2
DAVID M. QATES
are of various kinds and sizes and are recognizable as a unit, although
so-called separate ecosystems may merge and a sharp line of physical
demarcation may not exist to delimit them. The word “ecosystem” was
first used by Tansley (1935) although other ecologists such as Cowles
(1901) and Gleaeon t1926, 1927) reoognized the essentiality of a holistic
approach towarda ecology. It has always been my opinion that the very
definition of the discipline of ecology implied a holistic study and to
accuse many ecologists of not understanding this concept was to do
them a grave injustice. To attempt to understand an ecosystem may be
today the greatest challenge scientists have and to apply this understanding to human problems may be an even greater challenge.
The incredible complexity of an ecosystem has made it impossible for
the ecologist to describe, analyze, and understand the entire system and
to present his total knowledge and understanding
a neat circumscribed unit in the form of a model or concept. The lack of a unified
tangible result, like the structure of a molecule, has made it appear to
others that the ecologist waa in some manner not aa skilful or astute as
his colleague who works to understand a more finite system. Nothing
is further from the truth, yet because of the enormous complexity and
vast number of ecosystems, and their variability in time, the ecologist
has been confronted with a problem too immense for one person or a
few persons to cope with. The ecologist can describe an ecosystem well
and has indeed done 80 with many ecosystems. To understand a few of
the processes within the system has been possible ae well. It is a reasonable assertion that any great scientist, who has achieved recognizable
success in his chosen discipline, could not have done significantly better
with ecology than the best ecologists have done to date. Many disoiplines of science, e.g. classical physics, quantum physics, nuclear
physics, chemistry, solar astronomy, space scienoe and geophysica, and
molecular biology, to mention only a few, could not have been successful investigations much before the time in history when they were. They
each required that certain concepts and specific tools, e.g. telescopes,
satellites, nuclear accelerators, electron microscopes or diffraction equipment, and mathematics, be available to the investigators. With the
proper preliminary concepts and tools the scientists working in some of
these disciplines have made spectacular and notable achievements. The
credit for such achievements has gone where it justly belongs, to the
great men doing the work.
The question to be answered with regard to our understanding of
ecosystems is this: when will the concepts and the tools be available for
scientists to achieve a significant advancement of their understanding
of natural or disturbed ecosystems? Is the time at hand? Many advances
have been made during the lad, decade in basic concepts of plant
DAVID M. QATES
are of various kinds and sizes and are recognizable as a unit, although
so-called separate ecosystems may merge and a sharp line of physical
demarcation may not exist to delimit them. The word “ecosystem” was
first used by Tansley (1935) although other ecologists such as Cowles
(1901) and Gleaeon t1926, 1927) reoognized the essentiality of a holistic
approach towarda ecology. It has always been my opinion that the very
definition of the discipline of ecology implied a holistic study and to
accuse many ecologists of not understanding this concept was to do
them a grave injustice. To attempt to understand an ecosystem may be
today the greatest challenge scientists have and to apply this understanding to human problems may be an even greater challenge.
The incredible complexity of an ecosystem has made it impossible for
the ecologist to describe, analyze, and understand the entire system and
to present his total knowledge and understanding
a neat circumscribed unit in the form of a model or concept. The lack of a unified
tangible result, like the structure of a molecule, has made it appear to
others that the ecologist waa in some manner not aa skilful or astute as
his colleague who works to understand a more finite system. Nothing
is further from the truth, yet because of the enormous complexity and
vast number of ecosystems, and their variability in time, the ecologist
has been confronted with a problem too immense for one person or a
few persons to cope with. The ecologist can describe an ecosystem well
and has indeed done 80 with many ecosystems. To understand a few of
the processes within the system has been possible ae well. It is a reasonable assertion that any great scientist, who has achieved recognizable
success in his chosen discipline, could not have done significantly better
with ecology than the best ecologists have done to date. Many disoiplines of science, e.g. classical physics, quantum physics, nuclear
physics, chemistry, solar astronomy, space scienoe and geophysica, and
molecular biology, to mention only a few, could not have been successful investigations much before the time in history when they were. They
each required that certain concepts and specific tools, e.g. telescopes,
satellites, nuclear accelerators, electron microscopes or diffraction equipment, and mathematics, be available to the investigators. With the
proper preliminary concepts and tools the scientists working in some of
these disciplines have made spectacular and notable achievements. The
credit for such achievements has gone where it justly belongs, to the
great men doing the work.
The question to be answered with regard to our understanding of
ecosystems is this: when will the concepts and the tools be available for
scientists to achieve a significant advancement of their understanding
of natural or disturbed ecosystems? Is the time at hand? Many advances
have been made during the lad, decade in basic concepts of plant