A plea for more ecology in phytoplankton ecology

When looking for a pattern of phytoplankton behaviour across trophic gradients, we need to cross the boundaries between different disciplinary areas, from autoecology to systems ecology, because eutrophication is a complex process which involves different time scales and different levels of community structure. Thus, we submit our observations to the muddled conceptual world of assemblage ecology. These inaccuracies arise, for example, from both species and community arguments; eutrophication as a fertilization or a metabolic phenomenon; and the notions frequently interwoven of pattern, process and rules. We suggest that it is advantageous to tackle this issue from the perspective of general ecology, rather than from a specifically planktonic orientation. In this way, useful general ecological tools, for example, time series and assembly-rule studies, can be used. Time-series study allows the dynamics of any variable to be described or to show that long term variable fluctuations may sometimes be unregulated, in response to some exogenous factor. Rules of assembly help us to resolve which traits are selectively involved during the eutrophication process. In this context, we advocate (1) the use of traits instead of morphospecies in phytoplankton studies, (2) looking for the dynamic patterns of phytoplankton with eutrophication, (3) the use of time series techniques to study phytoplankton trajectories, (4) the use of assembly rules to discern patterns in the formation of multispecies assemblages, (5) the consideration of the pelagic food-web in studies of phytoplankton dynamics and, as an overall suggestion, to borrow knowledge and inspiration from general ecology.     

Tectonic ecology

Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions affect ecosystems on a variety of scales. Trees are particularly susceptible to land movements associated with major fault activity and dendrological studies offer ways of dating past earthquakes, thereby assisting in the prediction of future events. Major eruptions and the largest earthquakes can cause damage that affects patterns of ecological diversity across wide areas, offering a possible measure of earthquake frequency from community composition.     

Some theoretical considerations: From landscape ecology to waterscape ecology

Being inspired in the process of teaching and studying on tourism geography and heritage landscapes, the author attempts to broaden the scope of traditional studies in landscape ecology. Upon reviewing the progress, limitations and boundaries of landscape ecology, he criticizes the negligence of waterscapes by academics. The author further examines some waterscape conservation policy programs practiced by different nations. These include 10 National Seashores, 4 National Lakeshores, 4 National Rivers, 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and 1 Marine National Monument in USA, 13 Marine National Parks, 11 Marine Sanctuaries and 4 multiple use Marine Reserves in the State of Victoria, Australia, 3 Marine Nature Reserves and 43 Heritage Coasts in UK, and 272 National Water Parks in China. Based on these explorations, the author proposes a few hypotheses on waterscape ecology. Finally, he concludes that as one among many sub-disciplines of applied ecology, waterscape ecology can only achieve its full-fledged growth through concerted efforts among academics, and the supports from both governments and non-government organizations. Meanwhile, the site-specific policy practices with the rapid increasing social needs will likely facilitate the development of this infant school. Hopefully, the birth and development of waterscape ecology will contribute to the prosperity of global academics and the maintenance of earth level environmental health.     

Some theoretical considerations: From landscape ecology to waterscape ecology

Being inspired in the process of teaching and studying on tourism geography and heritage landscapes, the author attempts to broaden the scope of traditional studies in landscape ecology. Upon reviewing the progress, limitations and boundaries of landscape ecology, he criticizes the negligence of waterscapes by academics. The author further examines some waterscape conservation policy programs practiced by different nations. These include 10 National Seashores, 4 National Lakeshores, 4 National Rivers, 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and 1 Marine National Monument in USA, 13 Marine National Parks, 11 Marine Sanctuaries and 4 multiple use Marine Reserves in the State of Victoria, Australia, 3 Marine Nature Reserves and 43 Heritage Coasts in UK, and 272 National Water Parks in China. Based on these explorations, the author proposes a few hypotheses on waterscape ecology. Finally, he concludes that as one among many sub-disciplines of applied ecology, waterscape ecology can only achieve its full-fledged growth through concerted efforts among academics, and the supports from both governments and non-government organizations. Meanwhile, the site-specific policy practices with the rapid increasing social needs will likely facilitate the development of this infant school. Hopefully, the birth and development of waterscape ecology will contribute to the prosperity of global academics and the maintenance of earth level environmental health.     

Landscape ecology as a bridge from ecosystems to human ecology

Landscape as a subject of (terrestrial) ecology can be interpreted: first, as a piece of land composed of different ecosystems; and second, as a holistic entity of aesthetic perception derived from landscape paintings and parks of the 18th and 19th century. Such entities display a characteristic arrangement of landscape elements regarded as a whole and taking them apart for specific investigation will break up and virtually destroy it (e.g. a symphony dissociated into single notes). Landscape as a holistic entity satisfies emotional human needs like identification with regions, and explains the attraction of tourists. Entity features are land-use and land cover combined with openness and a certain naturalness. A key question is whether you call a piece of the earths surface just land or landscape– and why. Such questions touch the interface between landscape ecology and human ecology. But human ecology must not dismiss landscape functions. The most beautiful landscape will be reduced to a mere picture if it does not also provide basic life-support. Therefore, energy and matter flows and transformations between the ecosystems of a landscape have to be determined along with its climate, geomorphology (relief), soils, hydrology, species and ecosystem diversity. These different approaches, however, may never be combined into a unified whole. There is no superscience, and incidentally, its complexity would by far exceed human brain capacity. What we can achieve is bridge-building by approximation of selected facts. A conscious spatial arrangement of diversified land-use units (ecotopes) will promote (bio)diversity and may be perceived as an integral landscape pattern. A spatially and temporally differentiated energy input into land-use units will result in a gradient of utilization intensity and allow more species to thrive, again enhancing both diversity and landscape beauty. Modern humans have deliberately chosen artificial surroundings to achieve complete environmental control, even in rural lifestyles. But as far as emotional needs are concerned, this artificiality seems to be neither human nor ecological. Something natural is lacking, and landscape in its holistic sense can provide it – be it a landscaped open space in a city, a rural scene, a seashore or a mountain range. Maintaining and managing such naturalness requires sound ecological knowledge – not as an aim in itself, but to provide a bridge for humans.