Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Am Nat. 2010 Oct;176(4):385-93. doi: 10.1086/656273.

Macroecology: does it ignore or can it encourage further ecological syntheses based on spatially local experimental manipulations? (American Society of Naturalists address).

Author information

1
Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, USA. painert@u.washington.edu

Abstract

Detailed natural history coupled to experimental ecology has provided a rich harvest of insights into how natural communities in all ecosystems function, insights that cannot be gleaned from macroecological analyses. That detail, generated by small-spatial-scale but often lengthy experiments, is essential to managing and even restoring ecosystems. My essay focuses primarily on the ecology of exposed rocky intertidal shores, but I believe the derived implications are generalizable to all ecosystems. A mainly experimental approach has tended to avoid a preoccupation with niches but instead has focused on the ecological roles exercised by particular species. Attention to roles has produced a growing appreciation for trophic cascades and their consequences, with obvious implications for the management of fisheries and the conservation significance of apex predators. Some studies are more phenomenological and others more reductionist in focus, but all provide pathways toward understanding abundance and body size variation or a miscellany of indirect effects. Microecology in all ecosystems should continue to prosper independently of a macroecological, predominately terrestrial perspective.

PMID:
20735261
DOI:
10.1086/656273
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for University of Chicago Press
    Loading ...
    Support Center