Clara, Clara, Chris and Wayne: This is a definition that first time ecology students and the general public can grasp and interpret as we go through the various types of interactions. I hardly think it is necessary to teach them theoretical physics or scientific philosophy before they can take a course in ecology. In this definition of ecology, relationship refers to any interaction between the organism and its living and non-living environment. It does not only apply to relationships between individuals. I think you, Chris and Wayne are looking at this far too deeply. This is why we have so much difficulty talking to the public, when we can't even agree on the simplest things amongst ourselves. I think we've beaten the dead horse into its composite atoms. TIme to move on. Clara, are you suggesting that Darwin used the ideas of Wallace to finalize his theory of evolution by natural selection? I would like to see the definitive evidence that Darwin plagiarized Wallace. It is possible, but is it just conjecture and a long list of "maybe's," or its there proof? Lastly ,fitness peaks, if not the specific term optima, are discussed in Sewell Wright's writings on the shifting balance theory. Clara, you don't give a date for your own usage, but if you were the first, you are certainly not begin given the credit. Can you enlighten me? Cheers, 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: [email protected] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ <http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/> ________________________________ From: Clara B. Jones [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wed 11/16/2011 11:39 AM To: Christopher M Moore Cc: [email protected]; Cochran-Stafira, D. Liane Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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" < [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
