In: Radder H (ed) The philosophy of scientific experimentation. Harré R (2003) The materiality of instruments in a metaphysics for experiments. Griffen BD, Drake JM (2009) Environment, but not migration rate, influences extinction rate in experimental metapopulations. Griffen B, Drake JM (2008) Effects of habitat size and quality on extinction in experimental populations. Glennan SS (1996) Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Gascoigne JC, Lipcius RN (2004) Allee effects driven by predation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:2434–2444įraser LH, Keddy P (1997) The role of experimental microcosms in ecological research. ![]() Ecol Lett 9:51–60įee EJ, Hecky RE (1992) Introduction to the Northwest Ontario Lake Size Series (NOLSS). Ecology 80:1081–1085įagan WF, Holmes EE (2006) Quantifying the extinction vortex. Nature 467:456–459ĭrenner R, Mazumder A (1999) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology: comment. Ecol Lett 12:772–778ĭrake JM, Griffen BD (2010) Early warning signals of extinction in deteriorating environments. Ecology 87:2215–2220ĭrake JM, Griffen BD (2009) The speed of expansion and decline in experimental populations. Ecol Lett 7:26–30ĭrake JM (2006) Extinction times in experimental populations. Harper & Row, New York, pp 3–22ĭrake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Effects of environmental variation on extinction and establishment. In: Diamond J, Case T (eds) Community ecology. Rev Mod Phys 18:225–290ĭiamond J (1986) Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. ![]() Springer, New York, pp 141–160ĭasGupta NN, Ghosh SK (1946) A report on the Wilson cloud chamber and its applications in physics. In: Carpenter SR (ed) Complex interactions in lake communities. Ibis 150:3–17Ĭrowder LJ, Drenner RW, Kerfoot WC, McQueen DJ, Mills EL, Sommer U, Spencer CN, Vanni MJ (1988) Food web interactions in lakes. Ecology 80:1085–1088Ĭresswell W (2008) Non-lethal effects of predation in birds. Ecology 77:677–680Ĭarpenter SR (1999) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology: reply. Academic Press, New York, pp 333–353Ĭarpenter SR (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. In: Population dynamics and laboratory ecology. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 311:295–309Ĭadotte MW, Drake JA, Fukami T (2005) Constructing nature: laboratory models as necessary tools for investigating complex ecological communities. Nature 404:385–387īulling M, White P, Raffaelli D, Pierce G (2006) Using model systems to address the biodiversity–ecosystem functioning process. Trends Ecol Evol 22:516–521īrook BW, O’Grady JJ, Chapman AP, Burgman MA, Akcakaya HR, Frankham R (2000) Predictive accuracy of population viability analysis in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 9:218–223īenton TG, Solan M, Travis JM, Sait SM (2007) Microcosm experiments can inform global ecological problems. A severe sensitivity to reliable representation of causes is the chief virtue of the microcosm approach.īeier C, Rasmussen L (1994) Effects of whole-ecosystem manipulations on ecosystem internal processes. These results are important because reliable causal accounts of ecological processes are necessary for sound application of ecological theory to conservation and environmental science. By extension, our account also justifies numerous other kinds of ecological experimentation. ![]() We find that microcosm studies are sound when they serve as models for nature and when certain properties, referred to as the essential properties, are in positive analogy. Central to our account are the concepts of model-based reasoning and analogical inference. Here, we respond to the criticism that microcosm studies play at most a heuristic role in ecology with a new account of scientific experimentation developed specifically with ecology and other environmental sciences in mind. We believe that the logic of the microcosm program for ecological research has been misunderstood. However, since lack of realism is inherent to all experimental science, if lack of realism invalidates microcosm models of ecological processes, then such lack of realism must either also invalidate much of the rest of experimental ecology or its force with respect to microcosm studies must derive from some other limitation of microcosm apparatus. Microcosm studies of ecological processes have been criticized for being unrealistic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |