An interesting thread. I read a book recently (at the age of 78 I do
that more frequently), and I wondered if I had just forgotten what
Iearned in school (Fresno State and UC Berkeley Mus Vert Zool) around
50-60 years ago. I'm pretty sure, though that I never heard much about
Stephen Forbes, who wrote such papers as "The ornithological balance
wheel (1882, Trans Ill. St. Hort.Soc 15:120-31). I only heard his name
in connection with the classic paper "The Lake as a microcosm". (Bull of
the Scientific Association (Peoria, I), 1887:77-87), but reading the
biography by Robert Croker (Smithsonian Institution 2001) was a
revelation to me. This man, raised in a pioneer family in the 1840s and
who never received a college degree until he was awarded a PhD from U of
Indiana on the basis of his research in several fields, did practical
ecological work in terrestrial and aquatic ecology, and was a founding
member and the second president of the Ecological Society of America.
Of particular interest in relation to this thread is that he performed
and directed studies of the Illinois River from the days when it was
virtually undisturbed (1875) through the era of increased enclosure of
the floodplain of the river by farmers who diked it as cropland, and of
increasing pollution from Chicago before and after 1900, when the
Chicago sanitary and ship canal was opened joining a tributary of the
Illinois River to Lake Michigan, and on through the era of partial
treatment of sewage after protests were raised by members of a
productive commercial fishery which had existed on the river. He charted
quantitatively the changes in numbers and species of fish populations,
identified their food at different staqes of their life cycles, and
measured populations of thee food items including macro-invertebrates,
zooplankton, algae and benthic vegetation. He tackled the same issues
with an ecosystem approach in bird and insect populations which were
problems for farmers of tree and row crops.
So anyhow, I was broadened, at this late stage, in my knowledge of when
modern quantitative ecological work began to be done quantitative, and
in particular, that there is a record of what happens to a river as we
mess with it. The book has a complete bibliography.
Mike
On 11:59 AM, Marcus Ricci wrote:
<pre wrap>
I'll buy that, David. I do think that folks on the list are sometimes
a little more concerned about definitions and differences, lumpers and
dividers, than I am typically am. Folks may have noticed that, about
1/2-way into my post, it started petering out as I realized that there
*was* a lot of similarity. Still, there is enough difference to
warrant a different term, for me.
However, I definitely agree with David's point about "the evolution of
our science." I agree that the development of technology and knowledge
allow us to study things in different ways or more closely than we
could have studied them tens, if not hundreds, of years ago. If folks
agreed to amend the natural history definition to include "and their
interactions with the environment," I'd buy that. However, it sounds
like many folks already include that, implicitly.
Cheers,
Marcus
Marcus Ricci, M.S., CPESC
1301 Monroe Avenue
Charleston, IL 61920
email: spotted_blue<at>hotmail.com
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise." -- Aldo Leopold
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:57 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re:
[ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
Marcus, with due respect, and I do respect your opinion and
contributions: You are simply pointing out the evolution of our
science, which now probes more deeply into the nature of nature than
did those who did its work in earlier centuries. We evolved from
describing the objects in nature to investigating how those objects
interact with other parts of nature. It is still the study of nature
and natural objects -- just additional things about them. A turtle's
life history IS a part of how it interacts with environment. Ecology
(or the less fancy name natural history) studies that. Maybe a
different way of looking at it than yours, but still legitimate.
I'm also not trying to say we should abandon the term ecology in favor
of the older term natural history, though that would be intellectually
defensible. It would also be nice if the general public could
understand what our science is about, rather than confusing it with
environmental activism (a legitimate endeavor in its own right).
But enough of all this. The important thing is to know about turtles,
including how turtles live and function, how other things relate to
them, and how they contribute to the overall state of nature. Too
many people don't care.
mcneely
---- Marcus Ricci <spotted_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
</pre><blockquote type=cite><pre wrap>
I'd like to add my $0.02 because I disagree that ecology is simply a
"dressing up" of natural history. Although I value natural history and
historians, they are not studying the same things as ecologists.
According to my Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics,
natural history is "the study of nature, natural objects and natural
phenomena." Ecology is "the study of the *interrelationships* between
living organisms and their environment" (my emphasis). So, the former
is the study of a subject or phenomena, the latter is the study of
*how the subject interacts and relates to its environment.* Some may
consider this the same definition, some may consider it parsing
essentially the same definition.
I consider them different definitions: one *focuses* on the turtle
itself, what it eats, where it lives, how it reproduces. The other
*focuses* on the place in the web that the turtle occupies, how its
consumption of food or production of offspring effects the other
occupants of its food web - either predators or competitors - and how
the web would respond if a turtle population exploded or disappeared.
Perhaps a little simplistic, but analogies work for me when
definitions get too stickily close, which I will be the first to agree
that these 2 do, when you start looking at them closely.
Cheers,
Marcus
Marcus Ricci, M.S., CPESC
Lake Decatur Watershed Specialist, Macon County SWCD
1301 Monroe Avenue
Charleston, IL 61920
email: spotted_blue<at>hotmail.com
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise." -- Aldo Leopold
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 3:21 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re:
[ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
Thanks, David. Now I don't have to toss all my Darwin stuff into the
dustbin.
WT
PS: David or others: Can you suggest any shortcuts to the best
possible understanding of the pre-contact state of fishes and other
aquatic/marine organisms/ecosystems in the New World (although I'm
really interested in California, specifically coastal southern
California streams and rivers)? I'm also interested in the best
possible estimates of watersheds and stream hydrology for that
period/region. Works that contrast the pre- and post-contact states
and trends would do most of my work for me, which, given my increasing
level of laziness, would be most welcome. For example, I am positing
that some streams that are today intermittent or dependent upon urban
runoff are quite different from their pre-contact states--some flowed
"all year," and hosted salmonid runs. (Ethnographic and historical
[anecdotal] information [observations] references would be
interesting, if not provable.
A somewhat aside: Given the popularity of computer models, I'm
wondering if any reconstruction of pre-contact climate and hydrology
might have been done or in the works . . . It would seem that a
program that could do this might be applicable anywhere.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mcnee...@cox.net>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>; "Wayne Tyson"
<landr...@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re:
[ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
</pre><blockquote type=cite><pre wrap>
---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
</pre><blockquote type=cite><pre wrap>
Ecolog:
What specifically distinguishes natural history from ecology?
</pre></blockquote><pre wrap>
Wayne, Ernst Haeckel coined the term which became our modern term
"ecology." You probably knew this. Haeckel mistook the root of
biological science, natural history, for one of its branches,
ecology. Ever since, we have had this conundrum.
Ecology is natural history dressed up to look better for those who
have difficulty accepting that science is old and was effective in the
old days. For those who have some sniffing hang-up about being
natural historians, there is no more honorable, nor more interesting,
endeavor than trying to figure out how nature works. And one doesn't
have to be arrogant, or attempt to dismiss other's efforts, to do it
effectively.
David McNeely, fish ecologist (ie., natural historian)
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3477 - Release Date: 03/02/11
</pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre wrap>
--
David McNeely
</pre></body>
</html>
</html>
