology

The search for generality in ecology should include assessing the influence of studies done in one system on those done in other systems. Assuming generality is reflected in citation patterns, we analyzed frequencies of terrestrial, marine, and freshwater citations in papers categorized as terrestrial, marine and freshwater in high-impact “general” ecological journals. Citation frequencies were strikingly asymmetric. Aquatic researchers cited terrestrial papers ~ 10 times more often than the reverse, implying uneven cross-fertilization of information between aquatic and terrestrial ecologists. Comparisons between citation frequencies in the early 1980s and the early 2000s for two of the seven journals yielded similar results. Summing across all journals, 60% of all research papers (n = 5824) published in these journals in 2002–2006 were terrestrial vs. 9% freshwater and 8% marine. Since total numbers of terrestrial and aquatic ecologists are more similar than these proportions suggest, the representation of publications by habitat in “general” ecological journals appears disproportional and unrepresentative of the ecological science community at large. Such asymmetries are a concern because (1) aquatic and terrestrial systems can be tightly integrated, (2) pressure for across-system understanding to meet the challenge of climate change is increasing, (3) citation asymmetry implies barriers to among-system flow of understanding, thus (4) impeding scientific and societal progress. Changing this imbalance likely depends on a bottom-up approach originating from the ecological community, through pressure on societies, journals, editors and reviewers.     

The priority of prediction in ecological understanding

The objective of science is to understand the natural world; we argue that prediction is the only way to demonstrate scientific understanding, implying that prediction should be a fundamental aspect of all scientific disciplines. Reproducibility is an essential requirement of good science and arises from the ability to develop models that make accurate predictions on new data. Ecology, however, with a few exceptions, has abandoned prediction as a central focus and faces its own crisis of reproducibility. Models are where ecological understanding is stored and they are the source of all predictions – no prediction is possible without a model of the world. Models can be improved in three ways: model variables, functional relationships among dependent and independent variables, and in parameter estimates. Ecologists rarely test to assess whether new models have made advances by identifying new and important variables, elucidating functional relationships, or improving parameter estimates. Without these tests it is difficult to know if we understand more today than we did yesterday. A new commitment to prediction in ecology would lead to, among other things, more mature (i.e. quantitative) hypotheses, prioritization of modeling techniques that are more appropriate for prediction (e.g. using continuous independent variables rather than categorical) and, ultimately, advancement towards a more general understanding of the natural world. Synthesis Ecology, with a few exceptions, has abandoned prediction and therefore the ability to demonstrate understanding. Here we address how this has inhibited progress in ecology and explore how a renewed focus on prediction would benefit ecologists. The lack of emphasis on prediction has resulted in a discipline that tests qualitative, imprecise hypotheses with little concern for whether the results are generalizable beyond where and when the data were collected. A renewed commitment to prediction would allow ecologists to address critical questions about the generalizability of our results and the progress we are making towards understanding the natural world.     

Integrating the statistical analysis of spatial data in ecology

In many areas of ecology there is an increasing emphasis on spatial relationships. Often ecologists are interested in new ways of analyzing data with the objective of quantifying spatial patterns, and in designing surveys and experiments in light of the recognition that there may be underlying spatial pattern in biotic responses. In doing so, ecologists have adopted a number of widely different techniques and approaches derived from different schools of thought, and from other scientific disciplines. While the adaptation of a diverse array of statistical approaches and methodologies for the analysis of spatial data has yielded considerable insight into various ecological problems, this diversity of approaches has sometimes impeded communication and retarded more rapid progress in this emergent area. Many of these different statistical methods provide similar information about spatial characteristics, but the differences among these methods make it difficult to compare the results of studies that employ contrasting approaches. The papers in this mini-series explore possible areas of agreement and synthesis between a diversity of approaches to spatial analysis in ecology.     

A tale of four stories: soil ecology, theory, evolution and the publication system

Background

Soil ecology has produced a huge corpus of results on relations between soil organisms, ecosystem processes controlled by these organisms and links between belowground and aboveground processes. However, some soil scientists think that soil ecology is short of modelling and evolutionary approaches and has developed too independently from general ecology. We have tested quantitatively these hypotheses through a bibliographic study (about 23000 articles) comparing soil ecology journals, generalist ecology journals, evolutionary ecology journals and theoretical ecology journals.

Findings

We have shown that soil ecology is not well represented in generalist ecology journals and that soil ecologists poorly use modelling and evolutionary approaches. Moreover, the articles published by a typical soil ecology journal (Soil Biology and Biochemistry) are cited by and cite low percentages of articles published in generalist ecology journals, evolutionary ecology journals and theoretical ecology journals.

Conclusion

This confirms our hypotheses and suggests that soil ecology would benefit from an effort towards modelling and evolutionary approaches. This effort should promote the building of a general conceptual framework for soil ecology and bridges between soil ecology and general ecology. We give some historical reasons for the parsimonious use of modelling and evolutionary approaches by soil ecologists. We finally suggest that a publication system that classifies journals according to their Impact Factors and their level of generality is probably inadequate to integrate “particularity” (empirical observations) and “generality” (general theories), which is the goal of all natural sciences. Such a system might also be particularly detrimental to the development of a science such as ecology that is intrinsically multidisciplinary.     

Speaking and listening to nature: ethics within ecology

One context for the papers arising from INTECOL VII in this special issue is the debate over the social construction of science. Some fear that advocates for the social or cultural construction of ecology will undermine attempts to defend nature. But resources are made available in a mediating position of social construal, particularly alerting ecologists to the social and ethical dimensions of the conducting of their work. When speaking, ecologists will use living and dead metaphors and these carry connotations which in turn raise ethical questions. Different political interest groups may use a word like biodiversity for different ethical purposes. The position of any one speaker is limited, and so greater knowledge is achieved if scientists listen to the situated knowledges of other, diverse people. Even Nature herself, or creatures, may have aspects of personhood. The good ecologist will listen with empathy as a naturalist to what is being said, giving Nature the respect she deserves. These are some of the ethical implications in the very doing of ecology.     

Can optimality models and an ‘optimality research program’ help us understand some plant–fungal relationships?

In this paper we suggest that the field of fungal ecology may benefit from the use of optimality models in the context of an ‘optimality research program’ (ORP). An ORP is a research program in the sense of modern philosopher of science Lakatos' [1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: philosophical papers, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge] seminal work. An optimality research program has a lengthy history and record of success in the field of behavioural ecology, but has been seldom employed in fungal ecology. We discuss the ORP and provide some examples of how optimality models may be useful in fungal ecology. We suggest that such an approach may benefit experimental fungal ecologists by: providing a framework for organizing knowledge; generating hypotheses; helping in the planning of experiments; aiding in the interpretation of results; and directing the next steps of an experimental research program. We illustrate these benefits by sketching out how an ORP might be used to answer some fundamental questions about the interactions between host plants and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.     

The anarchist's guide to ecological theory. Or, we don't need no stinkin' laws

Several ecologists have recently suggested that ecology has several laws. This conclusion contrasts with the views of some philosophers of science, who have suggested that biology cannot have laws. I argue that the debate has been confused because two very different types of law can be recognised: correlative and causal laws. Once we recognise that there is a difference, the argument against causal laws becomes stronger, and instead I suggest that ecologists should recognise that they can and do produce generalisations that are used to build models – nomological machines – that describe the ecological systems they are studying.     

The big ecological questions inhibiting effective environmental management in Australia

The need to improve environmental management in Australia is urgent because human health, well‐being and social stability all depend ultimately on maintenance of life‐supporting ecological processes. Ecological science can inform this effort, but when issues are socially and economically complex the inclination is to wait for science to provide answers before acting. Increasingly, managers and policy‐makers will be called on to use the present state of scientific knowledge to supply reasonable inferences for action based on imperfect knowledge. Hence, one challenge is to use existing ecological knowledge more effectively; a second is to tackle the critical unanswered ecological questions. This paper identifies areas of environmental management that are profoundly hindered by an inability of science to answer basic questions, in contrast to those areas where knowledge is not the major barrier to policy development and management. Of the 22 big questions identified herein, more than half are directly related to climate change. Several of the questions concern our limited understanding of the dynamics of marine systems. There is enough information already available to develop effective policy and management to address several significant ecological issues. We urge ecologists to make better use of existing knowledge in dialogue with policy‐makers and land managers. Because the challenges are enormous, ecologists will increasingly be engaging a wide range of other disciplines to help identify pathways towards a sustainable future.     

景观生态—一种综合整体思想的发展

本文对景观生态的提出、发展及目前几个主要学派的观点进行了仔细分析,认为景观生态兴起反映了人们的心理状态,同时正是由于其“双向”研究的观点,使其具备了综合学科的特征。然而目前景观生态首先是一种综合整体思想,如果作为一门学科,其研究范畴应在基本的生态系统到区域之间。     

Marine Biodiversity in Japanese Waters

To understand marine biodiversity in Japanese waters, we have compiled information on the marine biota in Japanese waters, including the number of described species (species richness), the history of marine biology research in Japan, the state of knowledge, the number of endemic species, the number of identified but undescribed species, the number of known introduced species, and the number of taxonomic experts and identification guides, with consideration of the general ocean environmental background, such as the physical and geological settings. A total of 33,629 species have been reported to occur in Japanese waters. The state of knowledge was extremely variable, with taxa containing many inconspicuous, smaller species tending to be less well known. The total number of identified but undescribed species was at least 121,913. The total number of described species combined with the number of identified but undescribed species reached 155,542. This is the best estimate of the total number of species in Japanese waters and indicates that more than 70% of Japan''s marine biodiversity remains un-described. The number of species reported as introduced into Japanese waters was 39. This is the first attempt to estimate species richness for all marine species in Japanese waters. Although its marine biota can be considered relatively well known, at least within the Asian-Pacific region, considering the vast number of different marine environments such as coral reefs, ocean trenches, ice-bound waters, methane seeps, and hydrothermal vents, much work remains to be done. We expect global change to have a tremendous impact on marine biodiversity and ecosystems. Japan is in a particularly suitable geographic situation and has a lot of facilities for conducting marine science research. Japan has an important responsibility to contribute to our understanding of life in the oceans.     

Mining lake time series using symbolic representation

Sensor networks deployed in lakes and reservoirs, when combined with simulation models and expert knowledge from the global community, are creating deeper understanding of the ecological dynamics of lakes. However, the amount of data and the complex patterns in the data demand substantial compute resources and efficient data mining algorithms, both of which are beyond the realm of traditional limnological research. This paper uniquely adapts methods from computer science for application to data intensive ecological questions, in order to provide ecologists with approachable methodology to facilitate knowledge discovery in lake ecology. We apply a state-of-the-art time series mining technique based on symbolic representation (SAX) to high-frequency time series of phycocyanin (PHYCO) and chlorophyll (CHLORO) fluorescence, both of which are indicators of algal biomass in lakes, as well as model predictions of algal biomass (MODEL). We use data mining techniques to demonstrate that MODEL predicts PHYCO better than it predicts CHLORO. All time series have high redundancy, resulting in a relatively small subset of unique patterns. However, MODEL is much less complex than either PHYCO or CHLORO and fails to reproduce high biomass periods indicative of algal blooms. We develop a set of tools in R to enable motif discovery and anomaly detection within a single lake time series, and relationship study among multiple lake time series through distance metrics, clustering and classification. Furthermore, to improve computation times, we provision web services to launch R tools remotely on high performance computing (HPC) resources. Comprehensive experimental results on observational and simulated lake data demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.