Ms. Dussalult, I accept completely that when beneficial consequences of the two ecosystem functions of energy flow and biogeochemical cycling are impaired, then intervention is appropriate. It is just that intervention itself often has the unexpected and undesired consequence of altering the situation unfavorably rather than favorably both from an ecosystem function point of view, and from our point of view. Thus, intervention must be done with great caution.
I also recognize, though it may seem to some otherwise, that the details of the energy flow and biogeochemical cycling matter a great deal. Despite some apparent perceptions to the contrary, btw, so did both Odums, who were never the "systems ideologues" that they have been painted. The compartmental composition (what species, what population size, what geographic extant and so on) matter immensely, and must be detailed for us to understand anything about functions and their interactions with each other in any given ecosystem. And finally, of course I recognize that when we partition the biosphere and the abiotic realm into ecosystems, we are arbitrarily delimiting for our sake, not recognizing real divisions of nature. It is very important to keep that in mind. Had folks done so, we might still have native chestnut trees in N. America, and the Niger Delta might still be a supportive system, both functioning and producing what we perceive as beneficial consequences of its functions. Just some ramblings by an old guy in response to a query. david mcneely ---- "Antoine C.-Dussault" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dr. McNeely (and others), > > There were many posts on the notion of ecosystem function, I'd like to raise > the question of ecosystem dysfunction or malfunction. Can such notions make > any sense in you view? Dr. McNeely made the analogy with the secretion of > insulin by the pancreas stabilyzing blood sugar levels. It seems to me that > in the case where the pancreas stops doing that efficiently, one will say > that the pancreas is dysfunctional and that something should be done to cure > it or at least to reestablish the normal (healthy) blood sugar level. My > question would be, can a similar reasoning be made with respect to > ecosystems, so that when a part stops performing its function efficiently, > one should say that it is dysfunctional? > > Best, > > Antoine > > > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:30:44 -0500 > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Function Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing > > functional diversity > > To: [email protected] > > > > Wayne, I thought we went through that, a bit back. Ecosystem function is > > what ecosystems do. They process energy and chemicals. As someone else > > pointed out, in both cases those functions are mediated through organisms > > and other compartments. > > > > Evidently some think that the consequences (such as perceived benefits to > > people, or sequestering of materials in particular compartments) of the > > functions are the functions. I do not. I think that the consequences are > > exactly that -- consequences, much in the way that the stabilizing of blood > > sugar levels is a consequence of the function of the pancreas in secreting > > insulin. > > > > But what do I know, I am old. > > > > mcneely > > > > ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ecolog: > > > > > > I still want to know what "ecosystem function" is. Just a simple > > > definition, > > > no more, no less. > > > > > > WT > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Matt Chew" <[email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:54 PM > > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity > > > > > > > > > This has been an interesting conversation. Ecological functions entail > > > putative benefits to some population or individual. It doesn't have to be > > > a human population, so it doesn't have to be anthropocentric, but that is > > > the second most common centrism. Biocentrism and ecocentrism are > > > generally > > > proxies for the most common one: idiocentrism. Biocentrism and > > > ecocentrism > > > involve benefits to things that benefit the author of the argument. If > > > this seems dubious, how many times have you seen discussions of > > > "functions" > > > without benefits, such as "the function of mass extinction" or "the > > > function of acid precipitation"? That suggests ecosystem function and > > > ecosystem service are fundamentally identical concepts. Processes are > > > more > > > benefits-equivocal than functions. A designed system (e.g., a farm) > > > includes processes more and less beneficial from various points of > > > reference, but has a designed function benefiting the farmer. An > > > accumulated system (e.g., an ecosystem) likewise includes processes but > > > lacks a designer or a function—if your metaphysics will allow. > > > > > > 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] > > > https://cbs.asu.edu/people/chew-0<http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php> > > > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > No virus found in this message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5307 - Release Date: 10/03/12 > > > > -- > > David McNeely > -- David McNeely
