Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 251–258 | Cite as

Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology

  • William W. Hargrove
  • John Pickering
Article

Abstract

We question whether classical experimentation is adequate for real progress in landscape or regional ecology. One cannot do classical experimentation unless one can replicate the treatment. There is conflict between the need to replicate and the need to study processes at appropriately large scales.

Because of the difficulties in doing controlled field experiments at regional scales, we propose that landscape ecologists take greater advantage of natural field experiments. Natural experiments must be coordinated, standardized, and synchronized over space and through time, and will require the cooperation of multiple investigators. Distributed computer networks can help provide the automated region-wide monitoring which will supply natural experiments with pre-treatment data.

Regions or landscapes need not be ‘replicated’, and indeed, cannot be. One can achieve a relational understanding between a system's response and environmental characteristics. This understanding is not definitive, but allows for the development of testable hypotheses, in the classical sense. The confounding of space, time, and/or other environmental factors in pseudoreplicated natural experiments only allows for the development of hypotheses - ‘how-possibly’ explanations. Discrimination among competing hypotheses can be done at smaller scales and used to infer processes occurring at larger scales. Use of natural and controlled field experiments in complementary roles is a more promising approach than views of one or the other as methodologically inferior.

Keywords

statistics sampling experimentation experimental design landscape ecology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, T.F.H. and Hoekstra, T.W. 1989. Further comment on Carney's article. Functional Ecology 3(5): 642–643.Google Scholar
  2. Andrewartha, H.G. and Birch, L.C. 1954. The Distribution and Abundance of Animals. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. 782 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, J.O. and Berry, D.A. 1988. Statistical analysis and the illusion of objectivity. American Scientist 76(2): 159–165.Google Scholar
  4. Berkowitz, A.R., Kolasa, J., Peters, R.H. and Pickett, S.T.A. 1989. How far in space and time can the results from a single long-term study be extrapolated? In Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. pp. 192–198. Edited by G.E. Likens. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 216 PP.Google Scholar
  5. Bradbury, R.H., Reichelt, R.E. and Green, D.G. 1984. Fractals in ecology: methods and interpretation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 14: 295–296.Google Scholar
  6. Burrough, P.A. 1986. Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Caraco, N.M. and Lovett, G.M. 1989. How can the various approaches to studying long-term ecological phenomena be integrated to maximize understanding? In Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. pp. 186–188. Edited by G.E. Likens. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 216 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Carney, H.J. 1989. On competition and the integration of population, community and ecosystem studies. Functional Ecology 3(5): 637–641.Google Scholar
  9. Egler, F.E. 1986. ‘Physics envy’ in ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 67(3): 233–235.Google Scholar
  10. Fagerström, T. 1987. On theory, data, and mathematics in ecology. Oikos 50(2): 258–261.Google Scholar
  11. Fenchel, T. 1987. Ecology - Potentials and Limitations. Excellence in Ecology Series, Vol. 1. Ecology Institute. 186 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Fenchel, T. 1989. On competition and the integration of population, community and ecosystem studies - comment. Functional Ecology 3(5): 641.Google Scholar
  13. Franklin, J.F. 1989. Importance and Justification of long-term studies in Ecology. In Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. pp. 3–19. Edited by G.E. Likens. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 216 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Gleick, J. 1989. Chaos. Viking Penguin, New York. 352 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Greene, J.C. 1981. Science, Ideology, and World View. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  16. Hawkins, C.P. 1986. Pseudo-understanding of pseudoreplication: a cautionary note. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 67(2): 184–185.Google Scholar
  17. Huribert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54(2): 187–211.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, L.B. 1990. Analyzing spatial and temporal phenomena using geographical information systems: a review of ecological applications. Landscape Ecology 4(1): 31–43.Google Scholar
  19. Kiefer, J. 1977. The foundations of statistics are there any? Synthese 36: 132–176.Google Scholar
  20. Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G. and O'Neill, R.V. 1987. Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48: 321–324.Google Scholar
  21. Kuchler, A.W. and Zonneveld, I.S. 1988. Vegetation Mapping. Kluwer Academic, Hingham, MA. 632 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Macfadyen, A. 1975. Some thoughts on the behavior of ecologists. Journal Animal Ecology 44: 351–363.Google Scholar
  24. Mann, C. 1990. Meta-analysis in the breech. Science 249: 476–480.Google Scholar
  25. May, R.M. and Seger, J. 1986. Ideas in ecology. American Scientist 74: 256–267.Google Scholar
  26. Milne, B.T. 1988. Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes. Applied Mathematics and Computation 27: 67–79.Google Scholar
  27. Mitchell, R., Mayer, R.A. and Downhomer, J. 1976. An evaluation of three biome programs. Science 192: 859–865.Google Scholar
  28. Neef, E. 1982. Stages in the development of landscape ecology. In Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. pp. 19–27. Edited by S.P. Tjallingi and A.A. de Veer. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  29. O'Hara, R.J. 1988. Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Systematic Zoology 37(2): 142–155.Google Scholar
  30. Pickering, J., Hargrove, W.W., Dutcher, J. and Ellis, H.C. 1990. RAIN: A novel approach to computer-aided decision making in agriculture and forestry. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 4: 275–285.Google Scholar
  31. Pickett, S.T.A. 1989. Space-for-time substitution as an alternative to long-term studies. In Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. pp. 110–135. Edited by G.E. Likens. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 216 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Platt, J.R. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146: 347–353.Google Scholar
  33. Pomeroy, L.R., Hargrove, E.C. and Alberts J.J. 1989. The Ecosystem Perspective. In Concepts of Ecosystem Ecology: A Comparative View. pp. 1–17. Edited by L.R. Pomeroy. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 216 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Risser, P.G., Karr, J.R. and Forman, R.T.T. 1984. Landscape Ecology: Directions and Approaches. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No. 2, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
  35. Roughgarden, J., Gaines, S.and Possingham, H. 1988. Recruitment dynamics in complex life cycles. Science 241: 1460–1466.Google Scholar
  36. Schindler, D.W. 1990. Experimental perturbations of whole lakes as tests of hypotheses concerning ecosystem structure and function. Oikos 57(1): 25–41.Google Scholar
  37. Scriven, M. 1959. Explanation and prediction in evolutionary theory. Science 130: 477–482.Google Scholar
  38. Simberloff, D. 1980. A succession of paradigms in ecology: essentialism to materialism to probabilism. Synthese 43: 3–39.Google Scholar
  39. Stewart-Oaten, A., Murdoch, W.W. and Parker, K.R. 1986. Environmental impact assessment: ‘pseudoreplication’ in time? Ecology 67(4): 929–940Google Scholar
  40. Tilman, D. 1989. Ecological experimentation: strengths and conceptual problems. In Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. pp. 136–157. Edited by G.E. Likens. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 216 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Turner, M.G. 1987. Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: a comparison of 3 transition models. Landscape Ecology 1(1): 29–36.Google Scholar
  42. Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., Dale, V.H. and O'Neill, R.V. 1989. Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 55: 121–129.Google Scholar
  43. Vitousek, P.M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57(1): 7–13.Google Scholar
  44. Wachter, K.W. 1988. Disturbed by meta-analysis? Science 241(4872): 1407–1408.Google Scholar
  45. Warren, W.G. 1986. On the presentation of statistical analysis: reason or ritual. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16: 1185–1191.Google Scholar
  46. Wiens, J.A., Crawford, C.S. and Gosz, J.R. 1985. Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45: 421–427.Google Scholar
  47. Wimsatt, W.C. 1980. Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy. In Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 60. pp. 213–259. Edited by T. Nickles. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  48. Zonneveld, I.S. 1982. Land(scape) ecology, a science or a state of mind? In Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. pp. 9–15. Edited by S.P. Tjallingi and A.A. de Veer. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • William W. Hargrove
    • 1
  • John Pickering
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations