Ecolog: I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the definition of agroecosystem:
"Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems." I agree with the respondent that "the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems." Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just a part of the ecosystem in which it stands. On the one hand, there seem to be two opposite impulses at work within the field, one trying to minimize the adverse effects of agriculture upon ecosystems and recognize the positive effects of ecosystem preservation, conservation, and restoration upon their integration with agricultural practice, and on the other the various hyphenated "dash" ecosystem terms seem to be, intentionally or unintentionally, a front for business as usual and a cover for continued expediency as the primary driver of ecosystem destruction and degradation. Am I missing something here, or should ESA perhaps take a scientific position on this issue? If so, "ecologgers" might be a good place to begin drafting a more unified, or at least less vague definition? Even if they just buy into one or more of the existing ones? Or throw them all out? I should imagine that the ecological economists would be "all over" this. Are they? WT
