7 Evidence of the Theory on Assembly Optimization (TAO)
Optimization processes within ecosystems include adaptation to the environment,
e.g., individual adjustment of the nutrient uptake (habituation), growth, accumulation, intraspecific and interspecific relationships, and the success of immigration and
integration of new species. The more individuals, the more species, the higher the
environmental specificity promoting ecological and evolutionary adaptation through
speciation, the better the use and yield of resources by the assembly of the ecosystem. We hypothesize that optimization of the resource use by the biota is the moving
power of change in every ecosystem as a response to changing conditions in the
environment or to human’s influences.
The ecosystem is an open system in which the resource use can be optimized in
different ways. Every successful dispersal event and new member of the community
is accompanied by a certain likelihood to enhance the resource use of the whole
system (cf. Negoita et al. 2016; Mitsch 2012; Jones et al. 1994; Meeker and Merkel
1984). Together with other objections against the Monoclimax Theory (cf. Clements
1936, Whittaker 1953, Hobohm 2016) this concept might be a further argument.
Both the assembly representing active life and the availability of the resources
representing potential life are both cause and effect at the same time, interrelated by
an uncountable number of processes that can be optimized. Evidence for this theory
can be found in recent publications such as Ferriere and Legendre (2013),
Ritterskamp et al. (2016), Zobel (2016), Morin et al. (2014), Cardinale et al.
(2013), Grime and Pierce (2012), Fukami 2010, Verhoef and Morin (2010), Allesina
and Pascual (2008), Keeling and Phillips (2007), Pärtel (2002), Fridley (2001), as
well as in many fundamental and classical publications related to evolution, ecology,
phytosociology and biogeography (cf. e.g. Townsend et al. 2003, Odum 1977, 1998,
Hartmann 1933, Braun-Blanquet 1928, Möbius 1877, Darwin 1859, Humboldt
1806).
8 Discussion
Is this theory simply part of the belief in a functional world that everything must be
adjusted, adapted and optimized, and if not will be eliminated? Independent of the
different positions and far from advancing a strong adaptionistic opinion here, the
optimization/adaptation approach seems to be an important principle.
Not all processes affecting biomass, productivity, or diversity can be interpreted
as logical consequence of resource use optimization processes.
There are at least a couple of antinomies, discrepancies, contradictions or dichotomies which indicate that all the processes working in the direction of optimization
of the resource use can only result in compromises.
Is there any dependency or hierarchy among different optimization processes?
The relationship between biomass/structure, productivity and plant species diversity
94
C. Hobohm and S. E. Vanderplank
Optimization processes within ecosystems include adaptation to the environment,
e.g., individual adjustment of the nutrient uptake (habituation), growth, accumulation, intraspecific and interspecific relationships, and the success of immigration and
integration of new species. The more individuals, the more species, the higher the
environmental specificity promoting ecological and evolutionary adaptation through
speciation, the better the use and yield of resources by the assembly of the ecosystem. We hypothesize that optimization of the resource use by the biota is the moving
power of change in every ecosystem as a response to changing conditions in the
environment or to human’s influences.
The ecosystem is an open system in which the resource use can be optimized in
different ways. Every successful dispersal event and new member of the community
is accompanied by a certain likelihood to enhance the resource use of the whole
system (cf. Negoita et al. 2016; Mitsch 2012; Jones et al. 1994; Meeker and Merkel
1984). Together with other objections against the Monoclimax Theory (cf. Clements
1936, Whittaker 1953, Hobohm 2016) this concept might be a further argument.
Both the assembly representing active life and the availability of the resources
representing potential life are both cause and effect at the same time, interrelated by
an uncountable number of processes that can be optimized. Evidence for this theory
can be found in recent publications such as Ferriere and Legendre (2013),
Ritterskamp et al. (2016), Zobel (2016), Morin et al. (2014), Cardinale et al.
(2013), Grime and Pierce (2012), Fukami 2010, Verhoef and Morin (2010), Allesina
and Pascual (2008), Keeling and Phillips (2007), Pärtel (2002), Fridley (2001), as
well as in many fundamental and classical publications related to evolution, ecology,
phytosociology and biogeography (cf. e.g. Townsend et al. 2003, Odum 1977, 1998,
Hartmann 1933, Braun-Blanquet 1928, Möbius 1877, Darwin 1859, Humboldt
1806).
8 Discussion
Is this theory simply part of the belief in a functional world that everything must be
adjusted, adapted and optimized, and if not will be eliminated? Independent of the
different positions and far from advancing a strong adaptionistic opinion here, the
optimization/adaptation approach seems to be an important principle.
Not all processes affecting biomass, productivity, or diversity can be interpreted
as logical consequence of resource use optimization processes.
There are at least a couple of antinomies, discrepancies, contradictions or dichotomies which indicate that all the processes working in the direction of optimization
of the resource use can only result in compromises.
Is there any dependency or hierarchy among different optimization processes?
The relationship between biomass/structure, productivity and plant species diversity
94
C. Hobohm and S. E. Vanderplank