ViewpointDimensions of ecosystem complexity: Heterogeneity, connectivity, and history
Introduction
Ecologists have long been aware of the importance of complexity, but few have explicitly adopted it into their research programs. The opportunity to incorporate complexity came to the attention of most ecologists primarily through the National Science Foundation's granting program focusing on biocomplexity. This program spurred a burst of literature targeted at ecologists in general (Colwell, 1998, Michener et al., 2001, Cottingham, 2002). In an attempt to be accessible, this recent literature leaves much of the concept of biocomplexity, and its application and adoption, to be explored. In spite of the relatively recent general increase of interest in complexity, the theory and associated concepts such as non-linear dynamics, self-organization, emergence, criticality, etc., have been a rich topic for study in physics, thermodynamics and systems theory (Kay and Schneider, 1994, Bak, 1996, Auyang, 1998, Milne, 1998). Some ecologists familiar with these fields have applied these concepts successfully to ecological systems (Ulanowicz, 1997, Milne, 1998, Medvinsky et al., 2001, Li, 2002a). These applications are sophisticated and mathematically advanced, but their abstraction may make it difficult for empirical ecologists in general to appreciate or apply the formal concepts of complexity in their own research (Kay and Schneider, 1994, Anselin and Tam Cho, 2002). Therefore, a middle ground is needed between the very accessible and consequently general introductions (Colwell, 1998, Michener et al., 2001), and the sophisticated mathematical abstractions (Li, 2000, Bruggeman et al., 2002, Li, 2002b, Ulanowicz, 2004). This middle ground would relate biocomplexity to concepts and issues that ecologists are concerned about and familiar with but would show clear links to the general ideas of complexity. The purpose of this paper is to explore this middle ground and is under taken in the spirit of recognizing a need for a diversity of ways to conceive and apply complexity in ecology (Milne, 1998, Li, 2004, Loehle, 2004).
Ecology has long been concerned with structure–function relationships (Watt, 1947). Therefore, many ecological studies begin from a structural perspective. Even functional ecological studies which may not explicitly measure structure may implicitly use structure to frame the contrasts they investigate. The richness of ways in which ecological systems can be structured suggests a backdrop against which complex behavior can be measured. Scientists who study complexity theory often focus on understanding the behavior of systems (Li, 2002b). One of the guiding questions in complexity theory is how simple structures lead to complex behaviors (Bak and Chen, 1991, Bruggeman et al., 2002). From the formal complexity perspective, behavior refers to an entire system, which incorporates both ecological structure and function. Thus in this paper, we use “structure” in two ways. One is the complexity perspective that addresses the behavior of combined structure–function systems, and the other is the traditional ecological perspective of structure constituting system architecture and composition (Noss and Cooperrider, 1994). Understanding structural contrasts may contribute to the conceptual middle ground between complexity theory and empirical ecology.
To explore the potential middle ground, this paper articulates an empirically oriented conceptual framework. Because the concept of biocomplexity is relatively new to many ecologists, we review definitions from the literature and assess their contribution to a general ecological approach. While recognizing the deep foundations in the studies of complex behavior, we take ecological structure as the entry point for the development of this middle ground and suggest a structural definition for biocomplexity that forms the foundation of an organizing framework. This framework links to the growing interest in heterogeneity as a key driver in ecological systems (Huston, 1994) while also incorporating the increasing appreciation of historical and indirect effects (Brown, 1994) and organizational hierarchies (Allen and Hoekstra, 1992). The framework is intended to help guide the empirical quantification of structures that can yield complex behaviors. The framework can also be used to integrate social and ecological sciences and an example from the Baltimore Ecosystem Study will explore this linkage. We will demonstrate how the framework can be used to organize research and generate hypotheses across disciplinary boundaries in an effort to understand the complexity of an urban ecosystem.
Section snippets
Definitions: biocomplexity for ecology
Complexity theory (Auyang, 1998, Milne, 1998) is a precursor to the concept of biocomplexity. This theory is driven primarily by approaches from physics and mathematics and has assigned several properties to complex systems (Costanza et al., 1993, Milne, 1998, Li, 2002a). It may be better to say that these properties characterize complex behavior rather than systems, because simple systems can in some cases exhibit complex outcomes. Thus, the real issue is how simple systems produce complex
Goals of an empirically motivated framework
Our use of a framework, and the characteristics of frameworks, make clear that our attempt to establish some of the middle ground between complexity theory and empirical ecology is a preliminary one. A framework is a conceptual construct that articulates what is included in the conceptual arena under discussion, and what is not (Cadenasso et al., 2003b). It is inclusive of various systems, processes, and scales. The job of the framework is to provide a roster of components, and to suggest how
Framework for biocomplexity in ecology
The structural framework for biocomplexity that we propose consists of three axes: heterogeneity, connectedness, and historical contingency (Fig. 1). These three axes represent a convergence of differing perspectives of system structure. For example, Frost et al. (1988) and Cottingham (2002) recognize space, organization, and time as necessary components for modeling and understanding ecological systems. Hierarchy theory (Allen and Starr, 1982) also embodies how entities are organized and how
Application of the framework
Metropolitan areas are structured by multiple factors (Gottdiener and Hutchison, 2000, Berry, 2001, Vasishth and Sloane, 2002). For example, patch maps can be created based on population density, zoning, time of development, the distribution of income, race, or education levels of people, and land use. Each map shows a snapshot of the system structured by one variable or a suite of variables. A suite of variables is frequently converted into an index or categorization. Comparing the patch
Conclusion
We have proposed a conceptual framework to promote the assessment of structural biocomplexity in ecological systems. This framework draws on two of the approaches to complexity we have discovered through a review of definitions of the concept. These two are: (1) structure of complex systems, and (2) complexity of explanatory model. The third concern of complexity definitions, that of emergent, non-linear, or self organized behavior is beyond our scope here. This framework is intended to help
References (70)
Towards to a system analytical and modelling approach for integration of ecological, hydrological, economical and social components of disturbed regions
Landsc. Urban Plan.
(2000)Why is the holistic approach becoming so important in landscape ecology?
Landsc. Urban Plan.
(2000)Editorial
Ecol. Complex.
(2004)- et al.
Transition to spatiotemporal chaos can resolve the paradox of enrichment
Ecol. Complex.
(2004) On the nature of ecodynamics
Ecol. Complex.
(2004)- et al.
Hierarchy Theory: A Vision, Vocabulary, and Epistemology
(1996) - et al.
Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems
BioScience
(2003) - et al.
Toward a Unified Ecology
(1992) - et al.
Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity
(1982) - Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T., Witmer, R.E., 1976. Land use and land cover classification systems for use...
Spatial effects and ecological inference
Political Anal.
Coping with complexity and organizational interests in natural resource management
Ecosystems
Foundations of Complex-Systems Theories in Economics, Evolutionary Biology, and Statistical Physics
How Nature Works: The Science of Self-organized Criticality
Self-organized criticality
Sci. Am.
A new urban ecology?
Urban Geogr.
Complex ecological systems
BioComplexity: a pluralist research strategy is necessary for a mechanistic explanation of the “live” state
Philosophical Psychol.
An interdisciplinary and synthetic approach to ecological boundaries
BioScience
A framework for a theory of ecological boundaries
BioScience
Introduction
PRIZM cluster snapshots: getting to know the 62 clusters
Balancing the biocomplexity of the planet's living systems: a 21st century task for science
BioScience
Ecology and landscape as agents of creativity
Modeling complex economic systems: toward an evolutionary, dynamic understanding of people and nature
BioScience
Tackling biocomplexity: the role of people, tools, and scale
BioScience
Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions
Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships
Scale in the design and interpretation of aquatic community research
Edaphic changes at the forest-savanna boundary with particular reference to the neotropics
The New Urban Sociology
Comparison of social structure and vegetation structure of urban neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland
Soc. Nat. Resour.
Cited by (186)
Mapping multigroup responses to land cover legacy for urban biodiversity conservation
2024, Biological ConservationAssessment of land cover trajectories as an indicator of urban habitat temporal continuity
2024, Landscape and Urban PlanningAssociations between recent land use history and urban forest composition
2023, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningUrban soils as a spatial indicator of quality for urban socio-ecological systems
2021, Journal of Environmental Management