Controversies in ecology: competition, from certainty to the question

Authors

  • Martín A. Nuñez The University of Tennessee, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Knoxville, USA
  • Paula G. Nuñez CONICET - Fundación Bariloche, Programa de Filosofía, San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina

Keywords:

assembly rules, communities, epistemology, controversial spaces, null models, rule of 1.3

Abstract

In the present work we consider the dynamic of change in the science of ecology. To this end, we will keep in mind that ecology, as a scientific discipline, has scarcely been studied relative to other fields of science, and because of this, the main epistemological studies do not consider the peculiarities of ecology. The changes in ecology do not correspond clearly to a cumulative trajectory of scientific progress (such as the one proposed by classical philosophers of science), or to a model of successive ruptures (as in Kuhn’s interpretation of scientific change). In comparison to these alternatives, the trajectory of change in ecology is more complex. This complexity is heralded in the analysis of the permanent controversies in ecology, one of the main sources of self-criticism in the discipline that is seen as a problem to solve rather than a way of progress. In some cases, controversies are seen as evidence of the immaturity and/or weakness of this scientific discipline. In this study, we analyzed the changes in ecology using the concepts in the model of controversial spaces, developed by Nudler. In this model, even when controversies do not reach a final solution, as many in ecology, they can be progressive from an epistemic perspective, which means that progress can be produced through controversies that do not reach a synthesis. We applied this model to one of the most passionate controversies of recent years in ecology: interspecific competition as an explanatory factor for the structure of communities. Since the origin of ecology, competition has been one of the best recorded interactions, producing a large body of empirical data and theories, some of them foundational to the discipline. This controversy was originated by the use of mathematical and statistical tools as null models in the analysis of the effects of competition on natural communities, such as in the G. E. Hutchinson rule of 1.3 and in the J. M. Diamond community assembly rules, where competition was assumed without rigorous tests. We review the terms of controversy and explored the ways in which this area of knowledge has been moved to a clearer thematic and interpretive enrichment. Even so, this controversy continues to wound sensitivities and to produce resentment. We consider that this progress through controversies could be an important mechanism that ecology could have to march forward, and for this reason, perhaps something to seek rather than to avoid.

References

BERTNESS, MD & R CALLAWAY. 1994. Positive interactions in communities. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 9:191-193.

BROCK, W. 1998. Historia de la Química. Alianza. España.

CONNELL, JH. 1961. The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology 42:710-23.

CONNOR, EF & D SIMBERLOFF. 1979. The assembly of species communities: chance or competition?. Ecology 60(6):1132-1140.

DIAMOND, JM. 1975. Assembly of species communities. Pp. 342-444 In: ML Cody & JM Diamond (eds): Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press. EEUU.

GAUSE, GF. 1937. Experimental populations of microscopic organisms. Ecology 18:173-79.

GOTELLI, NJ & G GRAVES. 1996. Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press. USA.

GOTELLI, NJ. 2002. Research frontiers in null model analysis. Global Ecology & Biogeography 10:337-341.

GRAHAM, MH & PK DAYTON. 2002. On the evolution of ecological ideas: paradigms and scientific progress. Ecology 83:1481–1489.

GRANT, PR & I ABBOT. 1982. Interespecific competition, island biogeography and null hypotheses. Evolution 34:332–341.

HACKER, SD & SD GAINES. 1997. Some implications of direct positive interactions for community species diversity. Ecology 78:1990–2003.

HAGEN, JB.1989. Research Perspectives and the Anomalus Status of Modern Ecology. Biology and Philosophy 4:433-455.

HAILA, Y & P TAYLOR. 2001. The Philosophical Dullness of Classical Ecology, and a Levinsian Alternative. Biology and Philosophy 16:93-102.

HOLLING, LS. 1959. The Components of Predation as Revealed by a Study of Small Mammal Predation of the European Pine Sawfly. The Canadian Entomologist 91:293-320.

HUTCHINSON, GE. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalía; or, Why Are There So Many Kinds of Animals? The American Naturalist 93:145-159.

HUTCHINSON, GE. 1957. Concluding Remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol 22:415–427.

JAKSIC, F. 2001. Ecología de comunidades. Universidad Católica de Chile. Santiago de Chile.

KINGSLAND, SE. 1991. Defining Ecology as a Science. Pp.1-13 In: L Real & J Brown (eds). Foundations of Ecology – Classic Papers with Commentaries. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

KUHN, T. 1999, La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México.

LAWTON, J. 1999. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177-192.

LEVINS, R & R LEWONTIN. 1982. Dialectics and reductionism in ecology. Pp. 145-149 In: Saarinen, E (ed.) Conceptual issues in ecology. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland LEWIN, R. 1983. Santa Rosalia was a goat. Science 221:636-639.

MACARTHUR, RH. 1958. Population Ecology of some Warblers of Northeastern Coniferous Forests. Ecology 39:599-619. MAHNER, M & M BUNGE. 1997. Foundations of Biophilosophy. Springer. Nueva York.

MCNAUGHTON, SJ & LL WOLF. 1984. Ecología General. Ed. Omega. Barcelona.

NUDLER, O. 1999. Filosofía de la ciencia: ¿empresa descriptiva o prescriptiva?. En E Sota & L Urtubey (ed.). Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia. Paidos. Buenos Aires.

NUDLER, O. 2002. Campos controversiales: hacia un modelo de su estructura y dinámica. Revista Patagónica de Filosofía 3(1):9-22.

NUDLER, O. 2004. Hacia un modelo de cambio conceptual: espacios controversiales y refocalización. Revista de Filosofía Universidad Complutense de Madrid 29:7-19.

PAINE, RT. 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. The American Naturalist 100:65-75.

PETERS, RH. 1991. A critic for ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

RICHARDSON, DM; N ALLSOPP; CM D’ANTONIO; SJ MILTON & M REJMANEK. 2000. Plant invasions – The role of mutualisms. Biol. Rev. 75(1): 65-93.

SIMBERLOFF, D & B VON HOLLE. 1999. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biological Invasions 1(1):21-32.

SIMBERLOFF, D & W BOECKLEN. 1981. Santa Rosalía reconsidered: size, ratios and competition. Evolution 35(6):1206 – 1228.

SLOEP, P. 1993. Methodology Revitalized? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44(2):231–249. STRONG, DR. 1980. Null hypothesis in ecology. Synthese 43:271-285.

VÁZQUEZ, DF & MD COLLINS. 1999. Entrevista con Daniel Simberloff. Boletín de la Asoc. Argentina de Ecología 8(2):34-38.

Downloads

Published

2005-12-01

How to Cite

Nuñez, M. A., & Nuñez, P. G. (2005). Controversies in ecology: competition, from certainty to the question. Ecología Austral, 15(2), 229–238. Retrieved from https://ojs.ecologiaaustral.com.ar/index.php/Ecologia_Austral/article/view/1469

Issue

Vol. 15 No. 2 (2005)

Section

Forum

License

Authors retain their rights as follows: 1) by granting the journal the right to its first publication, and 2) by registering the published article with a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which allows authors and third parties to view and use it as long as they clearly mention its origin (citation or reference, including authorship and first publication in this journal). Authors can make other non-exclusive distribution agreements as long as they clearly indicate their origin and are encouraged to widely share and disseminate the published version of their work.