This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Further explanation is required to avoid the contradiction in the terms that Ecology makes reference to Ecosystems and abiotic components "Ecosystems create a biophysical feedback between living (biotic) and nonliving (abiotic) components of an environment that generates and regulates the biogeochemical cycles of the planet." and in the very next paragraph states that "Ecology is a sub-discipline of Biology". May be it might be advisable to add or modify it to the following:
Ecology can be considered a sub-discipline of biology, the study of life, however as it also concerns itself with nonliving components of the environment, as such has a wider domain than only biology. Felipekovacic (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Felipekovacic. If anything this confusion between ecosystems and ecology arises because the first paragraph deviates into a discussion of ecosystem, which already has a wiki article of its own, and is not focused on ecology per se. Does anyone else agree that the emphasis of the start of the article needs to be broader, not dwelling on one ecological concept? Emble64 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The practical encyclopedia about alternative life techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.119.135.116 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Size reduction and other edits
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have now gone through and corrected the edits from the GA review process. I also cut some text and moved it to other main articles dealing with those headings. I think this is now short and concise enough. The last section on ecosystem services and the biodiversity crisis could use a bit more tidying up and I will work on this. I'm going to go through the see also list to ensure that there are no doubles from the article and if anything else needs to be added. Citation formats may need some work...any other suggestions before I put this up for the GA review? Looking at other GA articles I think this one is ready and hopefully not much more is really needed to get it into featured status.Thompsma (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
GA renomination
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have renominated this article for a GA review. Hopefully I did this properly.Thompsma (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The procedure has changed since your last nomination; see the instructions at WP:GAN (basically, there's fewer steps now). Sasata (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Got it and done.Thompsma (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Further reading
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
What's the point of the "Further reading" section? There are 50+ items. Five or six might be a reasonable number. Not 50. And what are the criteria for inclusion? It looks entirely arbitrary. Given the length problems with this article, it seems like an obvious place to prune, not expand. I'd say get rid of it altogether. Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The further reading was suggested in the GA review. It is common to see a further reading section in featured articles (see Evolution as an example). The links are not arbitrary - they are articles about specific ecological topics, they have accessible links, and they are also articles that were not cited in the main body of the page. I just recently added these as I have been scanning the internet to find resources. I would agree that a trimming might be in order, but thought at this stage of development that I should put out a variety of readings and then systematically choose the best available. I'm also open to removal of this section, but it seems to be within the norm of practice.Thompsma (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. - very glad to see that you have come to the ecology page. I read your work on intelligent design - great job! This page could use some critical feedback. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate what you've done here - I've been saying I should get this article up to standard since ~2005! Guettarda (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's common to see further readings sections, but they should be short. While they are present in many FAs, they are by no means required. And we need selection criteria that are a lot more specific than "accessible" and "not cited in the article" - that's a pool of thousands of articles. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but do you have any suggestions on what to cut? I just posted those articles in yesterday and today. Thought it best to shotgun it first then follow through by prioritizing, organizing and trimming. If you have any suggestions - I'm open to them.Thompsma (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Given the size of the article, I'd suggest that if you want to collect and prune, it might make sense to use a subpage (either of this page or your own userspace). Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Well...it's done for now and I'm here working at it quickly enough-so perhaps we can repair it now. I took a look at a few articles and the suggested reading list. Most of them have links to popular texts on the subject area - this way the reader would have a broad overview of the subject. However, ecology has not received the same degree of popular media that evolution has, for example. Moreover, I didn't want to make a list of further reading on texts that are already cited in the main article. Here is how I might prioritize the introductory reading list:
22. Altieri, M. 2001. The ecological impacts of agricultural biotechnology. An ActionBioscience.org original article[3]
10. Beman, J. 2010. Energy economics in ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 1(8):22[4]
23. Bestelmeyer, B.T. 2006. Threshold concepts and their use in rangeland management and restoration: The good, the bad, and the insidious. Restoration Ecology, 14(3):325-329[5]
2. Bryant, P. J. Biodiversity and Conservation. A Hypertext Book.[6]
15. Callicott, J. B., & Mumford, K. 1997. Ecological sustainability as a conservation concept. Conservation Biology, 11(1), 32-40[7]
7. Costanza, R., Cumberland, J.H., Daily, H., Goodland, R., & Norgaard, R.B. 1997. An Introduction to Ecological Economics (e-book). St. Lucie Press and International Society for Ecological Economics[8]
12. Davic, R. D., & Welsh, H. H. 2004. On the ecological roles of salamanders. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), 405-434[9]
1. Ecological Society of America. 2000. Ecosystem Services: A Primer.[10]
3. Farabee, M.J. 2006. The Online Biology Book. Hosted by Estrella Mountain Community College, Avondale, Arizona[11]
17. Forman, R.T.T., & Alexander, L.E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29(1):207-231[12]
4. Forseth, I. 2010. Terrestrial Biomes. Nature Education Knowledge 1(8):12[13]
13. Hanski, I. 2005. Landscape fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the societal response. The longterm consequences of our use of natural resources may be surprising and unpleasant. Embo reports 6(5), 388-392[14]
14. Hanski, I. 2008. The world that became ruined. EMBO reports 9:S34-S36[15]
9. Henkel, T. P. 2010. Coral reefs. Nature Education Knowledge 1(11):5[16]
16. Howe, H. F., & Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of Seed Dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13(1):201-228[17]
6. McCabe, D. J. 2010. Rivers and streams: Life in flowing water. Nature Education Knowledge 1(12):4[18]
21. Murphy, P. G., & Lugo, A. E. 1986. Ecology of tropical dry forest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17:67-88[19]
18. Naiman, R. J., & Décamps, H. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28(1):621-658[20]
5. Odum, H. 1973. Energy, ecology, and economics. Ambio, 2(6): 220-227[21]
20. Polis, G. A., Anderson, W. B., & Holt, R. D. 1997. Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology:The dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28(1):289-316[22]
23. Swartz W, Sala E, Tracey S, Watson R, Pauly D, 2010 The Spatial Expansion and Ecological Footprint of Fisheries (1950 to Present). PLoS ONE 5(12): e15143[24]
17. Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20(1):171-197[25]
21. Vanni, M. J. 2002. Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33(1):341-370[26]
19. Vitousek, P.M., & Sanford, R.L. 1986. Nutrient Cycling in Moist Tropical Forest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17(1):137-167[27]
11. Wilson, E. O., & Peter, F. M. (Eds.) 1986. Biodiversity. National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), Smithsonian Institution[28]
What do you think of keeping the top 10 in this list?Thompsma (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And what to trim in the advanced list:
19. Barrett, S. C. H., & Harder, L. D. 1996. Ecology and evolution of plant mating. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(2):73-79[1]
21. Brand, F. S., and K. Jax. 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society, 12(1):23[2]
16. Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M., & West, G. B. 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology, 85(7):1771–1789[3]
11. Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(5):1305-1312[4]
17. Chapin, F.S. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11(1):233-260[5]
9. Getz, W.M., 2009. Disease and the dynamics of food webs. PLoS Biol 7(9): e1000209[8]
10. Gotelli, N.J., Ellison, A.M. 2006. Food-Web models predict species abundances in response to habitat change. PLoS Biol 4(10): e324[9]
8. Green, J.L., Hastings, A., Arzberger, P., Ayala, F., Cottingham, K.L., Cuddington, K., Davis, F., Dunne, J.A., Fortin, M-J., Gerber, L., Neubert, M. 2005. Complexity in ecology and conservation: mathematical, statistical, and computational challenges. BioScience, 55:501-510[10]
25. Hanski, I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151-162[11]
7. Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41-49[12]
12. Heneghan, L., D. C. Coleman, X. Zou, D. A. Crossley, and B. L. Haines. 1999. Soil microarthropod contributions to decomposition dynamics: Tropical-temperate comparisons of a single substrate. Ecology 80:1873–1882[phttp://cwt33.ecology.uga.edu/publications/pubs_no_citations/heneghan_98_microarthropod.pdf]
6. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., & Feldman, M. W. 2000. Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23:131–175[13]
5. Magurran, A. E., & Henderson, P. A. 2010. Temporal turnover and the maintenance of diversity in ecological assemblages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1558):3611-3620[14]
20. Moilanen, A. and M. Nieminen. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology, 84:1131-1145[15]
23. Nosil, P., Sandoval, C.P. 2008. Ecological niche dimensionality and the evolutionary diversification of stick insects. PLoS ONE, 3(4):e1907[16]
22. Peltonen, A. & Hanski, I. 1991. Patterns of island occupancy explained by colonization and extinction rates in shrews. Ecology 72:1698-1708[17]
1. Peterson, G., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems, 1:6–18[18]
14. Quinn, J. F., & Dunham, A. E. 1983. On hypothesis testing in ecology and evolution. The American Naturalist, 122(5):602-617[19]
2. Saccheri, I. & Hanski, I. 2006. Natural selection and population dynamics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21:341-347[20]
13. Simberloff, D. S. 1974. Equilibrium theory of island biogeography and ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5(1):161-182[22]
3. Wiens, J. J., & Donoghue, M. J. 2004. Historical biogeography, ecology and species richness. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(12):639-644[23]
24. Woiwod, I.P. & Hanski, I. 1992. Patterns of density dependence in moths and aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology 61:619-629[24]
4. Womack, A. M., Bohannan, B. J. M., & Green, J. L. 2010. Biodiversity and biogeography of the atmosphere. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1558):3645-3653[25]
Should we keep the top 15 and leave it at that??Thompsma (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Featured article
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Does anyone have any suggestions of what could be done to make this a featured article? I've been working at this article for a long time. I worked on the white stork article for a fraction of time as an editor - had to leave for personal reasons, but that article is now featured. I think that ecology is in better shape than some of the other featured articles I come across. Perhaps it is an editorial problem - such as inconsistent citations? I will spend the next little while updating a few sections and trying to get all the editorial sections in line. A section on migration may be needed. I also did a recent review of Eugene Odum's Fundamentals of Ecology[26] and will try to incorporate some of the ideas from that text. Nature has also put together an excellent resource on ecology through an education web section[27] that covers most of the fundamentals. Any other ideas on what can be done??Thompsma (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
How about making Ecology a good topic instead. I thin this would mean much more good material on Ecology in Wikipedia, for the same effort or less. --Ettrig (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that we work on some of the sub-articles first? Many of the ecology topic articles, such as migration are poorly written. I would like to move onto one of those articles - and have been thinking of migration. However, I was hoping to first get this up to a featured status so I could leave feeling like it was a finished accomplishment.Thompsma (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed paragraph - needs work
I found and then removed this paragraph in the niche section:
I have no problem with the reference - and will read it over. However, the paragraph is poorly written and the citation is not in the correct format. I'll work on fixing this. Paradigm - for example - is not the right word. It is a principle - not a paradigm - competitive exclusion principle.Thompsma (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the spelling error Ettrig - I always get principal and principle mixed up!!!Thompsma (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay...I read this paper and it is interesting, but the authors do not reject the competitive exclusion principle entirely:
Certainly, our findings do not contradict the classical results. Rather, they extend what has been found earlier. Both the process of species spacing out over a niche axis and the possibility of evolutionary convergence between competing species have been predicted early on (24, 27). However, the convergence has always been assumed to eventually lead to competitive exclusion. The extension following from our work is that convergent evolution can lead to self-organized lumps of coexisting similar species that remain stable.
Is this important enough to include? It might be worth a sentence, but not a paragraph. I'll see what I can do.Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Added sentence.Thompsma (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Food web
I've started to move into the forks and I'm starting with food web. If the sub-heading main articles can be improved we can reduce the size of this article. Please feel free to join and help in the forks so that we can improve on this main article.Thompsma (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
New image for the lead
It was recently pointed out that File:Vegetation.png - which was at the head of this article is missing sources. This page needs a new image to replace that one. Anyone have a suggestion? I've been looking through wikicommons and nothing sticks out at me. I think an image of the Earth would be the appropriate thing to use here. Perhaps one of the following:
Suggestions??Thompsma (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Next FAC push
Part of the reason the last FAC never really got off the ground was the problems with reference formatting. I'd like for this article to become an FA, and would be willing to fix the references myself. This would be quite a bit of work (~250 refs), so want to see if everyone's on board before I undertake this. I would list-define all the refs (this makes it easier to edit the article text, and easier to maintain ref quality, as they're all in one place), make formatting consistent, and ensure all necessary parameters are present (doi's, pmid's, url's, etc.). Any objections to this proposal? Sasata (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you started on this Sasata?? I'm all for it.Thompsma (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't started, was waiting to see if there was interest. If you're on board, I will start working on these right away. After that is done, perhaps a peer review would be a good idea, to help smooth out any prose issues? When this is completed I think the FAC ride will be much smoother. I'll start a new section later and list any other concerns I have as I'm going through the text. Sasata (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
NICHE?
I may be wrong here (but I don't think so). The way niche is described is incorrect. Even if you go to the niche page it explains a niche as what the population currently occupies, not what it would be successful in. If a niche only described what a population would be successful in it would be impossible for a population to shift niches unless gross evolution were to happen.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 13:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The definition and description of niche in this article is referenced to a notable source that is used widely in ecological textbooks and contemporary peer-reviewed science. Hence, the way niche is described is correct according to the scientific definition of the term.Thompsma (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Definition for Ecology
This is the definition given in the lead section "is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment".
This is the definition given by Hans-Jurgen Otto in his book Forest Ecology: "is the science of the collective life, and of the way in which this life works in the "life house" that is the biosphere
I find that there are basic differences between the two, because the first limits Ecology to the relations between living organisms, wears the second is more comprehensive, and implies that there is a "collective life".
I would like to hear the comments of others, regarding the convenience or not for changing the definition.--Auró (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The definition does not limit ecology to the relations between living organisms only. Re-read the sentence, because it says that it is the relations that organisms have with respect to each other AND their natural environment. Otto's definition reveals nothing different new than isn't already contained in the one provided. "collective life" = "relations that living organisms have with respect to each other" and "the "life house" that is the biosphere" = "their natural environment". The existing definition is paraphrased and summarized from a wide distribution of ecology texts.Thompsma (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Subdiscipline of biology
It doesn't seem to me that the definition of ecology as a branch of biology is the best and most appropriate one. It is not hard to find sources describing it as interdisciplinary.
For example, Elements of ecology[28] (2006) by Thomas Michael Smith, Robert Leo Smith, pg. 15: "Ecology is an interdisciplinary science because the interactions of organisms with their environment and with each other involve physiological, behavioral, and physical responses."
Or, already in 1975, Ecology: the link between the natural and the social sciences[29], by Eugene Pleasants Odum, pg. 4: "Thus, ecology has grown from a division of biological science to a major interdisciplinary science that links together the biological, physical, and social sciences." --Eleassarmy talk 10:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable Eleassar. I'll have to check, but one of the citations I posted does say that it is a subdiscipline of biology. This is a classification scheme where you would expect lots of differing views on this. I agree with Odum's sentence saying that it has grown to a major interdisciplinary science.Thompsma (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Archive FA review comments
I was busily working away on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ecology/archive1 and then realized it was an archive requesting no modification - oops! Anyway, I'll keep my edits in there since they are time stamped. I will post the rest of my comments here.Thompsma (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Preparation for second FA review
A question: were you aiming for British or American spelling? I see a few instances of "behaviour" and also a few instances of "color." (Also a lot of instances of "behavior.") Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Does not matter to me, so long as it is consistent. Let's go with British (because I'm Canadian and partial to that spelling).Thompsma (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I just thought that if you had already put in effort to move most of the article in one direction, I didn't want to accidentally choose the other direction. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain what this sentence means? "In the early 20th century, ecology became more of an analytical form of natural history." I looked through the source, and I found the statement "Ecology in the early 20th century was often described as 'scientific natural history'" (with the comment that ecology grew out of the combination of science and natural history), but most of it talks about developments before that time. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Arc - you are doing an awesome job! That was a recent edit I made to cut down the text and the meaning was probably lost in translation. The sentence in the article I was getting at was "The term “scientific natural history” denotes this important intellectual transformation, which set the stage for the development of ecological science later that century...Analytic reasoning and precise measurement were the hallmarks of these advances."[30]: 368 It was an abbreviated way of saying that natural history went from metaphysics to more of a science involving analytical compilations (materialism). Hope this helps.Thompsma (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The timing is a bit off, but if you follow through on the publication Kingsland is talking about a transformation that spanned into the 20th century. Kingsland gives a larger overview in her book [31] - describing the analytical transformation after 1900.Thompsma (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the article. Does the change clarify the meaning?Thompsma (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The new version is much clearer. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I need to go to bed now - I'll join you again tomorrow and for as many days as we need. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I will be off most of the time until next Wednesday. You are doing a great job. I think we are just about ready to re-submit for FA review. Don't forget to check that all previous concerns have been addressed: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ecology/archive1. It will be great to see this article on the main Wikipedia featured article page, there are relatively few science articles that make it to that state.Thompsma (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
A few comments from the second session:
- "...and became even more popular during the 1960s environmental movement." Does this refer to scientific popularity, public popularity, or both?
- I can't access the "fireecology.net" source (Wagtendonk07). Could you check to see if it's the same for you?
- Some references refer to a large number of pages - the ones that I've come across so far are Levins80, Foster08, Boucher82, Waples06, Garren43, Cooper60, and Tansley35. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick pop-in - for the popular movement in the 1960's to 1970s - see [32]. I'll take another look at this. What do you mean by "Some references refer to a large number of pages"? Do you mean that the page numbers seem incorrect? Or is it that the files are super large? Or are you saying that those citations are used numerous times over?Thompsma (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I meant that the citations are e.g. "pages 50-80," which isn't very specific. Unless the most relevant information is on the first page given and the rest of it is related, I think only the pages that most directly support the statement in the article should be mentioned, e.g. "pages 55-56" or "pages 55-56, 78-80." (With exceptions - e.g. if the statement were, "X argued for Y," one might cite an entire chapter or book.) I'm not sure if this would be an important issue for the FA review. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
For the popular movement - I made a few changes to that sentence (diff), so let me know whether that's accurate. Also, after reading the link you gave me, I'm thinking that perhaps the section should have a paragraph on this. Right now it doesn't talk about how ecology became important in the study of pollution, species loss, etc (more generally, how it became relevant to popular concerns) other than that single comment. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Wagtendonk source. The reason I had looked it up was to check whether the preceding statement ("Fire creates a heterogenous ecosystem age and canopy structure") was in that source as well. It's actually in the source after the next sentence, so I moved them together. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Great job Arc de Ciel! I put the entire page numbers in the references as indicated in the journals. If I use a quote - then I use : X to indicate where the quote came from. In the FA review one of the reviewers also mentioned that the specific page numbers were not indicated. I am used to general quoting in APA or scientific journal format. Perhaps you and the editor are looking for exact page numbers where the concept can be located in the text? A whole paragraph on pollution, species loss in the history section might be a bit excessive and could possibly belong in the human ecology section? Another person of interest for that line of reference might be Rachel Carson and "Silent Spring"?Thompsma (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The environmentalist information would actually fit well in between "Human ecology" and "Relation to the environment".Thompsma (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Should add a page number for the citation to Young (1974) starting ""Human ecology may be defined:", as the source is over a hundred pages. Sasata (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to get the book from the library again. It was a long article to read, but I'm sure I can track the sentence down again. I was thinking of reading it again anyway - it was a super informative article to read.Thompsma (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Please call me Arc. :-) I didn't mean it should be an "environmentalist" paragraph, only that there wasn't much detail in the History section of developments after 1950 or so. The environmental movement would be mentioned, but in a context like, "Ecology became a topic of public interest beginning in the 1960s due to growing public awareness of human impact on ecosystems such as/because of A, B, C...ecological studies have been important in investigating environmental issues such as D and E...ecology remains important today because of F and G." A/B/C might be pollution, "Silent Spring," etc; D/E might be something like the studies of the Exxon Valdez spill, studies of extinction rates, or a very general statement like "human impact on ecosystems"; F/G might be something like global warming.
Thanks for clarifying your reference style. If specific page numbers aren't indicated, then the references are good. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Arc...You are correct. There is very little in the article on restoration ecology, forestry, conservation management (e.g., reserve design), or environmental impact assessment - which might fall broadly under a heading "Managing the biosphere" - or something to that effect. I think this could go into a sub-heading under human ecology. A single paragraph - four to five sentences as most starting with mention of "Silent Spring" heralding the environmental movement and a general statement that ecology is the science that provides the tools and recommendations for scientifically sound environmental management approaches.Thompsma (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll try and write something on it then. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Arc...beat you to the gun. I originally thought this could go into the human ecology section - and there may still be a spot for this information there. After doing a bit of work on the human ecology article for a while today and reading through some papers, I ended up putting a paragraph into the history of ecology section. It was a first draft - probably needs some work. Feel free to chop, edit, and include your writing in there as well.Thompsma (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. :-) I made a few changes, mostly to try and make it more concise, so feel free to undo anything if you think meaning has been lost. Could you check on the third sentence? I think there might be one or two misplaced words. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
We've made a lot of progress and I think we are just about ready to submit this for a second FA review. Thoughts on what might be left to do?Thompsma (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
A sentence by sentence copyedit. There's still some language that could be simplified a bit to make it easier for the layman. Also, it might be a good idea to bundle citation strings of four or more.
Image review: should ensure all image have appropriate licenses and adequate descriptions on Commons.
a peer review is usually helpful for finding prose issues.
Consider that WP:FAC is very busy, with almost 60 noms currently, and too few reviewers. This is a long article that isn't easy reading for a reviewer with a non-science background. Every effort should be made to ensure that there are as few things as possible for reviewers to complain about :) It would also help to review a few other noms, in the hope that others may be more likely to review a nom from those that are reviewing other articles. Sasata (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the sound advice Sasata. I've done a sentence by sentence copyedit, but had left the history section alone for a long time. I was surprised how much poor sentence structure had crept in over time, but have since read through the entire article checking everything as a I go. The main problem is that it is difficult for me to see my own mistakes, so a peer review could be useful. I reviewed all the images, but I will give them another run through to check for adequate descriptions. I think the peer review is the next step and that's where I'm headed.Thompsma (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I’ll defer to Sasata on that question, since I haven’t done this before. I’ll finish at least my current readthrough, and then see what else has to be done with any issues raised by the peer review.
By the way, did you see my question above on the third sentence of the last History paragraph? (“The historic emphasis...at its peak.”) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I did see your question and changed the wording to address the problem.Thompsma (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
According to this diff (all the edits since I asked the question), the sentence is still the same. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I got the sentences mixed-up - thought it was the Rachel Carson bit. I see the mistake and will fix it.Thompsma (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Cutting back on wikilinks
One of the critiques in the FA review was that this article has too many wikilinks. I noticed that Sasata added a few. Just thought I would put this out there - we should be trying to reduce the amount for FA status. Great to see all the teamwork bringing this together.Thompsma (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think too many repeated wikilinks was the main problem; I've been fixing those, but will keep on eye on wlinking in general (and may end up removing some of the ones I added :) Sasata (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It's difficult to resist. I keep trying to cut text and find myself adding information.Thompsma (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Does "Restoration ecology" deserve it's own paragraph?
I hate to expand on this article, but restoration ecology seems so vital to the field. Reviewers always complain about the length, but we all know how difficult the topic of ecology is to summarize. I am thinking of putting a sub-paragraph under human ecology for a small section on restoration ecology. Thoughts?Thompsma (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
“The next century will, I believe, be the era of restoration in ecology” –E. O. Wilson (1992)
One of the comments at the peer review was about the the lead. I know that when something is condensed so much, it's hard to make it more readable without sacrificing accuracy or omitting important information (I'd largely avoided changing the lead for that reason), but I do agree that there could be changes. I think the first paragraph is the most important, so here's a proposal:
Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house"; -λογία, "study of"[A]) is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment. VariablesTopics of interest to ecologists include the composition, distribution, amount (biomass), number, and changing states of organisms within and among ecosystems. Ecosystems are organized into intergraded series ofsystems composed of dynamically interacting parts (e.g., species) that aggregate into higher orders of complex integrated wholes (e.g., communities)including species and the non-living components of their environment. Ecosystems are sustained by biodiversity, which is the varieties of life and processes, including lineages of genes, species, and other ecosystems, that integrate through their interactions into complex and regenerativespatial arrangementsthe degree of variation in the species they contain.
-The definitions of "ecosystem" and "biodiversity" are adapted from their respective articles, and then further elaboration could be done below. Also note that one of the comments was to avoid the double use of the word "ecosystems" at the end of the second sentence and the beginning of the third, but I'm not sure how that could best be changed: one possibility (partially why I suggest changing "variables" to "topics" above) would be to just make it a list with ecosystems near the beginning, e.g. "ecosystems, interactions within ecosystems, nutrient and biomass flow..." Of course this version is just a suggestion, so please recommend improvements. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that I won't be around much for the next week. Or at least, that's the current plan. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Arc - I just did a quick read through the suggestions and I like what I see. I'm also moving this week, do not plan to be around much - but seem to find time on here, I'm on a bit of a wiki roll these past few weeks after an extended break.Thompsma (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Arc - I am very impressed with your work and insight. You have done a great job here. I like how you were able to look beyond the jargon and bring it down to very simple terms, yet retain the deeper meaning. Removing the mark-up:
Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house"; -λογία, "study of"[A]) is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment. Topics of interest to ecologists include the composition, distribution, amount (biomass), number, and changing states of organisms within and among ecosystems. Ecosystems are systems composed of dynamically interacting parts including species and the non-living components of their environment. Ecosystems are sustained by biodiversity, which is the degree of variation in the species they contain.
I am having a difficult time finding any problems with this, except the last sentence defining biodiversity seems off. It seems to be referring to something like a biodiversity metric (e.g., [33]) with your use of the word "degree". Here is a recent definition from a Nature article authored by a bunch of notable ecologists:
"Biodiversity is the variety of life, including variation among genes, species and functional traits. It is often measured as: richness is a measure of the number of unique life forms; evenness is a measure of the equitability among life forms; and heterogeneity is the dissimilarity among life forms."
The last bit is the difficult part: "functional traits". What are functional traits? They might include things such as migratory behaviour, bioturbators, nutrient cyclers, niche constructors and when integrated they generate ecosystem functions:
"Ecosystem functions are ecological processes that control the fluxes of energy, nutrients and organic matter through an environment. Examples include: primary production, which is the process by which plants use sunlight to convert inorganic matter into new biological tissue; nutrient cycling, which is the process by which biologically essential nutrients are captured, released and then recaptured; and decomposition, which is the process by which organic waste, such as dead plants and animals, is broken down and recycled."[34]
How do we summarize this last bit in as few words that can be understood? Here is a suggestion:
"Ecosystem functions that regulate the flux of energy and matter through an environment are sustained and regulated by the biodiversity within them. Biodiversity refers to the varieties of species, the genetic variations they contain, and the processes (e.g., nutrient cycling, primary production) that are functionally enriched by the diversity of ecological interactions."Thompsma (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to any suggestions or input. Thanks!!Thompsma (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I am tempted to write:
"Ecosystem functions that regulate the flux of energy and matter through an environment are sustained and regulated by the biodiversity within them. Biodiversity refers to the varieties of species, the genetic variations they contain, and the niche constructing processes that are functionally enriched by the diversity of ecological interactions."
It is probably too filled with jargon. The functional trait component is a difficult one to deal with, but I also think it is the most important part.Thompsma (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Leaving us with (we might be able to strike out systems):
Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house"; -λογία, "study of"[A]) is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment. Topics of interest to ecologists include the composition, distribution, amount (biomass), number, and changing states of organisms within and among ecosystems. Ecosystems are systems composed of dynamically interacting parts including species and the non-living components of their environment. Ecosystem functions that regulate the flux of energy and matter through an environment are sustained and regulated by the biodiversity within them. Biodiversity refers to the varieties of species in ecosystems, the genetic variations they contain, and the niche constructing processes that are functionally enriched by the diversity of ecological interactions."Thompsma (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Very nice, a huge improvement. A couple of quibbles: I'm sorry to see "communities" disappear because the interactions between organisms are emphasized by that word, though subdividing ecosystems into communities is clearly problematic. I'm also sorry to see the emphasis on "species", a very slippery concept, and just one of the taxonomic ranks that could be the relevant ones. Don't know what to suggest about "communities". Perhaps "Ecosystems are systems composed of dynamically interacting parts including speciesorganisms and the non-living components of their environment." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sminthopsis - thanks for your input, great to see another insightful contributor working on ecology. I am in agreement and well aware of the species problem and I am fine with your suggested change to organism. You might be interested in reading Kirk J. Fitzhugh's papers on species as hypotheses - for years I twisted through the literature on the species problem and Fitzhugh solved the dilemma for me. Species are hypotheses, organisms are the things we study, it is as simple as this and once you put species into the logical framework of a hypotheses it is easier to understand the numerous "definitions" that exist. This is different from something Alan Templeton's cohesion species concept, set up as test of a genetic and ecological exchangeability, because a confirmed test would supposedly make it a real cohesion species, but using Fitzhugh's rational, the test either falsifies or corroborates the species hypothesis. You are correct, organisms are the correct term in this case and it is a shame to get rid of communities. So:
Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house"; -λογία, "study of"[A]) is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment. Topics of interest to ecologists include the composition, distribution, amount (biomass), number, and changing states of organisms within and among ecosystems. Ecosystems are composed of dynamically interacting parts including organisms in communities and the non-living components of their environment. Ecosystem functions that regulate the flux of energy and matter through an environment are sustained and regulated by the biodiversity within them. Biodiversity refers to the varieties of species in ecosystems, the genetic variations they contain, and the niche constructing processes that are functionally enriched by the diversity of ecological interactions."
Adding the wikilink to niche construction might solve the jargon problem, but the redundant link will need to be removed from within the body of the article.Thompsma (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
A few quick comments:
-"organisms in communities" is a little awkward. Why not make it a list of three, and say "organisms, the communities they make up, and..."
-I would recommend a simpler definition of biodiversity. The one you mentioned above ("the variety of life, including variation among genes, species and functional traits") would probably read more easily. This would also avoid needing to use "niche construction."
-I'd rather not use the term "function/functionally" in reference to ecosystems without explanation. E.g. "Ecosystems regulate the flux of energy and matter through an environment, and this is sustained by the biodiversity within them." (Note I also removed "and regulated" since it's the second time the same word appeared in the sentence.)
-Also, I think that double links are permissible when one of them is in the lead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good Arc, except I do not think that the definition of biodiversity including "functional traits" is simpler. That is a loaded term, possibly as loaded as niche construction. Good to know that lead wiki links can be doubled. Here is what we have to offer - giving an explanation to ecosystem function:
Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house"; -λογία, "study of"[A]) is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment. Topics of interest to ecologists include the composition, distribution, amount (biomass), number, and changing states of organisms within and among ecosystems. Ecosystems are composed of dynamically interacting parts including organisms, the communities they make up, and the non-living components of their environment. Ecosystem functions, such as primary production, pedogenesis, nutrient cycling, and various niche construction activities, are processes that regulate the flux of energy and matter through an environment. These functions are sustained by the biodiversity within them. Biodiversity refers to the varieties of species in ecosystems, the genetic variations they contain, and processes that are functionally enriched by the diversity of ecological interactions."Thompsma (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Good, I was about to suggest that "Ecosystem functions that regulate the flux of energy and matter through an environment are sustained and regulated by the biodiversity within them." was a difficult sentence to read, likely to be misunderstood, but you've fixed that. (Thanks for the suggestion about reading Fitzhugh's papers; that will probably have to wait until I've sorted out what my study organism is up to, though.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. :-) Actually, I'd been thinking that "functional" could be eliminated from that definition, but decided not to mention it. As I said, I'd like to avoid the word as well - how about "Ecosystem processes" instead of "Ecosystem functions"? (and that allows an increase in concision by eliminating "are processes that" later in the sentence, and same for the word "functions" in the next sentence, which could be replaced with "processes" as well or just removed). Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with processes Arc - seems like we have achieved consensus so I will make the changes.Thompsma (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
What needs yet to be done?
Is there anything important that still needs to be done (other than the items left on the peer review page)? What does everyone think about requesting a copyedit and then submitting to the Featured Article review after that? Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the course forward, I think the article needs a thorough, "high level" review, for its overall structure, cogency, and readability for a general audience. There are cases where the forest seems to have been missed for the trees (see commensalism section, below). Perhaps identify an outside specialist reviewer, and heed their editorial guidance? Offered as a non-specialist, though a prof in a dependent area (natural products chemistry, and therapeutic discovery related to infections diseases). LeProf
Big text how are the relasionship between photosyntisis and resperation mentaning ecologycal balance ?
Should this unsigned entry be struck as meaningless? LeProf.
... which is currently cast as being limited in meaning to organisms living distantly apart. (!) In general, the relationship between the main categories of mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism are obscured by the current presentation. In general, the commensalism article is also in poor shape. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.245.235 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Chuck Norris prank
The opening paragraph of Ecology has words "Chuck Norris" that replaces terms like "ecology" or "nature". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philonous09 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts??Thompsma (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I dislike this type of template. They are only a kind of emphasized and glorified categories. We have another and better way of handling categories. There is also an intermediate variant with hide-able templates at the bottom. That is also OK. The top right position should be used for standardized highlighting of important facts on the phenomenon, as for example in Volvo V70. These are my thoughts, but really, I have given up on this issue. --Ettrig (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ettrig...I wasn't sure about this either. I was using the evolution article as a lead. What is the other and better way of handling categories that you are referring too?Thompsma (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I meant to refer to the "normal" category list that occurs at the bottom of the page. By clicking on such a category, the reader is shown a list of other articles in the same category. There are also templates that list related articles and are placed near the bottom of the page. Three of those occur in this article.
