Literature DB >> 7605849

H. A. Gleason's 'individualistic concept' and theory of animal communities: a continuing controversy.

R P McIntosh1.   

Abstract

A tradition of natural history and of the lore of early twentieth-century ecology was that organisms lived together and interacted to form natural entities or communities. Before there was a recognizable science of ecology, Mobius (1877) had provided a name 'biocoenosis' for such entities. This concept persisted in the early decades of ecological science; at an extreme it was maintained that the community had integrating capabilities and organization like those of an individual organism, hence the term organismic community. In the 1950s-1970s an alternative individualist concept, derived from the ideas of H. A. Gleason (1939), gained credence which held that communities were largely a coincidence of individualistic species characteristics, continuously varying environments and different probabilities of a species arriving on a given site. During the same period, however, a body of population based theory of animal communities became dominant which perpetuated the idea of patterns in nature based on biotic interactions among species resulting in integrated communities. This theory introduced an extended terminology and mathematical models to explain the organization of species into groups of compatible species governed by rules. In the late 1970s the premises and methods of the theory came under attack and a vigorous debate ensued. The alternatives proposed were, at an extreme, null models of random aggregations of species or stochastic, individualistic aggregations of species, sensu Gleason. Extended research and debate ensued during the 1980s resulting in an explosion of studies of animal communities and a plethora of symposia and volumes of collected works concerning the nature of animal communities. The inherent complexity of communities and the traditional differences among animal ecologists about how they should be defined and delimited, at what scale of taxa, space and time to study them, and appropriate methods of study and analysis have resulted in extended and as yet inconclusive discussions. Recent differences and discussions are considered under five general categories, evolution and community theory, individualistic concept, community definition, questions from community ecology and empirical studies. Communities are seen by some ecologists as entities of coevolving species and, in any case, it is necessary to integrate evolutionary ideas with the varied concepts of community.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7605849     DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1995.tb01069.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc        ISSN: 0006-3231


  5 in total

1.  Prediction of stream fish assemblages from land use characteristics: implications for cost-effective design of monitoring programmes.

Authors:  Esben Astrup Kristensen; Annette Baattrup-Pedersen; Hans Estrup Andersen
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  A comparative analysis of metacommunity types in the freshwater realm.

Authors:  Jani Heino; Janne Soininen; Janne Alahuhta; Jyrki Lappalainen; Risto Virtanen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 2.912

3.  Testing Three Species Distribution Modelling Strategies to Define Fish Assemblage Reference Conditions for Stream Bioassessment and Related Applications.

Authors:  Peter M Rose; Mark J Kennard; David B Moffatt; Fran Sheldon; Gavin L Butler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  What can ecosystems learn? Expanding evolutionary ecology with learning theory.

Authors:  Daniel A Power; Richard A Watson; Eörs Szathmáry; Rob Mills; Simon T Powers; C Patrick Doncaster; Błażej Czapp
Journal:  Biol Direct       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 4.540

5.  Four species of bacteria deterministically assemble to form a stable biofilm in a millifluidic channel.

Authors:  A Monmeyran; W Benyoussef; P Thomen; N Dahmane; A Baliarda; M Jules; S Aymerich; N Henry
Journal:  NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 7.290

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.