Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mechanistic analogy: how microcosms explain nature

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Theoretical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Microcosm studies of ecological processes have been criticized for being unrealistic. 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. We believe that the logic of the microcosm program for ecological research has been misunderstood. 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. Central to our account are the concepts of model-based reasoning and analogical inference. 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. By extension, our account also justifies numerous other kinds of ecological experimentation. These results are important because reliable causal accounts of ecological processes are necessary for sound application of ecological theory to conservation and environmental science. A severe sensitivity to reliable representation of causes is the chief virtue of the microcosm approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beier C, Rasmussen L (1994) Effects of whole-ecosystem manipulations on ecosystem internal processes. Trends Ecol Evol 9:218–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Solan M, Travis JM, Sait SM (2007) Microcosm experiments can inform global ecological problems. Trends Ecol Evol 22:516–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brook BW, O’Grady JJ, Chapman AP, Burgman MA, Akcakaya HR, Frankham R (2000) Predictive accuracy of population viability analysis in conservation biology. Nature 404:385–387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bulling M, White P, Raffaelli D, Pierce G (2006) Using model systems to address the biodiversity–ecosystem functioning process. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 311:295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte MW, Drake JA, Fukami T (2005) Constructing nature: laboratory models as necessary tools for investigating complex ecological communities. In: Population dynamics and laboratory ecology. Academic Press, New York, pp 333–353

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:677–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR (1999) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology: reply. Ecology 80:1085–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell W (2008) Non-lethal effects of predation in birds. Ibis 150:3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder LJ, Drenner RW, Kerfoot WC, McQueen DJ, Mills EL, Sommer U, Spencer CN, Vanni MJ (1988) Food web interactions in lakes. In: Carpenter SR (ed) Complex interactions in lake communities. Springer, New York, pp 141–160

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DasGupta NN, Ghosh SK (1946) A report on the Wilson cloud chamber and its applications in physics. Rev Mod Phys 18:225–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond J (1986) Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. In: Diamond J, Case T (eds) Community ecology. Harper & Row, New York, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Effects of environmental variation on extinction and establishment. Ecol Lett 7:26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake JM (2006) Extinction times in experimental populations. Ecology 87:2215–2220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drake JM, Griffen BD (2009) The speed of expansion and decline in experimental populations. Ecol Lett 12:772–778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drake JM, Griffen BD (2010) Early warning signals of extinction in deteriorating environments. Nature 467:456–459

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Drenner R, Mazumder A (1999) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology: comment. Ecology 80:1081–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan WF, Holmes EE (2006) Quantifying the extinction vortex. Ecol Lett 9:51–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fee EJ, Hecky RE (1992) Introduction to the Northwest Ontario Lake Size Series (NOLSS). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:2434–2444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser LH, Keddy P (1997) The role of experimental microcosms in ecological research. Trends Ecol Evol 12:478–481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gascoigne JC, Lipcius RN (2004) Allee effects driven by predation. J Appl Ecol 41:801–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glennan SS (1996) Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis 44:49–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffen B, Drake JM (2008) Effects of habitat size and quality on extinction in experimental populations. Proc R Soc Ser B 275:2251–2256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffen BD, Drake JM (2009) Environment, but not migration rate, influences extinction rate in experimental metapopulations. Proc R Soc Ser B 276:4363–4371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harré R (2003) The materiality of instruments in a metaphysics for experiments. In: Radder H (ed) The philosophy of scientific experimentation. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel C (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse M (1966) Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Huston MA (1999) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology: synthesis of comments. Ecology 80:1088–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup CM, Kassen R, Forde SE, Kerr B, Buckling A, Rainey PB, Bohannan BJM (2004) Big questions, small worlds: microbial model systems in ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 19:189–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • King DL (1980) Some cautions in applying results from aquatic microcosms. Technical Information Center, US Dept of Energy. Washington D.C., USA

  • Kramer AM, Drake JM (2010) Experimental demonstration of population extinction due to a predator-driven Allee effect. J Anim Ecol 79:633–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lande R, Orzack SH (1988) Extinction dynamics of age-structured populations in a fluctuating environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:7418–7421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lande R, Engen S, Saether B-E (2003) Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler SP (1998) Ecology in a bottle: using microcosms to test theory. In: Resetarits WJ Jr, Bernardo J (eds) Experimental ecology: issues and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 236–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton JH (1996) The Ecotron facility at Silwood Park: the value of “big bottle” experiments. Ecology 77:665–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loose CJ, Dawidowicz P (1994) Trade-offs in diel vertical migration by zooplankton—the costs of predator avoidance. Ecology 75:2255–2263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin PJ (1998) Realism, precision, and generality in experimental ecology. In: Resetarits WJ Jr, Bernardo J (eds) Experimental ecology: issues and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 50–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian N (2008) Creating scientific concept. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pangle KL, Peacor SD (2006) Non-lethal effect of the invasive predator Bythotrephes longimanus on Daphnia mendotae. Freshw Biol 51:1070–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petchey OL, McPhearson PT, Casey TM, Morin PJ (1999) Environmental warming alters food-web structure and ecosystem function. Nature 402:69–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petchey OL, Morin PJ, Hulot FD, Loreau M, McGrady-Steed J, Naeem S (2002) Contributions of aquatic model systems to our understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: syntheses and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 127–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters RH (1991) A critique for ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Relyea RA (2005) The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecol Appl 15:618–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE (1998) Ecological experiments and a research program in community ecology. In: Resetarits WJ Jr, Bernardo J (eds) Experimental ecology: issues and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter-Dyn N, Goel NS (1972) On the extinction of a colonizing species. Theor Popul Biol 3:406–433

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE (2004) A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity. Ecol Lett 7:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schindler DW (1998) Whole-ecosystem experiments: replication versus realism: the need for ecosystem-scale experiments. Ecosystems 1:323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava DS, Kolasa J, Bengtsson J, Gonzalez A, Lawler SP, Miller TE, Munguia P, Romanuk T, Schneider DC, Trzcinski MK (2004) Are natural microcosms useful model systems for ecology? Trends Ecol Evol 19:379–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediates indirect interaction in ecological communities. Ecology 84:1083–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittmer HU, Sinclair ARE, McLellan BN (2005) The role of predation in the decline and extirpation of woodland caibou. Oecologia 144:257–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank participants of the Sustainable conservation: Bridging the gap between disciplines conference held in Trondheim, Norway (March 15–18, 2010) for criticisms of these ideas which were first presented there and for conversations that helped us to develop them more fully. C. Brassil, M. Cadotte, J. Chase, and J. Shurin kindly provided many useful comments on an earlier version of this paper, which was further improved by the comments of three reviewers. A. Silletti and A. Janda assisted with the preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602-2202, USA

    John M. Drake & Andrew M. Kramer

Authors
  1. John M. Drake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew M. Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Drake.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drake, J.M., Kramer, A.M. Mechanistic analogy: how microcosms explain nature. Theor Ecol 5, 433–444 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-011-0134-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-011-0134-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation