Skip to main content
Log in

A Biosemiotic Perspective of the Resource Criterion: Toward a General Theory of Resources

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Describing resources and their relationships with organisms seems to be a useful approach to a ‘unified ecology’, contributing to fill the gap between natural and human oriented processes, and opening new perspectives in dealing with biological complexity. This Resource Criterion defines the main properties of resources, describes the mechanisms that link them to individual species, and gives a particular emphasis to the biosemiotic approach that allows resources to be identified inside a heterogeneous ecological medium adopting the eco-field model. In particular, this Criterion allows to couple matter, structured energy and information composing the ecological systems to the biosemiotic and cognitive mechanisms adopted by individual species to track resources, transforming neutral surroundings into meaningful species-specific Umwelten. The expansion of the human semiotic niche that is a relevant evolutionary process of the present time, assigns the role of powerful and efficient agency to the Resources Criterion to evaluate the effect of human intrusion into the natural systems with habits of key stone species, under the challenge of a growing use of alloctonous, immaterial and symbolic resources of the actual globalized societal models. The Resource Criterion interprets the ecological dynamics contributing to complete the epistemology of the ecology, to open a bridge toward economy and other societal sciences, and to contribute to formulate a General Theory of Resources.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, T. F. H., & Hoekstra, T. W. (1992). Toward a unified ecology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, J. O., & Lindroth, M. (2001). Ecological unsustainable trade. Ecological Economics, 37(1), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. (2003). Welcome to the anthropocene. Nature, 424, 709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baranger, M. (2001). Chaos, complexity, and entropy: A physics talk for non-physicists, Wesleyan University Physics Dept. Colloquium (2001). Available at http://www.necsi.org/projects/baranger/cce.html.

  • Barbieri, M. (2003). The organic codes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Barbieri, M. (2008). What is biosemiotics? Biosemiotics, 1, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, T. L., Farina, A., & Barrett, G. W. (2009). Aesthetic landscapes: an emergent component in sustaining societies. Landscape Ecology. doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9354-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2003). Minding animals, minding earth: science, nature, kinship, and hearth. Human Ecology Review, 10(1), 56–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, M. S., & McDonal, L. L. (1999). Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. TREE, 14(7), 268–272.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. E., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M., & West, G. B. (2004). Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology, 85, 1771–1789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, R. W., Downs, A., McCann, B., & Mukherji, S. (2005). Sprawl costs. Washington: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadenasso, M. L., Pickett, S. T. A., & Grove, J. M. (2006). Dimensions of ecosystem complexity: heterogeneity, connectivity, and history. Ecological Complexity, 3, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. R., & Folke, C. (2006). Ecology for transformation. TRENDS, 21(6), 309–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, F. E., & Shelford, V. E. (1939). Bio-ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Cottinghamm, K. L., & Zens, M. S. (2004). Metabolic rate opens a grand vista on ecology. Ecology, 85(7), 1805–1807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cristancho, S., & Vining, J. (2004). Culturally-defined keystone species. Review in Human Ecology, 11, 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2009). Environmental efficient well-being: rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts. Human Ecology Review, 16, 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwernychuk, L. W., & Boag, D. A. (1972). Ducks nesting in association with gulls—an ecological trap? Canadian Journal of Zoology, 50, 559–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, J., & Rembold, H. (1992). Biosemiotics—a paradigm of biology. Naturwissenschaften, 79, 60–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P. J., & Abivardi, C. (1998). The value of biodiversity: where ecology and economy blend. Biological Conservation, 83, 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisler, A. D., Eisler, H., & Yoshida, M. (2003). Perception of human ecology: cross-cultural and gender comparisons. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A. (2008). The landscape as a semiotic interface between organisms and resources. Biosemiotics, 1(1), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. (2004). The eco-field: a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Ecological Research, 19, 107–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. (2006). The eco-field hypothesis: toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecology, 21, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A., Johnson, A. R., Turber, S. J., & Belgrano, A. (2003). ‘Full’ world versus ‘empty’ world paradigm at the time of globalisation. Ecological Economics, 45, 11–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A., Bogaert, J., & Schipani, I. (2005). Cognitive landscape and information: new perspectives to investigate the ecological complexity. BioSystems, 79, 235–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A., Scozzafava, S., & Napoletano, B. (2007). Paesaggi Terapeutici: basi paradigmatiche e contributo delle diverse discipline/Therapeutic Landscapes. Paradigms and Applications. In: A. Ghersi (Ed.), Paesaggi terapeutici/Therapeutic landscapes. Alinea Editrice.

  • Favareau, D. (2007). The evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis (pp. 1–65). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Baggethun, de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris-Jones, P. (2009). Honeybees, communicative order, and the collapse of ecosystems. Biosemiotics. doi:10.1007/S1230-009-9044-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harte, J. (2004). The value of null theories in ecology. Ecology, 85(7), 1792–1794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmayer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics. An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: Scranton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, R. D. (2008). Theoretical perspective on resource pulse. Ecology, 89(3), 671–681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, G. E. (1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 22(2), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2010). Ecosystems are made by semiosic bonds: consortia, umwelten, biophony and ecological codes. Biosemiotics, 3, 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. R. (2006). Niche construction, human behavior, and the adaptive-lag hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 15, 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. (1999). Fragile dominion. Complexity and the commons. Reading: Helix Books, Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science, 279, 491–497.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco, J., Olson, A. M., Brudbaker, L. B., Carpenter, S. R., Holland, M. M., Hubbell, S. P., et al. (1991). The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda. Ecology, 72, 371–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. J., Crowder, L. B., & Medvick, P. A. (1979). Temperature as an ecological resource. American Zoologist, 19, 331–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, J. F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Rediel Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, N. E., Wiens, J. A. (1999). Interactions between landscape structure and animal behavior: the role of heterogeneously distributed resources and food deprivation on movement patterns. Landscape Ecology, 14, 437–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005b). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, H., et al. (2009). Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, F. (1997). State-of-the-art in ecosystem theory. Ecological Modelling, 100, 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., de Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naveh, Z. (2000). What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S. N. (2007). Towards an ecosystem semiotics. Some basic aspects for a new research programme. Ecological Complexity, 4, 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction. The neglected process in evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padiala, J. M., Avila, E., & Sancheza, J. M. (2002). Feeding habits and overlap among red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and stone marten (Martes foina) in two Mediterranean mountain habitats. Zeitschrift für Saugetierkunde, 67, 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patalano, M., & Lovari, S. (1993). Food habits and trophic niche overlap of the wolf Canis lupus (Linnaeus, 1758) and the red fox Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758) in Mediterranean mountain area. Revue d’ Ecology. Terre Vie, 48, 279–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D., & Moran, D. (1994). The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan Publications Limited, London: IUCN.

  • Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Source-sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist, 132, 652–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam, H. R. (1996). Sources and sinks: Empirical evidence and population conservation. In O. E. Rhodes, R. K. Chesser, & M. H. Smith (Eds.), Population dynamics in ecological space and time (pp. 45–69). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ractliffe, J. M., & Nydam, M. L. (2008). Multimodal warning signals of a multiple predator world. Nature, 455, 96–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Real, L. (1993). Toward a cognitive ecology. TREE, 8, 413–417.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, C., & Longcore, T. (Eds.). (2006). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Washington: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, C. D. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10, 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner, S. M., & Willig, M. R. (2005). Developing unified theories as exemplified with diversity gradient. The American Naturalist, 166(4), 458–469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner, S. M., & Willig, M. R. (2007). A general theory of ecology. Theoretical Ecology. doi:10.007/S12080-007-0002.0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner, S. M., Hudson, A. J., & VanderMeulen, M. A. (1993). An epistemology for ecology. Bulletin Ecological Society of America, 74(1), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwinning, S., & Sala, O. E. (2004). Hierarchy of responses to resource pulses in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. Oecologia, 141, 211–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sodhi, N. S., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2010). Conservation biology for all. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straton, A. (2005). A complex system approach to the value of ecological resources. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N. J., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., & O’Flaherty, M. (2003). Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edges as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. Human Ecology, 31(3), 439–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). The dual nature of ecosystem dynamics. Ecological Modelling, 220(16), 1886–1892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vining, J., Merrick, M. S., & Price, E. A. (2008). The distinction between human and nature: human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Human Ecology Review, 15, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Barwise, J., & Seligman, J. (1997). Information flow: The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1982). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2007). Thinking as natural: another look at human exemptionalism. Human Ecology Review, 2, 130–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witzany, G. (2007). Plant communication from biosemiotic perspective. Plant Signalling & Behavior, 1(4), 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L. H., Bastow, J. L., Spence, K. O., & Wright, A. N. (2008). What can we learn from resource pulse? Ecology, 89(3), 621–634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zalasiewicz, J., et al. (2008). Are we now living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today, 18(2), 4–8. doi:10.1130/GSAT01802A.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Almo Farina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farina, A. A Biosemiotic Perspective of the Resource Criterion: Toward a General Theory of Resources. Biosemiotics 5, 17–32 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9119-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9119-z

Keywords

Navigation