Read Ebook: Guide to the study of animal ecology by Adams Charles C Charles Christopher

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 2070 lines and 56185 words, and 42 pages

PAGE

PREFACE v

CHAPTER

INDEX 151

INDEX TO NAMES 179

LIST OF FIGURES

RELATION OF ECOLOGY TO BIOLOGY

"I shall try to show that life is response to the order of nature.... But if it be admitted, it follows that biology is the study of response, and that the study of that order of nature to which response is made is as well within its province as the study of the living organism which responds, for all the knowledge we can get of both these aspects of nature is needed as a preparation for the study of that relation between them which constitutes life."

"To study life we must consider three things:

"The physical sciences deal with the external world, and in the laboratory we study the structure and activities of organisms by very similar methods; but if we stop there, neglecting the relation of the living being to its environment, our study is not biology or the science of life."

W. K. BROOKS.

ANIMAL ECOLOGY

Ecology has no aim, but ecologists have. The problems of the ecologist are not fundamentally different from those of any other kind of naturalist. The superficial differences in aim are due to the different points of view, or methods of approach, rather than to any essential difference in the character of the problems.

The essentially biological core of ecology may be best shown by considering the relation which this science bears to other branches of biology, a relation which has been admirably expressed by the eminent physiologist, Burdon-Sanderson , as follows:

The quotations from Brooks, on a preceding page, show even more explicitly the intimate relation which exists between biology and ecology. At first glance they may seem to prove almost too much--that biology and ecology are synonymous. They show at least that ecology is concerned with fundamental biological problems--the responses of organisms to their complete environments.

The relations which different branches of ecology bear to one another may be discussed under three headings, individual, aggregate, and associational ecology. These phases are superficially so distinct that students of one branch may be almost unaware of the existence of the co?rdinate branches and may not realize that each is a part of the larger unit.

In this form of study the association becomes the center of all radiating relations and responses. Such an association is an agent which transforms substance and energy, producing varied physiological conditions and responses in the continuous process of adjustment "which constitutes life." The physiological needs and states of an association have as real existence in individual animals as have similar needs in the cell or cells which compose the animal body. The mere statement of the facts of such relations is enough to make valid such a comparison.

For the associational aspect of ecology the German naturalist, M?bius, proposed in 1877 the term "biocoenosis." The meaning of this he expressed very clearly and concisely, and on account of its relatively obscure publication, in a paper devoted to oyster culture, it has not gained the circulation among zo?logists which its importance merits. His statement is as follows:

From ????, life, and ????????, to have something in common.

The three methods of approach to ecological study are not so distinct as they appear at first thought. With perfecting knowledge the network of interrelations increases and the paths converge. Then also the study of the individual behavior of "social" animals, as ants, white ants, bees, or birds which live and breed in colonies, shows transitional stages from the individual unit to that of the family, the colony, and on to the association. Yet the advantage of each point of view should be recognized as an aid in the analysis and synthesis of any problem.

Some students feel that the study of individual ecology should precede that of the associational. Within certain limits this is true, but if our general knowledge of biology had waited for the perfection of our knowledge of the individual cells of animals, the results would have been disastrous to all concerned. Even now our knowledge of these subjects is very incomplete. For similar reasons there should be no delay in studying animal aggregates and associations.

A combination of ecological and taxonomic study generally appeals most strongly to those students who have made a specialty of some group of animals. They are familiar with certain forms, have some confidence in taxonomic methods, and frequently have given some attention to habits, life histories, and to collecting. To those who like the descriptive aspect of taxonomy, ecological studies also offer a new field for further description and classification. At present perhaps the majority of ecological students have entered the subject through taxonomy. It is the almost universal verdict of such students that it has required much effort on their part to make the change in the point of view. Such a change cannot be made by a simple resolve, but requires a modification of the habits of the mind, which will be attended by a distinct consciousness of effort. As in other habits, reversion to the older attitude of mind is very easy. This change in point of view is a problem in habit formation, a study of the mental behavior of the ecologist, which is in reality the main topic thus far discussed. One may attempt to make such a change and find that he does not have sufficient modifiability to make it permanent, so that it is only for the moment, during actual collision with some stubborn fact, that he is able to realize ecological relations and an ecological point of view.

To the physiologist, however, individual ecology tends to appeal most strongly, and he, perhaps on account of the preponderance of analytical methods in his work, feels that this is the safest and most important aspect. This statement is perhaps also true of most students of animal behavior. This is largely due to the great present need of analytical methods in these lines, and perhaps indicates a stage in the development of their science rather than a permanent condition. Later a synthetic development will probably become more prominent, and with it will come a change in estimating relative values. Generally physiologists allow for a greater influence of the environment than do many other students. They are impressed with the dependence of organisms upon their environment, and the study of their reactions only reinforces this conception.

The ecology of living animals is only the latest chapter in the volume on this subject; the preceding chapters will contain a history of the indefinitely long series of ecological responses which have taken place in the geologic past. Here is where the ecologist and paleontologist and geologist find common ground. The ecology of living animals must furnish us with whatever firm basis we have for the interpretation of the conditions of life in the past, upon which the paleontologist, stratigrapher, or paleogeographer must depend, at least in part, for his interpretations.

With still another training and interest, as in the case of those especially interested in human affairs, such as the sociologist, the physician, the sanitary expert, and the agriculturist, we may ultimately expect a greater appreciation for the associational aspect because of the social or associational character of human society. The associational is the phase of animal activity which may be considered as the form of animal behavior which has developed into the human social relations. It is a response to the complete organic and inorganic environment.

It is rather natural that in a relatively newly recognized subject like ecology this human aspect has not been very fully discussed. For practical reasons the ecology of man has been developed largely independent of that of animals; just as human physiology and psychology have been developed relatively independent of comparative or general physiological psychology. To the mutual advantage of these subjects they are now rapidly converging, and we may anticipate a similar relation between general animal ecology and the ecology of man. In a general treatise on animal ecology the human phase should not receive undue emphasis any more than it should in a general physiology of animals or in a comparative psychology. But, nevertheless, the relationships of man and his animal associates form as truly an animal association as do those of the animals which live associated in some forest glade; and in all probability, before any approximately complete understanding can be had of the human associations, their roots and principles of activity must be known and understood in the less aristocratic portion of his animal relatives.

The recognition of the associational aspect of ecology, as well as that human ecology is a part of general animal ecology, is of recent origin. This is very well shown in the following quotation from Huxley :

'To point a moral, or adorn a tale'--

At a later date Huxley says: "For whatever view we may entertain about the nature of man, one thing is perfectly certain, that he is a living creature. Hence, if our definition is to be interpreted strictly, we must include man and all his ways and works under the head of Biology; in which case, we should find that psychology, politics, and political economy would be absorbed into the province of Biology. In strict logic no one can object to this course.... The real fact is that we biologists are a self-sacrificing people ... we feel that we have more than sufficient territory.... But I should like you to recollect that that is a sacrifice, and that you should not be surprised if it occasionally happens that you see a biologist apparently trespassing in the region of philosophy or politics; or meddling with human education; because, after all, that is a part of his kingdom which he has only voluntarily forsaken."

There is still another class of persons, particularly teachers and isolated students, who desire first of all to understand and interpret their own vicinity, and who will inquire which of the three plans their work best fits. If such a one begins with the detailed study of each species, the general survey will not be completed during his lifetime. If he uses the larger taxonomic units, he may survey the field by going over the same ground again and again, with each of the different groups successively in mind, until the entire field has been surveyed. Or, lastly, he may divide the area into associations and study the animals which are found living together, and by studying one association after another he may cover the entire field. A teacher will find certain important advantages in this plan, and certain disadvantages. One of the most important considerations in its favor is that such a study results in a familiarity with the kinds of animals one actually finds in natural groups, as when his class is on an excursion. The natural history which a farmer, a fisherman, a summer vacationist, or a sportsman acquires is grouped in this same manner. Thus to a large number of people this is the natural method of approach, and is generally of most permanent value, except possibly to some professional teachers or zo?logists. One of its greatest disadvantages is that in most of the literature which one must use, the animals are not grouped in this way, but taxinomically.

The individual, aggregate, and associational methods of study are in themselves subject to diverse angles of approach, and each has its particular advantages and disadvantages. Of the methods of approach mention will be made of three only, the descriptive, the comparative, and the genetic or method of processes. The descriptive method must develop to some degree before the genetic problems can be adequately stated, and the mature development of the genetic may, and generally does, lag far behind that of the descriptive. The reason for this is simple, for it is evident that it is much easier to describe what we see than it is to explain how it originated or its process of development. At present biology as a science is mainly in the descriptive stage, though it is slowly but surely becoming explanatory and genetic. The developmental or explanatory method is so difficult that every possible expedient--observation, comparison, reflection, experiment, etc.--must be used to secure the proper development of the main phases of ecology. There is a marked tendency in the naturalist to master one system of work, as observation or experiment, and to use it as a tool almost exclusively, turning from one phase of the subject to another, and continuing the use of the same method. This way of working is favorable to a good technique, but its weakness is that it often tends to give its user a feeling of the great superiority and reliability of the result reached by his method, and a correspondingly less appreciative recognition of results secured by other methods. To observe, to experiment, to reflect, to dissect, to stain, and to collect are only partial methods of investigation, and this fact should be realized and be kept in mind when estimating values and planning work.

When, however, we turn to the viewpoint of the development of the science of ecology as a whole, a symmetrical development of the subject is most desirable. The preponderating influence of any special point of view tends, like dominance in general, to smother or suppress other germinating and competing ideas. The different special interests each have their advantages and disadvantages, as does a general interest. Diversity in students leads to diversity in the development of the subject, and a variety of emotional appeals to the student has its advantages. And just as the special student should devote some attention to the general bearing of his work, so also should the student of the general aspects cultivate some special field of interest.

The preceding discussion of the aims and methods in ecological study has been intended to indicate some of its general bearings, and to give the student some idea of the tests or criteria which may be used to aid in steering his course through the maze of observations which he may make and the opinions which he encounters. It is of equal importance for the student to be able to perceive ecological relations as recorded by others, because one person's experience is so limited compared with the general body of recorded fact and inference. Furthermore, there are also so many degrees and kinds of work that go by the name ecological, which may or may not be, and so many also which are truly ecological but which do not pass under that name, that it is necessary that the student shall be able to see through its diverse guises and recognize its essential character. Whenever the question arises as to the ecological character of a fact, inference, or conclusion, its ecological validity may be tested in the following way:

REFERENCES ON THE ECOLOGICAL STANDPOINT

In this I have listed only those papers which have seemed to me particularly significant because of their point of view, regardless of whether or not they are primarily zo?logical or specifically mention ecology.

BROOKS, W. K.

Introductory, pp. 1-29; Huxley, and the Problem of the Naturalist, pp. 33-46; Nature and Nurture, pp. 49-79.

An extremely suggestive paper which should be read by every ecological student.

GANONG, W. F.

BURDON-SANDERSON, J. S.

M?BIUS, K.

On page 72 he proposes the term "biocoenose" for the group of animals which live together in the same habitat. Not seen by writer.

Translation of preceding paper. On pp. 721-729 he discusses "An Oyster-Bank as a Bioc?nose, or a Social Community"; on page 723 he proposes the word "biocoenosis." An illuminating paper.

DAHL, F.

WASMANN, E.

WHEELER, W. M.

Advocates the use of the term ethology.

Not seen by writer. Dr. W. M. Wheeler, of Harvard University, has kindly sent me the following note from p. 285. "'It is to ethology therefore that the fourth part of this work is devoted, to which belongs the study of the relations of organisms within the family and the society in the aggregate and in the community.' In a volume of the same work, page xx, St. Hilaire gives his program and speaks of the general facts belonging to ethological laws. These are defined as 'relating to the instincts, habits and more generally to the external vital manifestations of organisms.'" About the preceding Dr. Wheeler remarks: "You see this covers precisely the field which was a few years later called 'ecology' by Haeckel. Apparently the part of the work in which St. Hilaire wished to give a detailed account of the ethological phenomena of animals was not published. Only three volumes of the work exist. He died November 10, 1861, without having completed the work."

Thus ethology has priority over ecology, but to my mind this fact carries no special weight, particularly since the word has become current in botany. To use a different name for the same subject or process in botany and zo?logy is as undesirable as to use a different term for heredity in plants and in animals.

LANKESTER, E. R.

Lankester defines "Bionomics.--The lore of the farmer, gardener, sportsman, fancier, and field naturalist, including thremmatology, or the science of breeding, and the allied teleology, or science of organic adaptations: exemplified by the patriarch Jacob, the poet Vergil, Sprengel, Kirby and Spence, Wallace, and Darwin.... Buffon alone among the greater writers of the three past centuries emphasized that view of living things which we call 'bionomics.' Buffon deliberately opposed himself to the mere exposition of the structural resemblances and differences of animals, and, disregarding classification, devoted his treatise on natural history to a consideration of the habits of animals and their adaptations to their surroundings, whilst a special volume was devoted by him to the subject of reproduction.... Buffon is the only prominent writer who can be accorded historic rank in this study."

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet