It seems to me that saying ecosystem "functions" are the flow of
matter and energy is a coded way of saying that these are the most
important things for characterizing ecosystems. As Neahga Leonard pointed
out, other systems do these things also, such as stars, volcanoes, oceans,
etc. Ecosystems are special because they process matter and energy THROUGH
ORGANISMS. Larry Slobodkin, who was on my thesis committee and S.U.N.Y. at
Stony Brook, used to refer to refer to this emphasis on matter and energy
flows, with little regard to actual organisms, as "odumology." He found it
puzzling that an ecologist wouldn't be particularly concerned with whether
it was algae or aspens doing the carbon fixation, as long as the carbon was
being fixed.
Nicolas and others in this thread have stated that the importance
of this "functional diversity" approach is that it is useful for
understanding human interactions with ecosystems. But how does it tell us
any more about our impact on the environment than measuring changes in
species abundance? After all, for the most part we interact with organism
(well, except for breathing), not directly with potassium or carbon. If we
learn that phosphorus in more mobile or more abundant in system A than in
system B, do we really care unless this difference is reflected in
organisms and populations?
My questions probably reflect my naivete, but if so, perhaps they
are especially worthy of being addressed.
Thank you.
Martin M. Meiss
2012/10/1 Nicolas PERU <[email protected]>
> Hi, Ted
>
> Your work is interesting and provide a kind of synthesis on
> functional
> aspects of ecosystems. I think that we can all agree on your vision of
> ecosystem for themselves and not for human interests. Nonetheless, you
> have created another classification as our human mind need it. But, what
> about things that would not fall into you categorization of Nature ? And
> for sure, one day, somebody will find something outside this
> classification. In this case, should we create another category ? I think
> that any strict categorization inevitably leads to a need of a
> multiplication fo categories. This is simply because Nature isn't cut into
> strict part. Our study of biodiversity should have teach this point to
> anybody. Even the very well known concept of species is not so clear. For
> example, some fish "species" can produce some fertile hybrids (e.g.
> roach-bream). Though, if these individuals from different species can
> produce fertile descendant they are from the same species, aren't they ?.
>
> So, I do not agree on the fact that we wouldn't need of fuzzy set
> mathematics. Clearly, they don't muddy our perception of functional
> diversity or even ecosystem functioning. We must understand that our mind
> is limited in its capacity to perceive complex mechanisms and particularly
> in very complex systems such as ecosystems. So, our challenge is to fit
> our limited perceptions to the complexity of systems. I think that fuzzy
> mathematics can help us to achieve this part of the problem. Fuzzy
> mathematics can furnish flexible classifications for example. Hence, we
> could better match our need to classify things and the continuity of
> Nature's processes. Once we will have some means to fit our perceptions
> and real mechanisms in action we will be able to design some practical
> measures to evaluate ecosystems functions and functioning more precisely.
> This could seem counterintuitive to have more precise things when we would
> use fuzzy methods but this is a reality (for example, many methods in
> medical imaging are using fuzzy mathematics and statistics to give very
> precise images of human body).
> Maybe, we could say that we don't need to measure things and
> ecosystems
> processes would be no exception. But, I think that quantification is a
> second need (after classification) for human being. And this not only
> encompass a philosophical thought but also a very practical one. Indeed,
> we can still go walking in a forest evaluating roughly what is happening
> and be satisfied with this point of view. But, our understanding of
> ecosystems functioning is not just a hobby. This have some important
> consequences on our possibilities to match human activities and Nature's
> preservation. Having good measures of ecosystem functioning would allow us
> to know what are the crucial leverages in ecosystems we can rely on to
> enhance ecosystems quality. This is particularly true in human-impacted
> systems.
>
>
> Nicolas
>
> Le Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:28:00 +0200, Ted Mosquin <[email protected]> a
> écrit:
>
>
> Hello all,
>>
>> Here is the way I understand the meaning of 'functional diversity'. No
>> endless statistics or fuzzy math required to muddy the explanation even
>> more. The essential question is: what do organisms (individually and
>> collectively) actually do within their ecosystems to enable the world to
>> have become the way it is? Let me count the ways.......(Table 3 in the URL
>> below). We humans find ourselves living in a great big never-ending self
>> organizing buzz out there no matter where one goes on this planet. The buzz
>> has been going on since the beginning of time. One has to try to bear in
>> mind that we are processes, that is we are verbs and not nouns (except in
>> micro-moments in time). This is an alternative to fuzzy math and stats --
>> just go out there, take a deep breath and be the participant that you are.
>>
>> http://www.ecospherics.net/**pages/MosqEcoFun5.html<http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/MosqEcoFun5.html>
>>
>> Ted Mosquin
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/2012 9:30 AM, Nicolas PERU wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also a proponent of the application of fuzzy thinking and fuzzy set
>>> mathematics to ecology. Clearly, binary thinking should be avoided in
>>> ecology because very little (none ?) ecosytems parts obey black/white rules
>>> like human beings like to apply on anything. Classifications are a
>>> necessity for human being but not for natural elements. I think that if we
>>> really want to evaluate ecosystem functioning we must recognize and take
>>> into account in our mathematical measures the fuzziness of Nature. Binary
>>> categorization (like some biological traits) should be applied at the end
>>> of our calculus processes.
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>>
>>> Le Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:55:58 +0200, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> a
>>> écrit:
>>>
>>> I tend to be even fuzzier-- Fuzzy Philosophy: A Foundation for
>>>> Interneted Ecology? This became my retirement talk at the SERCAL annual
>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> WT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Nicolas PERU" <[email protected]>
>>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:57 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Wayne,
>>>>
>>>> In my point of viewn, ecosystem functions directly refer to how energy
>>>> flows are shaped through ecosystem and how they allow ecosystem to
>>>> maintain by themselves (without human intervention this time). So, when
>>>> we
>>>> measure a functional diversity we try to evaluate the number of
>>>> different
>>>> ways a given energy flow can be realized. One aim is to link living
>>>> communities diversities to ecosystem functioning (energy flow) and so
>>>> define how organisms participate to the success of energy transfer.
>>>>
>>>> This is a quite fuzzy and very general definition but I hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nicolas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:43:00 +0200, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> a
>>>> écrit:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Juan; I do appreciate the reference, but I am looking for a
>>>>> simper answer than that--a scientifically-based explanation of what
>>>>> ecosystem function means as an actual or theoretical feature of actual
>>>>> ecosystems. I am definitely not interested in ". . . an anthropocentric
>>>>> concept (as humans depend on ecosystems to survive) because is
>>>>> described
>>>>> as the capacity of the natural processes to provide an array of direct
>>>>> or indirect services or benefits to humans." I would be delighted to
>>>>> hear a discussion of benefits to humans some other time, however, but I
>>>>> do not want this discussion to wander off the central, very basic
>>>>> question now.
>>>>>
>>>>> WT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Juan Alvez
>>>>> To: Wayne Tyson
>>>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:25 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Wayne,
>>>>>
>>>>> You can best visualize ecosystem functions in a paper written 10
>>>>> years
>>>>> ago by De Groot and others,
>>>>> (Ref: de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology
>>>>> for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem
>>>>> functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41, 393-408.).
>>>>> It describes four main ecosystem functions (regulation [climate,
>>>>> nutrient cycling, polination], habitat [refugia, nursery, etc.],
>>>>> information [scientific info, recreation, cultural and aesthetic] and
>>>>> production [food, genetic and medicinal resources, raw materials, etc.]
>>>>> functions).
>>>>> It is certainly an anthropocentric concept (as humans depend on
>>>>> ecosystems to survive) because is described as the capacity of the
>>>>> natural processes to provide an array of direct or indirect services or
>>>>> benefits to humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Juan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/26/2012 10:11 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please describe function in ecosystems.
>>>>>
>>>>> WT
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine Miller"
>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have used Rao's quadratic entropy to evaluate functional
>>>>> diversity
>>>>> between
>>>>> a number of estuaries for which I also have a GIS database. I
>>>>> would
>>>>> like to
>>>>> be able to visualize which sites are more functionally similar
>>>>> across the
>>>>> region to evaluate patterns in dispersal, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know it is possible to use the pairwise functional beta diversity
>>>>> values
>>>>> as a distance matrix in a Mantel test or multivariate regression on
>>>>> distances matrices (MRM) when comparing functional diversity to,
>>>>> for
>>>>> example, environmental data. Would it also be appropriate to use
>>>>> these
>>>>> values in a PAM or other clustering method to identify estuaries
>>>>> that are
>>>>> more/less similar in functional diversity?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is likely to sound like a very naive question, but I have done
>>>>> an
>>>>> extensive literature search and have not found where this has been
>>>>> done
>>>>> before - perhaps because it is a bad idea for other reasons?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any insights and/or references on this approach would be greatly
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5293 - Release Date:
>>>>> 09/26/12
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Nicolas PERU, PhD
> 33-(0)4 72 43 28 94
> 06-88-15-23-10
> CNRS, UMR 5023 - LEHNA
> Université Claude Bernard - Lyon 1
> 43 Bld du 11 novembre 1918
> Rdc Bât Forel
> 69622 VILLEURBANNE cedex FRANCE
>
