Dear Ecolog: My first post here, I was just following this conversation of the definition of ecosystem function. From what I've read, many here think the ecosystem function inherently has some benefit to the ecosystem, and that the ecosystem can be either in a functional and desirable state or not. I had always thought that the ecosystem itself is neutral, and there may be a continuum of states in which it may be found, depending on the biotic and abiotic forces in action. The implication that the ecosystem hold these functions and processes for its own benefit and perpetuation gives it a status of an entity, purpose, and perhaps consciousness. If we are referring to a Gaia concept then perhaps this would be a valid argument, but this may be better suited for a philosophical argument than an ecological one. If we are strictly speaking of changes in the rates of energy and chemical cycling, then we can speak of increases and decreases in specific processes, and perhaps there is a state at which the ecosystem ceases to have a specific function, in which a rate is decreased to the point of insignificance. This seems unlikely. It seems more likely that a system would reach an alternative state in which other processes would become more important drivers. Ecosystems are not stoic. They change depending on the biotic and abiotic forces at hand, and may sometimes be driven more strongly by one or another. For example, in a drought, many cycles may slow down considerably. Same thing with a cold season. The ecosystem may be in a stable state, but it is not stoic. I also don't think that there is some optimal functional rate, etc. Again, this assumes that the ecosystem has some purpose instead of flux.
I would like to know your opinions about this!! Ilonka Zlatar PhD student University of Nebraska-Lincoln ________________________________
