Martin, I will give you, absolutely and without reservation, that ecosystems process matter and energy through organisms. Since the questions dealt with ecosystems, I assumed that the involvement of organisms was a given. I will also give you that what kinds of organisms are involved is of great importance. I believe that gets at the idea of functional diversity that was originally what the inquirer was interested in. I suppose, without having stated it explicitly, that I think that the details of the energy and material processing are what constitutes functional diversity. At least that would be my understanding and why I responded as I did -- I thought some might be straying from that.
Beyond that I might just be both too naive and too dense to see. David McNeely ---- Martin Meiss <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- David McNeely
