Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-18T21:37:53.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Ecological Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kim Sterelny
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A phenomenological community is an identifiable assemblage of organisms in a local habitat patch: a local wetland or mudflat are typical examples. Such communities are typically persistent: membership and abundance stay fairly constant over time. In this paper I discuss whether phenomenological communities are functionally structured, causal systems that play a role in determining the presence and abundance of organisms in a local habitat patch. I argue they are not, if individualist models of community assembly are vindicated; i.e., if the presence of one species is not typically explained by the presence or absence of specific other species. I discuss two alternatives to individualism, and conclude by arguing for a dimensional model of phenomenological communities. The causal salience of a phenomenological community depends on three factors: the extent to which it is internally regulated, the extent to which it has robust boundaries, and the extent to which it has emergent properties. I conclude by using this model to frame a natural research agenda for community ecology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 215 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to Mark Colyvan, Michael Weisberg, Tim Lewens, Jay Odenbaugh, Peter Godfrey-Smith, John Odling-Smee, and three referees and the editor of this journal for very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The dimensional way of thinking about communities was suggested to me by Peter Godfrey-Smith's parallel treatment of Darwinian populations. Thanks also to the audience of HPS Cambridge for their helpful feedback on a presentation based on this material.

References

Boucot, Arthur J. (1990), Evolutionary Paleobiology of Behavior and Coevolution. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brown, James H., Ernest, Morgan, Parody, Jennifer, and Haskell, John (2001), “Regulation of Diversity: Maintenance of Species Richness in Changing Environments”, Regulation of Diversity: Maintenance of Species Richness in Changing Environments 126:321–332.Google ScholarPubMed
Callicott, J. Baird (1996), “Do Deconstructive Ecology and Sociobiology Undermine the Leopold Land Ethic?”, Do Deconstructive Ecology and Sociobiology Undermine the Leopold Land Ethic? 18:353–372.Google Scholar
Chesson, Peter, Pacala, Stephen, and Neuhauser, Claudia (2001), “Environmental Niches and Ecosystem Functioning”, in Kinzig, Andrew, Pacala, Stephen, and Tilman, David (eds.), The Functional Consequences of Biodiversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 213–245.Google Scholar
Cooper, Greg (1993), “The Competition Controversy in Community Ecology”, The Competition Controversy in Community Ecology 8:359–384.Google Scholar
Cooper, Greg (2001), “Must There Be a Balance of Nature?”, Must There Be a Balance of Nature? 16:481–506.Google Scholar
Cooper, Greg (2003), The Science of the Struggle for Existence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Robert (1973), “Functional Analysis”, Functional Analysis 72:741–764.Google Scholar
Eldredge, Niles (2003), “The Sloshing Bucket: How the Physical Realm Controls Evolution”, in Crutchfield, James P. and Schuster, Peter (eds.), Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Interplay of Selection, Accident, Neutrality and Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (1993), “Functions: Consensus without Unity”, Functions: Consensus without Unity 74:196–208.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (1994). “A Modern History Theory of Functions”, Nous 28:344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hixon, Mark, Pacala, Stephen, and Sandin, Stuart (2002), “Population Regulation: Historical Context and Contemporary Challenges of Open vs. Closed Systems”, Population Regulation: Historical Context and Contemporary Challenges of Open vs. Closed Systems 83:1490–1508.Google Scholar
Jones, Chris, Lawton, John, and Shachak, Moshe (1997), “Positive and Negative Effects of Organisms as Physical Ecosystems Engineers”, Positive and Negative Effects of Organisms as Physical Ecosystems Engineers 78:1946–1957.Google Scholar
Lehman, Clarence, and Tilman, David (2000), “Biodiversity, Stability and Productivity in Competitive Communities”, Biodiversity, Stability and Productivity in Competitive Communities 156:534–552.Google ScholarPubMed
Levins, Richard, and Lewontin, Richard C. (1985), “Dialectics and Reduction in Ecology”, in Levins, Richard and Lewontin, Richard C. (eds.), The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 132–160.Google Scholar
Loreau, L., et al. (2001), “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges”, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges 294:804–808.Google ScholarPubMed
May, Robert M. (1973), Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Mikkelson, Greg M. (2003), “Ecological Kinds and Ecological Laws”, Ecological Kinds and Ecological Laws 70:1390–1400.Google Scholar
Murdoch, William W. (1994), “Population Regulation in Theory and Practice”, Population Regulation in Theory and Practice 75:271–287.Google Scholar
Naeem, Shahid (1998), “Species Redundancy and Ecosystem Reliability”, Species Redundancy and Ecosystem Reliability 12:39–45.Google Scholar
Odenbaugh, Jay (forthcoming), “Ecology”, in Sarkar, Sahotra (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Odling-Smee, John, Laland, Kevin, and Feldman, Marc (2003), Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Paine, Robert T. (1966), “Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity”, Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity 100:65–75.Google Scholar
Parker, V. Thomas (2004), “The Community of an Individual: Implications for the Community Concept”, The Community of an Individual: Implications for the Community Concept 104:27–34.Google Scholar
Pimm, Stuart (1991), The Balance of Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, Robert E. (2004), “A Comprehensive Framework for Global Patterns in Biodiversity”, A Comprehensive Framework for Global Patterns in Biodiversity 7:1–15.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, Robert E., and Schulter, Dolf (1993), “Species Diversity: Regional and Historical Influences”, in Ricklefs, Robert E. and Schulter, Dolf (eds.), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 350–363.Google Scholar
Thornton, Ian (1996), Krakatau: The Destruction and Reassembly of an Island Ecosystem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, David (1996), “Biodiversity: Population versus Ecosystem Stability”, Biodiversity: Population versus Ecosystem Stability 77:350–363.Google Scholar
Tilman, David (1999), “The Ecological Consequences of Changes in Biodiversity: A Search for General Principles”, The Ecological Consequences of Changes in Biodiversity: A Search for General Principles 80:1455–1474.Google Scholar
Turchin, Peter (1999), “Population Regulation: A Synthetic View”, Population Regulation: A Synthetic View 84:153–159.Google Scholar
Wardle, David (1999), “Is ‘Sampling Effect’ a Problem for Experiments Investigating Biodiversity-Ecosystem Function Relationships?”, Is ‘Sampling Effect’ a Problem for Experiments Investigating Biodiversity-Ecosystem Function Relationships? 87:403–407.Google Scholar