Revising the fundamentals of ecological knowledge: the biota–environment interaction

Abstract

The foundations of ecological science were laid down at those times when the problem of a possible loss of local and global environmental sustainability was not as acute as it has become today. To make sure that the proposed scientific solutions to this problem are responsible, it is useful to revise the existing frameworks of environmental thought. In this paper, we present quantitative evidence suggesting that the persistence of an environment suitable for life for any appreciable period of time is only possible as long as a substantial area on the planet's surface is occupied by natural ecosystems undisturbed by anthropogenic activities. Once the natural biotic mechanism of environmental control is destroyed, both local and global environment rapidly (over a time scale of hundreds of years) degrade to a state unfit for life, even if any direct anthropogenic environmental impact like industrial pollution is absent. It is therefore important to quantitatively assess the stabilizing impact of natural ecosystems and to determine the necessary and sufficient global area that must be exempted from anthropogenic activities and let be occupied by natural ecosystems, so that the latter have power enough to sustain the global environment in a stable life-compatible state. This urgent scientific task emerges as the major challenge for modern ecological science. We discuss how the proposed conceptual approach to the biota-environment interaction relates to the important paradigms of biological theory.

Biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as driver of the hydrological cycle on land

“…It increases during the dry season when the clear sky conditions predominate Werth and Avissar, 2004). Dry periods during the vegetative season in natural forests of higher latitudes neither bring about a decrease of transpiration (Goulden et al, 1997;Tchebakova et al, 2002). In contrast, transpiration of open ecosystems like savannas, grasslands or shrublands incapable of maintaining high soil moisture content year round, drops radically during the dry season (Hutley et al, 2001;Kurc and Small, 2004).…”

“…If the occasional relative change of soil moisture content under the tree is less than ε, the tree does not react to it. According to our estimates (Gorshkov et al, 2000;Gorshkov et al, 2004), biotic sensitivity with respect to changes of major environmental parameters is of the order of ε∼10 −2 −10 −3 . Trees' ability to remain highly sensitive to environmental conditions is genetically programmed via individual selection of trees with ε<10 −2 .…”

“…Second, a fundamental parameter of the biotic sensitivity ε was introduced (Gorshkov, 1984(Gorshkov, , 1995Gorshkov et al, 2000;Gorshkov et al, 2004), which, if finite, makes it possible for various biotic mechanisms of global environmental control (including the biotic pump of atmospheric moisture) to originate in the course of natural selection acting on individual organisms (trees). Under tree below we shall understand an individual tree together with all the other organisms of the ecological community that are rigidly correlated with this tree (e.g., soil bacteria and fungi).…”

Fish assemblage structure in tributaries of the Meia Ponte River, Goiás, Brazil

“…The most adequate framework to achieve this is the fish-habitat interaction. This also allows the evaluation of the relationship between aquatic and terrestrial habitats, because fish use terrestrial alimentary resources such as insects and fruits, among others (Harris, 1995), which are important for planning the conservation of biodiversity (Matthews, 1998;Gorshkov et al, 2004). For neotropical water courses, some authors determined the structure of fish assemblages, and used environmental variables such as stream order and distance from the source (Bistoni & Hued, 2002), topography, stream order, and water flow velocity and volume (Uieda & Barretto, 1999) to explain them.…”

A synecological framework for systematic conservation planning

“…Current evidence for chaotic structure in ecological systems suggests that the interrelationships among their components (species and individuals) may play a key role in ecosystem functioning. The complex interactions among these components would be the cause of the properties and dynamics of such systems (see, e.g., Bolliger et al 2003;or Gorshkov et al 2004). Therefore, these emergent properties pertain neither to individuals nor species, but to the whole of ecosystem biodiversity.…”