瓶子里的信息?近期生态瓶实验的效用与局限性

Elizabeth E. Crone, Jane Molofsky
{"title":"瓶子里的信息?近期生态瓶实验的效用与局限性","authors":"Elizabeth E. Crone,&nbsp;Jane Molofsky","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1520-6602(1998)1:6<209::AID-INBI2>3.0.CO;2-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many classic tests of ecological theory have involved populations and communities maintained for many generations in the laboratory under tightly controlled conditions. In spite of this, such “bottle experiments” now play only a minor role within the larger field of ecology, and their relevance to natural populations and communities is regarded with suspicion by many field ecologists. Here, we compare and critique several recent bottle experiments, which were designed to test open questions in ecological theory that could never feasibly be addressed in natural communities. Judging from this set of experiments, we suspect that it will be difficult to relate the qualitative results of bottle experiments to natural populations and communities. What we learn from these experiments depends heavily on the relationship between theoretical models and experimental design. If the demography of organisms is completely under experimental control, bottle experiments can teach us about the possible range of population dynamics, but not about what regulates dynamics in natural populations. Furthermore, if experimental results are not linked to a mechanistic model, we can support or refute broad generalizations, but there is no direct way to relate bottle experiments to natural communities. Consequently, we argue that the most informative bottle experiments must incorporate both mechanistic models and unmanipulated demography; such bottle experiments can generate new ideas and future directions for both empirical and theoretical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":100679,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Biology: Issues, News, and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6602(1998)1:6<209::AID-INBI2>3.0.CO;2-X","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Message in a bottle? Utility and limitations of recent ecological bottle experiments\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth E. Crone,&nbsp;Jane Molofsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/(SICI)1520-6602(1998)1:6<209::AID-INBI2>3.0.CO;2-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Many classic tests of ecological theory have involved populations and communities maintained for many generations in the laboratory under tightly controlled conditions. In spite of this, such “bottle experiments” now play only a minor role within the larger field of ecology, and their relevance to natural populations and communities is regarded with suspicion by many field ecologists. Here, we compare and critique several recent bottle experiments, which were designed to test open questions in ecological theory that could never feasibly be addressed in natural communities. Judging from this set of experiments, we suspect that it will be difficult to relate the qualitative results of bottle experiments to natural populations and communities. What we learn from these experiments depends heavily on the relationship between theoretical models and experimental design. If the demography of organisms is completely under experimental control, bottle experiments can teach us about the possible range of population dynamics, but not about what regulates dynamics in natural populations. Furthermore, if experimental results are not linked to a mechanistic model, we can support or refute broad generalizations, but there is no direct way to relate bottle experiments to natural communities. Consequently, we argue that the most informative bottle experiments must incorporate both mechanistic models and unmanipulated demography; such bottle experiments can generate new ideas and future directions for both empirical and theoretical research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrative Biology: Issues, News, and Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6602(1998)1:6<209::AID-INBI2>3.0.CO;2-X\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrative Biology: Issues, News, and Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6602%281998%291%3A6%3C209%3A%3AAID-INBI2%3E3.0.CO%3B2-X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Biology: Issues, News, and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6602%281998%291%3A6%3C209%3A%3AAID-INBI2%3E3.0.CO%3B2-X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

生态学理论的许多经典测试都涉及在严格控制的条件下在实验室中维持了许多代的种群和群落。尽管如此,这种“瓶子实验”现在在更大的生态学领域中只起着很小的作用,而且它们与自然种群和群落的相关性受到许多野外生态学家的怀疑。在这里,我们比较和批评了最近的几个瓶子实验,这些实验旨在测试生态理论中永远无法在自然群落中解决的开放性问题。从这组实验来看,我们怀疑很难将瓶子实验的定性结果与自然种群和社区联系起来。我们从这些实验中学到的东西在很大程度上取决于理论模型和实验设计之间的关系。如果生物的人口统计完全处于实验控制之下,那么瓶子实验可以告诉我们种群动态的可能范围,但不能告诉我们是什么调节了自然种群的动态。此外,如果实验结果与机械模型无关,我们可以支持或反驳广泛的概括,但没有直接的方法将瓶子实验与自然群落联系起来。因此,我们认为,最翔实的瓶子实验必须结合机械模型和未经操纵的人口统计;这样的瓶子实验可以为实证和理论研究提供新的思路和未来的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Message in a bottle? Utility and limitations of recent ecological bottle experiments

Many classic tests of ecological theory have involved populations and communities maintained for many generations in the laboratory under tightly controlled conditions. In spite of this, such “bottle experiments” now play only a minor role within the larger field of ecology, and their relevance to natural populations and communities is regarded with suspicion by many field ecologists. Here, we compare and critique several recent bottle experiments, which were designed to test open questions in ecological theory that could never feasibly be addressed in natural communities. Judging from this set of experiments, we suspect that it will be difficult to relate the qualitative results of bottle experiments to natural populations and communities. What we learn from these experiments depends heavily on the relationship between theoretical models and experimental design. If the demography of organisms is completely under experimental control, bottle experiments can teach us about the possible range of population dynamics, but not about what regulates dynamics in natural populations. Furthermore, if experimental results are not linked to a mechanistic model, we can support or refute broad generalizations, but there is no direct way to relate bottle experiments to natural communities. Consequently, we argue that the most informative bottle experiments must incorporate both mechanistic models and unmanipulated demography; such bottle experiments can generate new ideas and future directions for both empirical and theoretical research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nature in a bottle? Integrating behavior with neurobiology: Odor-mediated moth flight and olfactory discrimination by glomerular arrays We are sponges: Phylogenetic systematics is getting a tad silly Message in a bottle? Utility and limitations of recent ecological bottle experiments A new model for olfactory imprinting in salmon
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1