Negoita et al. 2016; Zobel 2016; Wittig and Niekisch 2014; Hulvey and Aigner
2014; Keppel et al. 2010; Fukami 2010; Wilson 2011; Myers and Harms 2009,
2011; Svenning et al. 2009; Davis et al. 2005; Wiens and Donoghue 2004; Pärtel
2002; Hubbell 2001; Diaz et al. 1998; Eriksson 1993; Case 1983; Elton 1958).
Below, terms such as biomass (amount of living material per unit area), structure
(vertical and horizontal pattern of biomass), net primary productivity (rate of carbon
fixation in plants per unit area and time interval), species diversity (number of
species per unit area) and ecosystem are used according to ecological and biogeographical standards (Forman and Godron 1986; Lerch 1991; Odum and Barrett
2005; Chiarucci 2007; Stohlgren 2007; Ellenberg and Leuschner 2010; Hobohm
2016).
Plant resources, resources for animals and human resources are often defined in a
different meaning or with another pronounciation. Clearly, space, energy, water, and
nutrients or food are resources of all living organisms including humans.
Distribution patterns of money across the globe are often called human resources.
Are these resources different from the term resources used in the ecological science?
Even if the transfer of money via digital media today is almost insubstantial the
relevant equivalents of money are mostly natural resources, products, accomplishment and power.
Thus, in this respect the potential of money for humans is not much different from
the physical potential of a lion to feed on a killed antelope. We do not see the
necessity to exclude the term money from the term resources in general. Money
clearly is one of the most powerful drivers of processes initiated by humans.
Are toxic components resources? Resources and toxic components are normally
part of different discussions. Resources are seen in the framework of growth and
survival often with a positive connotation, toxicity means illness, cancer and death
and is often used with negative connotation. However, there is no principle difference between both. The effect on life depends on concentrations. The concentration
holds the answer if a chemical component has a positive, neutral or negative effect.
Furthermore, chemical components with different effects are often part of the same
metabolism.
Thus, we here use the term resource in a very broad sense.
Many aspects of the overall context are accessible to empirical studies and
statistics. However, the central discussion revolves around the logic that a stronger
reason would result in a stronger effect and that optimization in average leads to
higher success (yield). Due to a plethora of processes involved, because of overlaps
and interactions, because of many processes that are unexplored, yet, e.g., in the
context of microbiomes (cf. Zachow et al. 2016; Bragina et al. 2015; Saleem 2015),
and because of the time interval between cause and effect it is impossible to prove
this statement as a comprising principle at the moment. Therefore, the relationship
has to be enunciated as a theory.
84
C. Hobohm and S. E. Vanderplank
2014; Keppel et al. 2010; Fukami 2010; Wilson 2011; Myers and Harms 2009,
2011; Svenning et al. 2009; Davis et al. 2005; Wiens and Donoghue 2004; Pärtel
2002; Hubbell 2001; Diaz et al. 1998; Eriksson 1993; Case 1983; Elton 1958).
Below, terms such as biomass (amount of living material per unit area), structure
(vertical and horizontal pattern of biomass), net primary productivity (rate of carbon
fixation in plants per unit area and time interval), species diversity (number of
species per unit area) and ecosystem are used according to ecological and biogeographical standards (Forman and Godron 1986; Lerch 1991; Odum and Barrett
2005; Chiarucci 2007; Stohlgren 2007; Ellenberg and Leuschner 2010; Hobohm
2016).
Plant resources, resources for animals and human resources are often defined in a
different meaning or with another pronounciation. Clearly, space, energy, water, and
nutrients or food are resources of all living organisms including humans.
Distribution patterns of money across the globe are often called human resources.
Are these resources different from the term resources used in the ecological science?
Even if the transfer of money via digital media today is almost insubstantial the
relevant equivalents of money are mostly natural resources, products, accomplishment and power.
Thus, in this respect the potential of money for humans is not much different from
the physical potential of a lion to feed on a killed antelope. We do not see the
necessity to exclude the term money from the term resources in general. Money
clearly is one of the most powerful drivers of processes initiated by humans.
Are toxic components resources? Resources and toxic components are normally
part of different discussions. Resources are seen in the framework of growth and
survival often with a positive connotation, toxicity means illness, cancer and death
and is often used with negative connotation. However, there is no principle difference between both. The effect on life depends on concentrations. The concentration
holds the answer if a chemical component has a positive, neutral or negative effect.
Furthermore, chemical components with different effects are often part of the same
metabolism.
Thus, we here use the term resource in a very broad sense.
Many aspects of the overall context are accessible to empirical studies and
statistics. However, the central discussion revolves around the logic that a stronger
reason would result in a stronger effect and that optimization in average leads to
higher success (yield). Due to a plethora of processes involved, because of overlaps
and interactions, because of many processes that are unexplored, yet, e.g., in the
context of microbiomes (cf. Zachow et al. 2016; Bragina et al. 2015; Saleem 2015),
and because of the time interval between cause and effect it is impossible to prove
this statement as a comprising principle at the moment. Therefore, the relationship
has to be enunciated as a theory.
84
C. Hobohm and S. E. Vanderplank