From an axiomatic point of view, scientific knowledge should be generated by deducing models from axioms and comparing these models to phenomena. Ecology has been dubbed theoretically immature because most of its knowledge is not generated that way. However, there are other ways to conceive theories. From a pragmatic perspective, knowledge is generated as researchers exchange, combine and use models of their choice to learn more about phenomena, even without a prior conceptual unification of these models. Such a context-dependent use of models leads to specific characteristics in pragmatic theories, which are easily identified in ecology. For this reason, we argue that ecology is not immature but pragmatic. SynthesisEcology has received many criticisms concerning its theoretical maturity, often on the grounds that it lacks laws and, therefore, a clear and unified theoretical background. We argue that the search for laws to understand ecological theory was prompted by the (perhaps inadvertent) adoption of an axiomatic perspective that traces back to syntactic and some semantic views of theory. We present examples showing how these views have a common logical structure, in which axioms can be interpreted as laws, even though there are semantic views that assume a more flexible perspective on theories. We then present, as an alternative, more pluralistic and process-based approaches that fall under the umbrella of pragmatic views of theories. Under this view, a theory is an ever-changing, context-dependent, collective construct, and thus does not necessarily fit into pre-defined logical structures such as those adopted by axiomatic views. We show that the diversity of models and structures found in ecological theories, as well as the way knowledge is produced within this field of science, makes ecology an exemplary candidate to be approached from a pragmatic perspective. Based on ecological succession theory as a case study, we illustrate how assuming a pragmatic view allows for new analyses that may foster our understanding of the theoretical structure and consequently further our understanding of ecological phenomena.

In domains that develop axiomatically, theoretical syntheses have the role to describe which are these axioms and how scientific practice should be guided by them. However ecology develops pragmatically, that is, scientists propose a new understanding of the world by exploring, modifying and co-opting previously proposed models, seldom referring to axioms. Therefore a synthesis in ecology cannot rely on the enunciation of axioms and need to be based on the actual activity of ecologists. Here we present an approach to make a theoretical synthesis based on how frequently scientists use some models to learn about the world. We argue that a domain of study can be delimited around a scientific community studying a phenomenon and that this community has a frequency of use of some models. We identify these models by assessing how the most referred publications are cited in the studies made by this community. We also present the results of the first implementation of the proposed approach to a case study with the phenomenon of ecological succession. We found that there is no clear division between "classical" and "contemporary" succession and that neutral models are now being used to explain succession.We conclude that the use of the proposed approach can be used to synthesize and understand theories that develop pragmatically and it allows for analyses of how theories change depending on the research context. Keywords: theory structure, pragmatic view, semantic view, model definition, philosophy of ecology, method development the scientific activity in biology as a whole ([NRC] National Research Coun-2 cil, 2008), and ecology is not an exception (Marquet et al., 2014). There is 3 no clearly agreed conceptual basis unifying all scientific activity in ecology 4 (Scheiner and Willig, 2011; Marquet et al., 2014) and even though there were 5 attempts to synthesize ecological theory (e.g. McIntosh, 1986; Pickett et al., 6 2010; Scheiner and Willig, 2011), these attempts were seldom referred by the 7 community. Regardless of this lack of consensus, ecology has undergone in-8 tense conceptual and institutional development as a science for more than a 9 century of history (Hagen, 1989). 10All scientific activity is guided by our previous knowledge about the world, 11 which means that all scientific activity needs to have a conceptual basis. How-12 ever, it might be the case that, in ecology, such conceptual basis is not so easy 13 to identify. In some views of scientific theories, the conceptual basis of a field of 14 study can be easily synthesized by a set of axioms or laws -statements about 15 the world assumed to be self-evident (Cartwright, 1997; Turchin, 2003). Under 16 these views, models are constructs about the world deduced from these axioms 17 and knowledge is generated by comparing phenomena with models. If a phe-18 nomenon is adequately represented by the model, and therefore behaves like 19 the model, the axioms from which the models were deduced can be regarded 20 as true for the world (Swoyer, 1991). Theref...

No abstract

11 Received; revision accepted .Abstract The effect of environmental heterogeneity on species richness is frequently 13 discussed in ecology. However, the empirical evidence has been contradictory as to the 14 direction of the effect. Although some authors have considered that this might be a 15 methodological problem, we argue that for ants, ecological interactions within the 16 community, as interspecific competition is more important. We analyzed the plausibility of 17 models in explaining the ant richness distribution patterns in a semi-desert environment. We 18 used three predicting variables in the construction of the models to explain ant richness 19 distribution: heterogeneity based on the amount of structures regardless of their type, 20 heterogeneity based on the diversity of structures, and the abundance of individuals of the 21 dominant species. We used ANOVA to chose the best model and corroborated the prediction 22 that in this system abundance of dominant species is the best predictor of ant species 23 richness. Neither of the heterogeneity conceptions contributed much to explain richness 24 distribution. However, in a second analysis, we concluded that heterogeneity could affect the 25 abundance of the dominant species. We conclude that competitive dominance is a better 26 predictor of species richness distribution patterns than structural heterogeneity. However, 27 the structural heterogeneity affects the distribution of dominant individuals. We suggest 28 that some unexplained patterns observed about the relationship between heterogeneity and 29 richness could be due to an indirect effect. 30 31 heterogeneity, model selection, small scale, structural complexity. 32 Travassos-Britto and Rocha Dominance vs Heterogeneity in Ants Resumo O efeito da heterogeneidade ambiental na riqueza de espéciesé frequentemente 33 discutido na ecologia. Entretanto, as evidências empíricas têm sido contraditórias com 34 relaçãoà direção do efeito. A pesar de alguns autores considerarem que essa divergênciaé 35 causada por motivos metodológicos, nós argumentamos que para formigas, interações dentro 36 da comunidade, como competição interespecíficaé mais importante. Nós analisamos a 37 plausibilidade de diferentes models em explicar o padrão de distribuição de riqueza de 38 morphospecies de formigas em um ambiente semi-desértico (caatinga). Nós usamos três 39 variáveis preditivas na construção dos modelos para explicar a distribuição de riqueza das 40 espécies: heterogeneidade baseada na quantidade de estruturas independentemente dos tipos, 41 heterogeneidade baseado na diversidade de estruturas e abundância de indivíduos da espécies 42 dominante de formiga. Nós usamos ANOVA para escolher o melhor modelo e corroboramos 43 a predição que nesse sistema a abundância da espécie dominanteé o melhor preditor de 44 riqueza de espécies de formiga. Nenhuma das concepções de heteorgeneidade pareceu 45 contribuir muito para explicar a distribuição de riquezas de formigas. Entretanto, em uma 46 segunda análise, concluímos que het...

It has been proposed that ecological theory develops in a pragmatic way. This implies that ecologists are free to decide what, from the knowledge available to them, they will use to build models and learn about phenomena. Because in fields that develop pragmatically knowledge generation is based on the decisions of individuals and not on a set of predefined axioms, the best way to produce theoretical synthesis in such fields is to assess what individuals are using to support scientific studies. Here, we present an approach for producing theoretical syntheses based on the propositions most frequently used to learn about a defined phenomenon. The approach consists of (i) defining a phenomenon of interest; (ii) defining a collective of scientists studying the phenomenon; (iii) surveying the scientific studies about the phenomenon published by this collective; (iv) identifying the most referred publications used in these studies; (v) identifying how the studies use the most referred publications to give support to their studies and learn about the phenomena; (vi) and from this, identifying general propositions on how the phenomenon is approached, viewed and described by the collective. We implemented the approach in a case study on the phenomenon of ecological succession, defining the collective as the scientists currently studying succession. We identified three propositions that synthesize the views of the defined collective about succession. The theoretical synthesis revealed that there is no clear division between “classical’’ and “contemporary’’ succession models, and that neutral models are being used to explain successional patterns alongside models based on niche assumptions. By implementing the pragmatic approach in a case study, we show that it can be successfully used to produce syntheses based on the actual activity of the scientific community studying the phenomenon. The connection between the resulting synthesis and research activity can be traced back through the methodological steps of the approach. This result can be used to understand how knowledge is being used in a field of study and can guide better informed decisions for future studies.