genetic material. The life of all individuals, populations, species, ecosystems and
biomes is restricted between the limits and possibilities of their evolutionary history
(genetic constraints from inside) and their environment (ecological constraints from
outside). Therefore, the fate of genetic material that does not replicate or fit into the
environment is extinction (Meszena et al. 2001).
How can we disentangle the interrelation of biomass, productivity and species
diversity under natural conditions, and how they might change under persisting
exploitation activities by a growing population of humans?
We can borrow theory from the study of economics when looking at optimization
of complex systems. Furthermore, several aspects of optimization in technology and
economy have been considered with respect to man, domestic animals, and cultivated plants, and can be readily discussed in an ecological context (Dixit 1990; Trepl
2005).
2 Theoretical Background
Liebig’s law of the minimum is a principle discovered by Sprengel (1828). Justus von
Liebig simply popularized this principle afterwards. The finding states that growth of
cultivated plants is limited by the kind of resource which is only insufficiently
available in relation to the need.
Extreme values are often more relevant than averages, not only in agriculture or
ecology. A popular phrase tells us that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
In ecology, extreme values often have a stronger influence on the effect than values
between the extremes. Mean values are usually rather irrelevant in ecology. The
so-called Extreme Value Theory is a combination of different theories focusing on
statistics, economy, ecology, hydrology, meteorology, and others, and different
authors are identified as originators. In its shortest form it says that extreme values
are of higher relevance than mean values (de Haan and Ferreira 2006; Katz et al.
2005).
Why is it in this context interesting to focus not only on minima or mean values
but also on maxima such as world records of ecosystem properties (Table 1)? World
records are normally not far away from optimality or maximality. And optimization
is often a long process of adjustment, adaptation or investment with the goal of
ultimate perfection. The distinction between values of higher and values of lower
ecological relevance is important in the theoretical context of resource use and
resource use optimization.
There is a long discussion in biology, philosophy and social sciences about strong
and moderate positions of adaptionism, anti-adaptionism, neutralism, contingency
and pluralism. How important are processes of adaptation in human communities
and nature? And how important are neutral, contingent and random effects (e.g.,
Wilkins and Godfrey-Smith 2009; Orzack and Sober 2001; Eshel and Feldman
2001; Amundson 1994; Gould and Lewontin 1979)?
Resources for Humans, Plants and Animals: Who Is the Ruler of the Driver? And:. . .
81
biomes is restricted between the limits and possibilities of their evolutionary history
(genetic constraints from inside) and their environment (ecological constraints from
outside). Therefore, the fate of genetic material that does not replicate or fit into the
environment is extinction (Meszena et al. 2001).
How can we disentangle the interrelation of biomass, productivity and species
diversity under natural conditions, and how they might change under persisting
exploitation activities by a growing population of humans?
We can borrow theory from the study of economics when looking at optimization
of complex systems. Furthermore, several aspects of optimization in technology and
economy have been considered with respect to man, domestic animals, and cultivated plants, and can be readily discussed in an ecological context (Dixit 1990; Trepl
2005).
2 Theoretical Background
Liebig’s law of the minimum is a principle discovered by Sprengel (1828). Justus von
Liebig simply popularized this principle afterwards. The finding states that growth of
cultivated plants is limited by the kind of resource which is only insufficiently
available in relation to the need.
Extreme values are often more relevant than averages, not only in agriculture or
ecology. A popular phrase tells us that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
In ecology, extreme values often have a stronger influence on the effect than values
between the extremes. Mean values are usually rather irrelevant in ecology. The
so-called Extreme Value Theory is a combination of different theories focusing on
statistics, economy, ecology, hydrology, meteorology, and others, and different
authors are identified as originators. In its shortest form it says that extreme values
are of higher relevance than mean values (de Haan and Ferreira 2006; Katz et al.
2005).
Why is it in this context interesting to focus not only on minima or mean values
but also on maxima such as world records of ecosystem properties (Table 1)? World
records are normally not far away from optimality or maximality. And optimization
is often a long process of adjustment, adaptation or investment with the goal of
ultimate perfection. The distinction between values of higher and values of lower
ecological relevance is important in the theoretical context of resource use and
resource use optimization.
There is a long discussion in biology, philosophy and social sciences about strong
and moderate positions of adaptionism, anti-adaptionism, neutralism, contingency
and pluralism. How important are processes of adaptation in human communities
and nature? And how important are neutral, contingent and random effects (e.g.,
Wilkins and Godfrey-Smith 2009; Orzack and Sober 2001; Eshel and Feldman
2001; Amundson 1994; Gould and Lewontin 1979)?
Resources for Humans, Plants and Animals: Who Is the Ruler of the Driver? And:. . .
81