Ecosystems (2005) 8: 225-232 C/*V\CVCTE?lC DOI: 10.1007/s 10021 -004-0098-7 tVvd T 0 I CM) ? 2005Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. in Biocomplexity Coupled A Natural-Human Systems: Multidimensional Framework S. T. A. Pickett,1 M. L. Cadenasso,1 and J.M. Grove2 1 Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook, New York 12545, USA; 2Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 705 Spear Street, P.O. Box 968, Burlington, Vermont 05401, USA Abstract As defined by Ascher, biocomplexity results from a configuration of the elements. Similarly, "multiplicity of interconnected relationships and organizational complexity increases as the focus levels/' However, no integrative framework yet shifts from unconnected units to connectivity exists to facilitate the application of this concept to among functional units. Finally, temporal com coupled human-natural systems. Indeed, the term plexity increases as the current state of a system "biocomplexity" is still used primarily as a creative comes to rely more and more on past states, and and provocative metaphor. To help advance its therefore to reflect echoes, legacies, and evolving utility, we present a framework that focuses on indirect effects of those states. This three-dimen linkages among different disciplines that are often sional, conceptual volume of biocomplexity en used in studies of coupled human-natural systems, ables connections between models that derive from including the ecological, physical, and socioeco different disciplines to be drawn at an appropriate nomic sciences. The framework consists of three level of complexity for integration. dimensions of complexity: spatial, organizational, and temporal. Spatial complexity increases as the Key words: biocomplexity; biodiversity; hetero focus changes from the type and number of the geneity; history; cross-disciplinary; integration; elements of spatial heterogeneity to an explicit space; time; organization; metaphor. Introduction coupled human-natural systems, we have devised a framework that can help operationalize the meta The term "biocomplexity" is a relatively new one phors and abstractions used in integrative studies. (Mervis 1999; Michener and others 2001). There are The biodiversity pathway may seem to be rela two ways to conceive of its introduction into ecol tively straightforward. However, it is less clear how ogy?first, by analogy to the slightly older term the physical and mathematical sources can be used "biodiversity" (Wilson and Peter 1988), and second, to build an empirical bridge between ecology and as a to the abstractions of in sys bridge complexity the social sciences. We propose a framework based tems theory and other sciences (Auyang 1998). In on commonly recognized dimensions of space, both translations, the term is generally used pri time, and organization (Frost and others 1988; marily as a provocative metaphor. In an effort to Cottingham 2002). By suggesting some potentially apply this concept more effectively to the study of measurable ways in which complexity may vary along those three dimensions, we hope to identify Received 15 February 2002; accepted 9 September 2003; published online features that and social scientists can use 31 May 2005. ecologists * Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] for cross-disciplinary integration. 225 This content downloaded from 170.144.166.92 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:44:28 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 226 S. T. A. Pickett and others Although metaphor is an extremely useful tool to coupled human-natural systems, we purpose a for joining disciplines (Pickett and Cadenasso more focused, fully articulated definition that fol 2002), the framework we present shows how to lows the spirit of Ascher's general concept. We move beyond metaphor in linking social and eco define biocomplexity as "the degree to which the logical disciplines. A framework is not itself a the interactions in ecological systems comprising bio ory, but a skeleton to link the various components logical, social, and physical components incorpo of theory (Pickett and others 1994) and to suggest rate spatially explicity structure, organizational the components that will ultimately be used in connectivity, and historical contingency." operational models (Cadenasso and others 2003). Before presenting the framework, we will briefly Frameworks specify the factors and processes that outline the roots of the biocomplexity concept, as must be included in models to translate an abstract they motivate and lend context to the structure of concept into particular cases. our framework. Definitions of Biocomplexity Biodiversity and Its Limits The concept of "biocomplexity" was first intro Biocomplexity has clear analogies with the slightly duced by Colwell (1998) as a rather metaphorical older concept of biodiversity. Both deal with means of adumbrating a new research initiative. numbers of entities and phenomena. The concept She applied this new coinage to a wide variety of of biodiversity emphasizes the richness of the living goals and phenomena: (a) links across the sciences; world based on hereditary variation (Wilson and (b) the linkage of biological and physical processes; Peter 1988). "Biodiversity" was originally intro (c) the wide scope of various methodological ap duced as a metaphorical term that could engage the proaches; (d) the inherent complexity of the Earth, public and policy makers. Thereafter, technical including global scales and the human components definitions, such as the one proposed by Gaston of systems; (e) environmental problem solving; (f) and Blackburn (2000), codified biodiversity as "the a foundation in systems and chaos theories; and (g) study of number and difference." The term "bio the creation of order in nature. This sort of richness diversity" was proposed to advance scientific of connotations was echoed in subsequent analy understanding and to serve a societal function. ses. In their discussion of biocomplexity, Michener Specifically, itwas intended to improve the success and others (2001) highlighted emergence, space of conservation (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). In and time-scale changes, and synergistic mecha that context, it engages personal and public values nisms. They defined "biocomplexity" as "the and acts as a vehicle for public discourse. In the properties emerging from the interplay of behav public discourse, it remains a powerful metaphor ioral, biological, chemical, physical, and social ical tool. interactions that affect, sustain, or are modified by The concept of biodiversity now clearly applies to organisms, including humans" (Michener and multiple biological realms, ranging from genes to others 2001). Cottingham (2002) emphasized the landscapes. For each biological realm, three attri diversity required of teams investigating biocom butes of biodiversity exist: composition, structure, plexity, as well as the need for conceptual and and function (Noss 1990). Composition is about scalar integration. what constitutes a complex. Structure is about how Two questions emerge from these characteriza the components are assembled, and function is tions of biocomplexity. First, is there an underlying about what the complex does in a specified context. core concept that can unify the diversity of ideas In spite of the functional and hierarchical inter currently associated with the term? Second, is pretation of biodiversity by Noss (1990), the con there a way to use the concept to achieve the cept, as it is usually used, has important limits. integration of social and biogeophysical sciences Because it was developed first for hereditary units, (see, for example, Covich 2000) The general defi such as species (Wilson and Peter 1988), it has a nition proposed by Ascher (2001) captures the legacy of focusing on the biological part of ecosys essence of many of the characterizations and nar tems. However, the physical environment may, as rower definitions of biocomplexity: Biocomplexity much as the organisms, drive the differentiation is "the multiplicity of interconnected relationships that is fundamental to biodiversity. In addition, the and levels." According to this view, many of the study of biodiversity has maintained a structural or specific technical features of biocomplexity emerge compositional emphasis in practice. from these interconnected relationships. To pro A further limit to biodiversity is that the subject mote the operational application of biocomplexity has been spatially inexplicit. In other words, the This content downloaded from 170.144.166.92 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:44:28 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Biocomplexity in Coupled Human-Natural Systems 227 rela heterogeneities of the natural world are often relationships, and when those interacting more lumped or averaged, rather than expressed in their tionships span multiple scales. The abstract as full spatial richness. Another limit is that humans aspects of complexity, such emergence and have either been excluded from analysis or con nonlinearity (Ascher 2001), result from these basic sidered to be external drivers to ecological systems. features. Therefore, a framework that enables us to across Biocomplexity corrects some of the limitations address a multiplicity of interactions multiple biodiversity has met with in practice. Biocomplex scales would assist in the study of coupled human ity emphasizes the dynamics of systems and is ex natural systems. plicit about the application beyond the focus on In the realm of coupled human-natural