I am pleased to see this discussion continuing and expanding. Ecological terminology can be no more definite than ecological conceptions; both have been challenged many times during our history, and none of those challenges have ever been wholly resolved. The fact that even our most basic "objects" remain debatable should be taken as a major challenge to ecology, perhaps especially now on the run up to the BES (2013) and ESA (2014) centennials.
The most famous, perhaps, is A.G. Tansley's "The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms (Ecology 16:284-307, 1935). If you've never heard of him, or of it, or have heard of them but never actually read the paper, this might be a good time. It is available for download via the journal website, but a quick search revealed alternative sources as well. Like most of its kind, Tansley's paper did a better job of identifying problems than solving them; but that's part of the point. They weren't easily solved. They still aren't. I will identify some other essential readings in this regard here in coming weeks, and (of course) I encourage others to do the same. Meanwhile, "The rise and fall of biotic nativeness: A historical perspective" has now been viewed nearly 600 times via my academia.edu page alone ( http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective). If you want to understand why anyone would worry about the meaning and applicability of nativeness in ecology and conservation, we wrote this to give you a place to start. It was a five-year project, with many drafts and many pauses to review cases, gather comments, and reflect on the difficulties involved. 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 [email protected] or [email protected] http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
