Paradigm lost: reconsidering functional form and group hypotheses in marine ecology

Although functional form and functional group models for marine algae have been used extensively, there is little general literature support for these models, and many studies have shown that associated hypotheses are often incorrect. In functional form/group models, a wide range of ecological and physiological functions are assumed to be correlated with general algal form or morphology. In contrast, functional group approaches have been used most successfully in terrestrial and aquatic systems when groupings are based on a particular function rather than overall plant morphology, and when addressing ecosystem-level questions. In this type of functional group approach, a given set of species would likely be grouped differently depending on the function under consideration. Functional groupings are appropriate for many situations and questions, but not all. Certainly, grouping taxa by a particular function can be very useful and often necessary for many ecosystem-level questions and modeling, especially where qualitative results are more important than quantitative predictions, and when there are too many species in a system to consider them all individually. However, when one considers species–species interactions or questions about population biology, the specific responses of individual species must be considered. To make functional group models more useful, we recommend that groupings be based on specific functions (e.g. nutrient uptake rates, photosynthesis rates, herbivore resistance, disturbance resistance, etc.) rather than gross morphology. Explicit testing of performance of a particular function should be made before generalizations can be assumed, and groupings should be used for questions/approaches where they are most appropriate. If models fail when tested, they should be modified using the additional information to generate new hypotheses and models, and then retested.