Levels of Biological Organization: An Organism-Centered Approach

MacMahon, James A.; Phillips, Donald L.; Robinson, James V.; Schimpf, David J.

doi:10.2307/1307320

Cited by 99 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More generally, this treatment is relevant to the ongoing discussion-dating back at least to Spencer (1900Spencer ( , 1904of what have in recent decades been called ''levels of organization'' or ''integrative levels'' (Redfield 1942;Needham 1943;Novikoff 1945;Fiebleman 1955;Polanyi 1968;Guttman 1976;MacMahon et al 1978;Wimsatt 1994) and also to more contemporary discussions of ''levels of selection'' (Maynard Smith 1988;Sober and Wilson 1994;Brandon 1996Brandon , 1999Gould and Lloyd 1999;Keller 1999;Michod 1999). Importantly, however, the concern is not (at least directly) with the problem of how new higher levels arise and are maintained (Leigh 1991;Maynard Smith and Szathmáry 1995;Michod 1999).…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, this study is relevant to the suggestion that all or most origins of new levels-eukaryotic cell from prokaryotic cells, multicellular organisms from free-living cells, colonies from multicellular individuals-entail a common constellation of morphological and physiological correlates (Salthe 1985;Wimsatt 1994;Anderson and McShea 2001). Possible examples of such correlates include increases in size, in connectedness among lower-level organisms, and in partitioning of work into group and team tasks, as well as losses of complexity in the lowerlevel organisms (for others, see Anderson and McShea 2001).More generally, this treatment is relevant to the ongoing discussion-dating back at least to Spencer (1900Spencer ( , 1904)-of what have in recent decades been called ''levels of organization'' or ''integrative levels '' (Redfield 1942;Needham 1943;Novikoff 1945;Fiebleman 1955;Polanyi 1968;Guttman 1976;MacMahon et al 1978;Wimsatt 1994) and also to more contemporary discussions of ''levels of selection'' (Maynard Smith 1988;Sober and Wilson 1994;Brandon 1996Brandon , 1999Gould and Lloyd 1999;Keller 1999;Michod 1999). Importantly, however, the concern is not (at least directly) with the problem of how new higher levels arise and are maintained (Leigh 1991;Maynard Smith and Szathmáry 1995;Michod 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Complexity Drain on Cells in the Evolution of Multicellularity

McShea¹

2002

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A hypothesis has been advanced recently predicting that, in evolution, as higher-level entities arise from associations of lower-level organisms, and as these entities acquire the ability to feed, reproduce, defend themselves, and so on, the lower-level organisms will tend to lose much of their internal complexity (McShea 2001a). In other words, in hierarchical transitions, there is a drain on numbers of part types at the lower level. One possible rationale is that the transfer of functional demands to the higher level renders many part types at the lower level useless, and thus their loss in evolution is favored by selection for economy. Here, a test is conducted at the cell level, comparing numbers of part types in free-living eukaryotic cells (protists) and the cells of metazoans and land plants. Differences are significant and consistent with the hypothesis, suggesting that tests at other hierarchical levels may be worthwhile. Hierarchical transitions occur when a group of organisms combine to form a higher-level entity (Spencer 1904;Campbell 1958;Simon 1962;Pattee 1970;Eldredge and Salthe 1984;Salthe 1985Salthe , 1993Buss 1987;Bonner 1988;Maynard Smith 1988;Wimsatt 1994;Maynard Smith and Szathmáry 1995;McShea 1996 McShea , 2001bPettersson 1996;Valentine and May 1996;Michod 1999). In the history of life, salient examples include the origin of the eukaryotic cell from symbiotic associations of prokaryotic cells, of multicellular individuals from clones of free-living eukaryotic cells, and of colonies from associations of multicellular individuals. A hypothesis has been advanced recently that predicts that, as such transitions occur, and as the new higher-level entities acquire the ability to feed, reproduce, defend themselves, and so on, their component organisms will tend to lose many of these functional capabilities and therefore will tend to lose many of their internal parts (McShea 2001a). More precisely, the expectation is that the component organisms will tend to lose part types at the next hierarchical level down (Fig. 1). (Technical understandings of the terms part and level will be offered shortly; for present purposes, colloquial meanings suffice.)Concretely, the hypothesis predicts that the cells of multicellular organisms will have fewer part types than freeliving eukaryotic cells, that is, nonparasitic protists (hereafter simply protists; sensu Patterson 1999). At a higher level, in colonial marine invertebrates and social insects, the multicellular individuals (e.g., polyps, zooids) that constitute the more individuated colonies-that is, those in which coloniality is more highly developed (Boardman and Cheetham 1973)-should have fewer part types, on average, than those of their less colonial or solitary relatives (Beklemishev 1969). And at a lower level, the former prokaryotes that today function as organelles in eukaryotic cells (e.g., mitochondria, plastids) should have fewer part types than free-living prokaryotes.Attention to hierarchical level is crucial. A considerable body of e...

show abstract

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Complexity Drain on Cells in the Evolution of Multicellularity

McShea¹

2002

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In biology, the question of how molecules make up cells and cells make up organisms resulted in the publication of various compositional hierarchies of different levels of biological organization of living systems and their component parts (e.g., Woodger, 1929;Novikoff, 1945;Wimsatt, 1976Wimsatt, , 1994MacMahon et al, 1978;Mayr, 1982; genealogical hierarchy, Eldredge & Salthe, 1984;somatic hierarchy, Eldredge, 1985; scalar hierarchy, Salthe, 1985Salthe, , 1993; Theorie des Schichtenbaus der Welt, Riedl, 1985Riedl, , 1997Riedl, , 2000; ecological hierarchy, Levinton, 1988; homological hierarchy, Striedter & Northcutt, 1991; cumulative constitutive hierarchy, genetic hierarchy, Valentine & May, 1996; building block systems, Jagers op Akkerhuis & van Straalen, 1998;Heylighen, 2000;McShea, 2001;Valentine, 2003;Korn, 2005). Interestingly, depending on the respective frame of reference, different scientific disciplines have different compositional hierarchies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levels and building blocks—towards a domain granularity framework for the life sciences

Vogt

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of online data repositories and the establishment of new data standards that require data to be computer-parsable so that algorithms can reason over them have become increasingly important with the emergence of high-throughput technologies, Big Data and eScience. As a consequence, there is an increasing need for new approaches for organizing and structuring data from various sources into integrated hierarchies of levels of entities that facilitate algorithm-based approaches for data exploration, data comparison and analysis. In this paper I contrast various accounts of the level idea and resulting hierarchies published by philosophers and natural scientists with the more formal approaches of theories of granularity published by information scientists and ontology researchers. I discuss the shortcomings of the former and argue that the general theory of granularity proposed by Keet circumvents these problems and allows the integration of various different hierarchies into a domain granularity framework. I introduce the concept of general building blocks, which gives rise to a hierarchy of levels that can be formally characterized by Keet's theory. This hierarchy functions as an organizational backbone for integrating various other hierarchies that I briefly discuss, resulting in a general domain granularity framework for the life sciences. I also discuss the implicit consequences of this granularity framework for the structure of top-level categories of 'material entity' of the Basic Formal Ontology. The here suggested domain granularity framework is meant to provide the basis on which a more comprehensive information framework for the life sciences can be developed.PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2429v2 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access |

show abstract

“…Ecological entities are organized hierarchically into different levels of organization, such as the individual, the population, and the community (MacMahon et al 1987;Allen and Hoekstra 1992;Pickett et al 1994). The way in which these different organizational levels combine to influence the dynamics of natural systems remains a fundamental research topic in ecology (Lomnicki 1988;Nisbet et al 1989; Abrams 1995;Levin et al 1997;.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Size Variation and Population Stability in a Seasonal Environment: A Discrete-Time Model and Its Calibration Using Grasshoppers

Filin¹,

Ovadia²

2007

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much recent literature is concerned with how variation among individuals (e.g., variability in their traits and fates) translates into higher-level (i.e., population and community) dynamics. Although several theoretical frameworks have been devised to deal with the effects of individual variation on population dynamics, there are very few reports of empirically based estimates of the sign and magnitude of these effects. Here we describe an analytical model for sizedependent, seasonal life cycles and evaluate the effect of individual size variation on population dynamics and stability. We demonstrate that the effect of size variation on the population net reproductive rate varies in both magnitude and sign, depending on season length. We calibrate our model with field data on size-and density-dependent growth and survival of the generalist grasshopper Melanoplus femurrubrum. Under deterministic dynamics (fixed season length), size variation impairs population stability, given naturally occurring densities. However, in the stochastic case, where season length exhibits yearly fluctuations, size variation reduces the variance in population growth rates, thus enhancing stability. This occurs because the effect of size variation on net reproductive rate is dependent on season length. We discuss several limitations of the current model and outline possible routes for future model development.Keywords: body size, individual variation, population stability, seasonal environment, univoltine lifecycle. Ecological entities are organized hierarchically into different levels of organization, such as the individual, the population, and the community (MacMahon et al. 1987;Allen and Hoekstra 1992;Pickett et al. 1994). The way in which these different organizational levels combine to influence the dynamics of natural systems remains a fundamental research topic in ecology (Lomnicki 1988;Nisbet et al. 1989; Abrams 1995;Levin et al. 1997;. Such research is motivated by the need to understand the level of mechanistic biological detail that must be included in ecological theory as well as how much can be safely abstracted while still achieving biologically faithful and quantitatively accurate descriptions of population and community dynamics.In the past 30 years, ecologists have become increasingly interested in linking individual phenotypic variation (in behavior, morphology, physiology, and life history) to population and community dynamics (e.g., Lomnicki 1978;Metz and Diekmann 1986;Begon and Wall 1987;Ebenman and Persson 1988;Nisbet et al. 1989;Bjørnstad and Hansen 1994;Uchmanski 1999;Schmitz 2000;de Roos et al. 2003). Specifically, many theoretical studies have demonstrated how age, stage, and size structure; cohort effects; and other forms of individual variation (e.g., in developmental and growth rates or in competitive ability) have important consequences for population dynamics, stability, and persistence (e.g., Bellows 1986aBellows , 1986bLomnicki 1988;Bjørnstad and Hansen 1994;de Roos 1997;Uchmanski 2000;Kendall ...

show abstract

Levels of Biological Organization: An Organism-Centered Approach

Cited by 99 publications

References 17 publications

A Complexity Drain on Cells in the Evolution of Multicellularity

A Complexity Drain on Cells in the Evolution of Multicellularity

Levels and building blocks—towards a domain granularity framework for the life sciences

Individual Size Variation and Population Stability in a Seasonal Environment: A Discrete-Time Model and Its Calibration Using Grasshoppers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About