1. Liane: the definition of ecology is quite more complicated than what you teach your students since all of the fundamental (1st principle) terms in ecology are derived from physics (see work of Declan Bates [direct applications to biology], David Roylance & works in physics on theory of robustness, theory of plasticity). I am reviewing this body of work at present for a monograph. 2. Chris: the concept of "fitness optima" is pervasive in (theoretical/mathematical) evolutionary biology/behavioral ecology (derived from physics). Unless I am mistaken, I was the first to use the concept specifically to discuss "relationships" (in a review of a book by Aureli & De Waal for Primate Info Net several years ago). The idea is easily derived from theoretical work by Geoffrey Parker & others*, though it took me awhile to get from the math on fitness per se to its application to the narrow and messy ideas...relationships/associations/interactions in sociobiology/behavioral ecology since these concepts are ubiquitously thought of a dyadic phenomena in "social" biology (plants or animals, including humans). I see that you are a graduate student. You should be very tentative, at best, about making claims of independent derivation, Wallace&Darwin being the classic case (a very long case, indeed).
*see the fundamental/theoretical/quantitative/mathematical/modeling domains discussing "fitness budgets"/"resource holding power"/other areas of optimality applied to behavior/sociality and the like; a good place to begin would be the literature on "optimal foraging"--see Les Real's classic book on this topic On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Christopher M Moore <cmmo...@unr.edu>wrote: > Hi Clara, > > The moment I read your first paragraph I independently derived the > toughest that you later articulated (i.e., fitness optima implications and > evolutionary ecology). Are these strict terms that have previously been > delineated? > > Just curious. > > Thanks, > > Chris > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Clara B. Jones wrote: > > "Interaction" and "relationship" are two of my favorite terms to think > about (in relation to plants or animals, including humans). > > I use "interaction" when I do not intend to imply anything about > *differential > (condition-dependent, state-dependent) fitness optima* (for organisms or > populations). I use "relationship" when i do want to imply differential, > condition-dependent fitness optima. > > Thus, one might use relationship when speaking of predator-prey or other > co-evolved associations (parasite-host. Interaction might be applied to any > chance or "random" or ephemeral event (aggregations, events resulting from > deforestation, tornados, wind-pollination) or events within/between species > that are byproducts of relationships or other interactions. > > One might say that all relationships are interactions but all interactions > are not relationships. > > Any spatiotemporal event, of course, has some probability of survival cost > or reproductive benefit for an individual (as per McCleery in Krebs & > Davies 1978). > > Using the descriptor "differential fitness optima" is advantageous because > it can be expressed theoretically/quantitatively/mathematically, at least > in principle. > > I try to avoid using "relationship" because, in my specialization, social > evolution, a number of researchers think of the term > anthropomorphically/intentionally. > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net<mailto: > landr...@cox.net>> wrote: > > Ecolog and Liane: > > Liane's definition is good enough for me, but I do confess, with respect > to similar definitions, that I prefer "interactions" to "relationships" > even while not selling relationships short. That is, I like both terms, > even as I am at pains to define them. I have no real quarrel with any of > the variations on this theme, even as I remain open to some new one(s). I, > for one, as a result of observing and yearning to understand rather than to > merely "know," continually struggle with feeble attempts to decipher what > happens and to reconcile it with what is writ. So much of Nature seems > beyond language, especially one stuck with particular/limited definitions. > It's all too much, really, and that's exactly what draws me in. > > The reason I like "interactions" is that it seems to connote to me, > however imperfectly, both "positive" and "negative" "impacts." (I should > add that I even have some trouble with the positive/negative dichotomy > too.) Peace, "relationships" can also so connote. Both can embrace ups and > downs. > > Ecologists do speak of "perturbations." (I would say "hysteresis," but I > don't want to induce any hysteria.) "Environmentalism," however the media > might stray from the ecological straight and narrow, is the result of > visible or felt feedback loops initiated by system perturbations, > radically-fluctuating boom and bust deviations from established modulations > that characterize resilience and adaptation to the slings and arrows of > outrageous cultural indifference to its own support system. > > I simply do not know which is on the real fool's errand, the ever-confused > observer or the ever-obsessed calculator. I suspect that they really do > need each other. Dare no "true" scientist spare space for literature? Need > the fact that fools have trod in the tracks where wise men have worn ruts > deter us from assessing each bit of writ on its merit or deficit? > > WT > > "In the heart of the city I have heard the wild geese crying on the > pathways that lie over a vanished forest. Nature has not changed the force > that drives them. Man, too, is a different expression of that natural > force. He has fought his way from the sea's depth to Palomar Mountain. He > has mastered the plague. Now, in some final Armageddon, he confronts > himself." --Loren Eiseley, "The Invisible Pyramid." > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cochran-Stafira, D. Liane" < > coch...@sxu.edu<mailto:coch...@sxu.edu>> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:39 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? > > > I'll answer the question in one short easy to understand definition. > > To quote ESA: Annual Meeting, August 2000 > > Ecology is: "The scientific discipline that is concerned with the > relationships between organisms and their past, present and future > environments, both living and non-living." > > This is the definition I teach in my classes. Ecology is to > environmentalism or environmental science as Physics is to engineering. > One is the science, the other is an application that makes use of the > "theory" established by the science. > > Liane > > ****************************************** > D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Department of Biological Sciences > Saint Xavier University > 3700 West 103rd Street > Chicago, Illinois 60655 > > phone: 773-298-3514 > fax: 773-298-3536 > email: coch...@sxu.edu<mailto:coch...@sxu.edu> > http://faculty.sxu.edu/~**cochran/ <http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/> > > <http://faculty.sxu.edu/~**cochran/ <http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/>> > > ______________________________**__ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Matt > Chew > Sent: Mon 11/14/2011 4:41 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? > > > > As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from > fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K > reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or > combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible > rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question > carefully. > > Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines > use the concept of "boundary work" to describe the process of deciding what > ideas (and those who adhere to them) are "inside" (therefore also > "outside') of the group. > > So, what's "in" and what's "out" of ecology? Academic ecologists and > biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond > that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at > quite clip for the last 40 years or so. > > As an "-ology", is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly > speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. > > Is "ecology" a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of > a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of > a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a > landscape (etc.). > > Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a > religious belief? > > Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic > gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or > TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An > Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other > accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? > > Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do "ecology" be > considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does > ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who > seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves > an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves > ecologists? > > Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely > that you're using the right words? > > If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? > > The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" and of > ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. > > I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just > respond to the list. > > Matthew K Chew > Assistant Research Professor > Arizona State University School of Life Sciences > > ASU Center for Biology & Society > PO Box 873301 > Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA > Tel 480.965.8422 > Fax 480.965.8330 > mc...@asu.edu<mailto:mc...@asu.edu> or anek...@gmail.com<mailto: > anek...@gmail.com> > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/**profiles/chew.php< > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php> > http://asu.academia.edu/**MattChew <http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4018 - Release Date: 11/15/11 > > > > > -- > Clara B. Jones > [Still playing the game with entropy...] > Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 > Cell Phone: 828-279-4429 > > Christopher Moore, Ph.D. student > Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology > Department of Biology > University of Nevada, Reno > > Office: Fleishman Agriculture Building 142 > Webpage: http://www.unr.edu/~cmmoore > Email: cmmo...@unr.edu<mailto:cmmo...@unr.edu> > Office phone: 775.784.1270 > > -- Clara B. Jones [Still playing the game with entropy...] Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 Cell Phone: 828-279-4429
