DOCSLIB.ORG

Processes and Patterns of Interaction As Units of Selection: an Introduction to ITSNTS Thinking W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Processes and Patterns of Interaction As Units of Selection: an Introduction to ITSNTS Thinking W PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to ITSNTS thinking W. Ford Doolittlea,1 and S. Andrew Inkpena,b Edited by Douglas Futuyma, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, and approved March 7, 2018 (received for review December 22, 2017) Many practicing biologists accept that nothing in their discipline makes sense except in the light of evolution, and that natural selection is evolution’s principal sense-maker. But what natural selection actu- ally is (a force or a statistical outcome, for example) and the levels of the biological hierarchy (genes, organisms, species, or even ecosystems) at which it operates directly are still actively disputed among philosophers and theoretical biologists. Most formulations of evolution by natural selection emphasize the differential reproduction of entities at one or the other of these levels. Some also recognize differential persistence, but in either case the focus is on lineages of material things: even species can be thought of as spatiotemporally restricted, if dispersed, physical beings. Few consider—as “units of selection” in their own right—the processes implemented by genes, cells, species, or communities. “It’s the song not the singer” (ITSNTS) theory does that, also claiming that evolution by natural selection of processes is more easily understood and explained as differential persistence than as differential reproduction. ITSNTS was formulated as a response to the observation that the collective functions of microbial communities (the songs) are more stably conserved and ecologically relevant than are the taxa that implement them (the singers). It aims to serve as a useful corrective to claims that “holobionts” (microbes and their animal or plant hosts) are aggregate “units of selection,” claims that often conflate meanings of that latter term. But ITSNS also seems broadly applicable, for example, to the evolution of global biogeochemical cycles and the definition of ecosystem function. evolution | natural selection | process | persistence | microbiome Our purpose here is to introduce and justify ITSNTS Lewontin (3) summarized the collective wisdom of (“It’s the song, not the singer”) theory as a way of con- neoDarwinian theorists in a three-part recipe for what ceptualizing evolution by natural selection (ENS) that we here are calling “standard ENS.” allows processes as well as things to be “units of selec- tion,” selected for persistence and re-produced but not (i) There is variation in morphological, physio- reproducing (1, 2). We see this as a legitimate and logical, and behavioral traits among members broadly useful application of Darwinian principles in a of a species (the principle of variation). (ii)The broad area (community evolution) currently in want of variation is in part heritable, so that individuals such theory. ITSNTS makes it sensible to talk about resemble their relations more than they re- semble unrelated individuals and, in particular, adaptations and functions as relevant to (if not proper- offspring resemble their parents (the principle ties of) multispecies collectives, while standard ENS of heredity). (iii) Different variants leave dif- formulations do not. Whenever what is remarkable ferent numbers of offspring either in immedi- about a biological or cultural phenomenon is the per- ate or remote generations (the principle of sistence of a process or pattern of interactions (a song) differential fitness). that can be carried out by a variety of cooperating entities (singers), each of these having evolved because Lewontin (3) claimed that these conditions are nec- individual participation has (as in standard ENS) favored essary and sufficient for ENS, and here we take as one its differential reproduction, that is ITSNTS. type of ENS that which will likely occur given them, aDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada; and bDepartment of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada Author contributions: W.F.D. and S.A.I. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. Published under the PNAS license. 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]. Published online March 26, 2018. 4006–4014 | PNAS | April 17, 2018 | vol. 115 | no. 16 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1722232115 Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 regardless of the nature of the evolving entity. But as commonly If p = 1, it is meaningful to think of communities as reproducing understood, these principles entail differential reproduction of (ar- and forming parent–offspring lineages. The pool has a single guably) material entities producing parent–offspring lineages. contributing parent community and is the exclusive contributor to ITSNTS questions this requirement, seeing Lewontin’s conditions one or more “offspring” communities. The situation would be like as sufficient but not necessary for ENS, which we take to be any that of a lichen, whose dispersal structures include individuals reiterated causal process resulting in greater relative representa- from both fungus and phycobiont or, as we envision here, of a tion at time tn later than t1 of certain types of entities by virtue of multispecies biofilm that “reproduces” by budding off a fragment those types’ possession of certain traits, those traits for that reason containing a random sample of the organisms present in it, this to being adaptations (2). reattach and grow at a new site. If fragments are large enough to Godfrey-Smith (4) describes the more limited, traditional view overcome “ecological drift” (10), each offspring community will when he writes that: likely resemble its parent or siblings in species composition more than it resembles unrelated communities. Lewontin’s conditions Evolution by natural selection is change in a population ow- would apply and community-level properties, such as the ten- ing to variation, heredity and differential reproductive dency to form more robust propagules more often (community- success. This is usually seen as a micro-evolutionary process reproductive traits that might depend on species make-up) could acting on organisms, but the criteria required are abstract; be selected for. genes, cells, social groups and species can all, in principle, However, suppose instead that all parental communities re- enter into change of this kind. For any objects to be units of lease the individual organisms they contain into a common pool, selection in this sense, however, they must be connected by parent–offspring relations; they must have the capacity to from which n are randomly chosen to form each community in the reproduce. Units of selection in this sense can be called next generation of communities. In this case, the species com- Darwinian individuals. An evolutionarily relevant case of positions of the offspring communities will reflect only that of the reproduction can take many forms. There need not be rep- common pool and will, sampling error aside, resemble each other. lication, the faithful production of copies. Replicators are By the “law of large numbers,” such intercommunity resemblance Darwinian individuals with high-fidelity, asexual reproduc- will get closer and closer as n increases, just as the frequency of tion, and it is possible to have evolution by natural selection heads flipped with an honest coin gets closer and closer to 50% on units where reproduction is sexual and heredity is weak the longer one flips. (emphasis ours). Of necessity, n cannot be less than p, the number of parents Although sexual heredity is weaker because each parent’s con- contributing at least one individual to a new community. In many tribution is diluted by half, children usually resemble parents and real microbial communities assembled by de novo recruitment siblings more than they do “unrelated individuals,” and this is all from multiple sources, such as multispecies biofilms, the micro- that Lewontin’s second condition actually demands. But the more biomes of many animals and plants, and environmental sites like parents, the more the dilution, and Godfrey-Smith (4) cautions hydrothermal vents or whale carcasses on the sea bottom, p and n that “... there must be some parent–offspring similarity, and the will both often be very large—dozens to thousands, perhaps— clarity of a ‘parent-offspring’ relation of the relevant kind is in- and new recruits can also come from lineages of organisms pre- versely related to the number of parents—if there are too many viously only loosely associated with circumscribable communities. parents there are no parents at all.” (It is important to remember that it is the number of parent communities that contribute individuals to each offspring com- How There Can Be “Too Many Parents” munity that matters in this model, not the number of different What ITSNTS theory aims to undermine and supplant are claims species that these individuals might represent.) that multispecies groups comprise material units of selection even So, the relevance of Godfrey-Smith’s (4) “too many parents” when in violation of Lewontin’s recipe, in violation because there warning is this. When p is large, n is as large and usually larger. It are too many parents. Such claims (5–9) made with respect to might in principle be possible to identify all parental communities microbial communities (symbioses, “holobionts,” biofilms, and contributing at least one individual organism to any particular
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Predators As Agents of Selection and Diversification
    diversity Review Predators as Agents of Selection and Diversification Jerald B. Johnson * and Mark C. Belk Evolutionary Ecology Laboratories, Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-801-422-4502 Received: 6 October 2020; Accepted: 29 October 2020; Published: 31 October 2020 Abstract: Predation is ubiquitous in nature and can be an important component of both ecological and evolutionary interactions. One of the most striking features of predators is how often they cause evolutionary diversification in natural systems. Here, we review several ways that this can occur, exploring empirical evidence and suggesting promising areas for future work. We also introduce several papers recently accepted in Diversity that demonstrate just how important and varied predation can be as an agent of natural selection. We conclude that there is still much to be done in this field, especially in areas where multiple predator species prey upon common prey, in certain taxonomic groups where we still know very little, and in an overall effort to actually quantify mortality rates and the strength of natural selection in the wild. Keywords: adaptation; mortality rates; natural selection; predation; prey 1. Introduction In the history of life, a key evolutionary innovation was the ability of some organisms to acquire energy and nutrients by killing and consuming other organisms [1–3]. This phenomenon of predation has evolved independently, multiple times across all known major lineages of life, both extinct and extant [1,2,4]. Quite simply, predators are ubiquitous agents of natural selection. Not surprisingly, prey species have evolved a variety of traits to avoid predation, including traits to avoid detection [4–6], to escape from predators [4,7], to withstand harm from attack [4], to deter predators [4,8], and to confuse or deceive predators [4,8].
    [Show full text]
  • Read Evolutionary Ecology
    Evolutionary Ecology Eric R. Pianka For this generation who must confront the shortsightness of their ancestors Citation Classic, Book Review Sixth Edition out of print but available used Seventh Edition - eBook available from Google Read On Line Here (use Safari --(other browsers may not work): Chapter 1 - Background Definitions and Groundwork, anthropocentrism, the importance of wild organisms in pristine natural environments, scaling and the hierarchical structure of biology, levels of approach in biology, domain of ecology, the scientific method, models, simple versus multiple causality, environment, limiting factors, tolerance limits, the principle of allocation, natural selection, self-replicating molecular assemblages, levels of selection, the urgency of basic ecological research Chapter 2 - Classical Biogeography Self-replicating molecular assemblages, geological past, classical biogeography, plate tectonics and continental drift Chapter 3 - Meteorology Major determinants of climate, local perturbations, variations in time and space, global weather modification Chapter 4 - Climate and Vegetation Plant life forms and biomes, microclimate, primary production and evapotranspiration, soil formation and primary succession, ecotones, classification of natural communities, interface between climate and vegetation, aquatic systems Chapter 5 - Resource Acquisition and Allocation Limiting factors, physiological optima and tolerance curves, energetics of metabolism and movement, resource and energy budgets, the principle of allocation, leaf
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Economics in Ecosystems By: J
    Energy Economics in Ecosystems By: J. Michael Beman (School of Natural Sciences, University of California at Merced) © 2010 Nature Education Citation: Beman, J. (2010) Energy Economics in Ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):13 What powers life? In most ecosystems, sunlight is absorbed and converted into usable forms of energy via photosynthesis. These usable forms of energy are carbon­based. The laws of physics describe the interactions between energy and mass: the energy in a closed system is conserved, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Modern physics has shown that reality is more 2 complex at very large and very small scales (e.g., Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc demonstrated that mass can be converted to energy in the sun or nuclear reactors), but in the context of Earth’s ecosystems, energy is conserved and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This seemingly simplistic statement has profound consequences when we study how ecosystems function. In particular, the energy present within an ecosystem is collected and shared by organisms in many different ways; this "sharing" takes place through ecological interactions, such as predator­prey dynamics and symbioses. When we move to the ecosystem level, however, we consider interactions among organisms, populations, communities, and their physical and chemical environment. These interactions have an important bearing on the structure of organisms, ecosystems, and, over geologic time, the planet itself. A primary example of this involves the energy currency in ecosystems, which is carbon. The amount and form of carbon present in different ecosystem pools — such as plants, animals, air, soil, and water — is controlled by organisms, and ultimately affects their ecological success.
    [Show full text]
  • MS-LS2-1 Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics
    MS-LS2-1 Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics Students who demonstrate understanding can: MS-LS2-1. Analyze and interpret data to provide evidence for the effects of resource availability on organisms and populations of organisms in an ecosystem. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on cause and effect relationships between resources and growth of individual organisms and the numbers of organisms in ecosystems during periods of abundant and scarce resources.] The performance expectation above was developed using the following elements from the NRC document A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Science and Engineering Disciplinary Core Ideas Crosscutting Concepts Practices LS2.A: Interdependent Relationships Cause and Effect in Ecosystems Analyzing and Interpreting Data Cause and effect relationships Analyzing data in 6–8 builds on K–5 Organisms, and populations of may be used to predict experiences and progresses to organisms, are dependent on their phenomena in natural or designed extending quantitative analysis to environmental interactions both with systems. other living things and with nonliving investigations, distinguishing between correlation and causation, and basic factors. statistical techniques of data and error In any ecosystem, organisms and analysis. populations with similar requirements Analyze and interpret data to for food, water, oxygen, or other provide evidence for phenomena. resources may compete with each other for limited resources, access to which consequently constrains their growth and reproduction. Growth of organisms and population increases are limited by access to resources. Observable features of the student performance by the end of the course: 1 Organizing data a Students organize the given data (e.g., using tables, graphs, and charts) to allow for analysis and interpretation of relationships between resource availability and organisms in an ecosystem, including: i.
    [Show full text]
  • Niche Evolution ­ Evolutionary Biology ­ Oxford Bibliographies
    8/23/2016 Niche Evolution ­ Evolutionary Biology ­ Oxford Bibliographies Niche Evolution Alex Pyron LAST MODIFIED: 26 MAY 2016 DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199941728­0075 Introduction The evolution of species’ niches is a process that is fundamental to investigations in numerous fields of biology, including speciation, community assembly, and long­term regional and global diversification processes. It forms the nexus between ecological and evolutionary questions. Topics as diverse as ecological speciation, niche conservatism, species coexistence, and historical biogeography all rely on interpreting patterns and drivers of species’ niches through time and across landscapes. Despite this importance, a distinct research agenda concerning niche evolution as a discrete topic of inquiry has yet to emerge. Niche evolution is often considered as a sidebar or of secondary importance when addressing questions such as “how did two species diverge?” Basic questions such as “what is a niche,” “what is the biological basis of niche evolution,” “at what scale should we evaluate niche evolution,” and “how can we observe niche evolution at different timescales” have rarely been addressed directly, or not at all in some systems. However, various intellectual threads connecting these ideas are evident in a number of recent and historical publications, giving some semblance of form to a framework for interpreting and evaluating niche evolution, and outlining major areas for future research from an evolutionary perspective. There is a reverse perspective from the macroecological scale as well, with questions involving coexistence, distributions and ranges, food webs, and other organismal attributes. General Overview Niche evolution has rarely, if ever, been addressed in depth as a standalone topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Habitat and Connectivity Model Predictions with Multi-Scale Resource Selection Functions from Two Geographic Areas
    Landscape Ecol (2019) 34:503–519 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00788-w (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) RESEARCH ARTICLE Improving habitat and connectivity model predictions with multi-scale resource selection functions from two geographic areas Ho Yi Wan . Samuel A. Cushman . Joseph L. Ganey Received: 22 May 2018 / Accepted: 18 February 2019 / Published online: 4 March 2019 Ó This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2019 Abstract converted the models into landscape resistance sur- Context Habitat loss and fragmentation are the most faces and used simulations to model connectivity pressing threats to biodiversity, yet assessing their corridors for the species, and created composite impacts across broad landscapes is challenging. habitat and connectivity models by averaging the Information on habitat suitability is sometimes avail- local and non-local models. able in the form of a resource selection function model Results While the local and the non-local models developed from a different geographical area, but its both performed well, the local model performed best applicability is unknown until tested. in the part of the study area where it was built, but Objectives We used the Mexican spotted owl as a performed worse in areas that are beyond the extent of case study to demonstrate how models developed from the data used to train it. The composite habitat model different geographic areas affect our predictions for improved performances over both models in most habitat suitability, landscape resistance, and connec- cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Meta-Ecosystems: a Theoretical Framework for a Spatial Ecosystem Ecology
    Ecology Letters, (2003) 6: 673–679 doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00483.x IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES Meta-ecosystems: a theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology Abstract Michel Loreau1*, Nicolas This contribution proposes the meta-ecosystem concept as a natural extension of the Mouquet2,4 and Robert D. Holt3 metapopulation and metacommunity concepts. A meta-ecosystem is defined as a set of 1Laboratoire d’Ecologie, UMR ecosystems connected by spatial flows of energy, materials and organisms across 7625, Ecole Normale Supe´rieure, ecosystem boundaries. This concept provides a powerful theoretical tool to understand 46 rue d’Ulm, F–75230 Paris the emergent properties that arise from spatial coupling of local ecosystems, such as Cedex 05, France global source–sink constraints, diversity–productivity patterns, stabilization of ecosystem 2Department of Biological processes and indirect interactions at landscape or regional scales. The meta-ecosystem Science and School of perspective thereby has the potential to integrate the perspectives of community and Computational Science and Information Technology, Florida landscape ecology, to provide novel fundamental insights into the dynamics and State University, Tallahassee, FL functioning of ecosystems from local to global scales, and to increase our ability to 32306-1100, USA predict the consequences of land-use changes on biodiversity and the provision of 3Department of Zoology, ecosystem services to human societies. University of Florida, 111 Bartram Hall, Gainesville, FL Keywords 32611-8525,
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig the Man the Scientist the Legend
    BIOL 7083 Community Ecologist Presentation Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig The Man The Scientist The Legend Michael Rosenzweigs Biographical Information Born in 1941 Jewish Parents wanted him to be a physician Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, 1966 Advisor: Robert H. MacArthur, Ph.D. Married for over 40 years to Carole Ruth Citron Together they have three children, and several grandchildren Biographical Information Known to be an innovator Founded the Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona in 1975, and was its first head In 1987 he founded the scientific journal Evolutionary Ecology In 1998, when prices for journals began to rise, he founded a competitor, Evolutionary Ecology Research Honor and Awards Ecological Society of America Eminent Ecologist Award for 2008 Faculty of Sci, Univ Arizona, Career Teaching Award, 2001 Ninth Lukacs Symp: Twentieth Century Distinguished Service Award, 1999 International Ecological Soc: Distinguished Statistical Ecologist, 1998 Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, Univ Arizona: Fellow, 1997±8 Mountain Research Center, Montana State Univ: Distinguished Lecturer, 1997 Univ Umeå, Sweden: Distinguished Visiting Scholar, 1997 Univ Miami: Distinguished Visiting Professor, 1996±7 Univ British Columbia: Dennis Chitty Lecturer, 1995±6 Iowa State Univ: 30th Paul L. Errington Memorial Lecturer, 1994 Michigan State Univ, Kellogg Biological Station: Eminent Ecologist, 1992 Honor and Awards Ben-Gurion Univ of the Negev, Israel: Jacob Blaustein Scholar, 1992
    [Show full text]
  • For-75: an Ecosystem Approach to Natural Resources Management
    FOR-75 An Ecosystems Approach to Natural Resources Management Thomas G. Barnes, Extension Wildlife Specialist ur nation—and especially Kentucky—has an The glade cress Oabundance of renewable natural resources, including timber, wildlife, and water. These re- sources have allowed us to build a strong nation and economy, creating one of the highest stan- dards of living in the world. As our nation grew and prospered during the past 200 years, we ex- tracted those natural resources through agricul- ture, forestry, mining, urban or industrial expansion, and other developments. Ultimately, we affected the amount of wild lands that native plants and animals need for survival. In the past, natural resources agencies have ral- The glade cress grows in Jefferson and Bullitt counties lied public support for declining wildlife popula- and nowhere else in the world. tions. In the 1930s, Congress passed the Federal Aid to Wildlife Resto- Table 1. Selected Ecosystem Declines in the ration Act, also called including the bald eagle, brown pelican, peregrine United States the Pittman-Robertson falcon, and American alligator, have recovered % Decline (loss) or Act, and state wildlife from the brink of extinction. However, numerous Ecosystem or Community Degradation agencies received fund- other species and unique habitats are declining, Pacific Northwest Old Growth Forest 90 ing to restore numerous and the list of endangered and threatened organ- Northeastern Pine Barrens 48 wildlife species that isms continues to grow every year. Why are these Tall Grass Prairie 961 were in trouble, includ- additional species in trouble, while other species Palouse Prairie 98 ing white-tailed deer, are increasing their populations and ranges? Where did we go wrong? Why, almost immedi- Blackbelt Prairies 98 wild turkeys, wood ducks, elk, and prong- ately after passage of the Endangered Species Act, Midwestern Oak Savanna 981 horn antelope.
    [Show full text]
  • Can More K-Selected Species Be Better Invaders?
    Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2007) 13, 535–543 Blackwell Publishing Ltd BIODIVERSITY Can more K-selected species be better RESEARCH invaders? A case study of fruit flies in La Réunion Pierre-François Duyck1*, Patrice David2 and Serge Quilici1 1UMR 53 Ӷ Peuplements Végétaux et ABSTRACT Bio-agresseurs en Milieu Tropical ӷ CIRAD Invasive species are often said to be r-selected. However, invaders must sometimes Pôle de Protection des Plantes (3P), 7 chemin de l’IRAT, 97410 St Pierre, La Réunion, France, compete with related resident species. In this case invaders should present combina- 2UMR 5175, CNRS Centre d’Ecologie tions of life-history traits that give them higher competitive ability than residents, Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), 1919 route de even at the expense of lower colonization ability. We test this prediction by compar- Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cedex, France ing life-history traits among four fruit fly species, one endemic and three successive invaders, in La Réunion Island. Recent invaders tend to produce fewer, but larger, juveniles, delay the onset but increase the duration of reproduction, survive longer, and senesce more slowly than earlier ones. These traits are associated with higher ranks in a competitive hierarchy established in a previous study. However, the endemic species, now nearly extinct in the island, is inferior to the other three with respect to both competition and colonization traits, violating the trade-off assumption. Our results overall suggest that the key traits for invasion in this system were those that *Correspondence: Pierre-François Duyck, favoured competition rather than colonization. CIRAD 3P, 7, chemin de l’IRAT, 97410, Keywords St Pierre, La Réunion Island, France.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation of Models of Fundamental Ecological Niches and Species’ Distributional Areas
    Biodiversity Informatics, 2, 2005, pp. 1-10 INTERPRETATION OF MODELS OF FUNDAMENTAL ECOLOGICAL NICHES AND SPECIES’ DISTRIBUTIONAL AREAS JORGE SOBERÓN Comisión Nacional de Biodiversidad, México, and Instituto de Ecología, UNAM, México AND A. TOWNSEND PETERSON Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA Abstract.—Estimation of the dimensions of fundamental ecological niches of species to predict their geographic distributions is increasingly being attempted in systematics, ecology, conservation, public health, etc. This technique is often (of necessity) based on data comprising records of presences only. In recent years, modeling approaches have been devised to estimate these interrelated expressions of a species’ ecology, distributional biology, and evolutionary history—nevertheless, a formal basis in ecological and evolutionary theory has largely been lacking. In this paper, we outline such a formal basis to clarify the use of techniques applied to the challenge of estimating ‘ecological niches;’ we analyze example situations that can be modeled using these techniques, and clarify interpretation of results. Key words.—ecological niche, fundamental niche, realizad niche, geographic distribution The fact that, at certain scales, climatic and occurrences with data sets summarizing climatic, physical factors affect profoundly the distributions topographic, edaphic, and other ‘ecological’ of species has been known for a very long time. In dimensions (in the form of GIS layers); the last two decades, mathematical techniques combinations of environmental variables most designed to estimate the geographic extent of the closely associated with observed presences of “fundamental ecological niche” (FN), or subsets of species can then be identified and projected onto it, defined mostly in coarse-scale climatic landscapes to identify appropriate regions, as dimensions [the “bioclimatic envelope” or climatic above.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeography: an Ecosystems Approach (Geography 338)
    WELCOME TO GEOGRAPHY/BOTANY 338: ENVIRONMENTAL BIOGEOGRAPHY Fall 2018 Schedule: Monday & Wednesday 2:30-3:45 pm, Humanities 1641 Credits: 3 Instructor: Professor Ken Keefover-Ring Email: [email protected] Office: Science Hall 115C Office Hours: Tuesday 3:00-4:00 pm & Wednesday 12:00-1:00 pm or by appointment Note: This course fulfills the Biological Science breadth requirement. COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course takes an ecosystems approach to understand how physical -- climate, geologic history, soils -- and biological -- physiology, evolution, extinction, dispersal, competition, predation -- factors interact to affect the past, present and future distribution of terrestrial biomes and all levels of biodiversity: ecosystems, species and genes. A particular focus will be placed on the role of disturbance and to recent human-driven climatic and land-cover changes and biological invasions on differences in historical and current distributions of global biodiversity. COURSE GOALS: • To learn patterns and mechanisms of local to global gene, species, ecosystem and biome distributions • To learn how past, current and future environmental change affect biogeography • To learn how humans affect geographic patterns of biodiversity • To learn how to apply concepts from biogeography to current environmental problems • To learn how to read and interpret the primary literature, that is, scientific articles in peer- reviewed journals. COURSE POLICY: I expect you to attend all lectures and come prepared to participate in discussion. I will take attendance. Please let me know if you need to miss three or more lectures. Please respect your fellow students, professor, and guest speakers and turn off the ringers on your cell phones and refrain from texting during class time.
    [Show full text]