Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 347–357 | Cite as

Ecosystems are Made of Semiosic Bonds: Consortia, Umwelten, Biophony and Ecological Codes

  • Kalevi KullEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The paper focuses on the semiotic principles of the organisation of ecosystems, attempting to find concepts that point to relations and not to elements. (1) Consortium (the term introduced by Johannes Reinke around 1873) can be defined as a group of organisms connected via (sign) relations, or groups of interspecific semiosic links in biocoenosis. The consortial relations include trophic and topic relations, both implying a recognition (identification) of the object by an organism involved (these, i.e., are sign relations). These relations are ecologically inheritable. (2) Umwelt (the term introduced by Jakob von Uexküll around 1909) can be defined as a set of relations an organism has in an ecosystem (as in a semiosphere). The formation of an umwelt is dependent on the modelling system of the organism. (3) Biophony (the term introduced by Bernie Krause around 2000) denotes the coordination of inter- and intra-species relations in a soundscape of a biological community. This can be seen as a special case of Komposition as defined by Jakob and Thure von Uexküll. (4) Ecological code (as introduced, e.g. by Alexander Levich around 1977) can be defined as the set of (sign) relations (regular irreducible correspondences) characteristic to an entire ecosystem. We also mention the concepts of ecomones and coactones (introduced by Marcel Florkin in 1965) as the substances which are responsible for mediation of ecological inter-individual relations. All the relations as sign-relations evidently imply both a static or structuralist description (in terms of codes), and a processual description (in terms of semiosis carried on by interpretation). We conclude that all the above mentioned concepts can be viewed as conceptually connected and are suitable for semiotic description of biological communities.

Keywords

Ecosystem structure Ecological codes Ecological inheritance Ecomones Sign relations Consortium Umwelt 

Notes

Acknowledgements

To Tiina Sööt for the material on consortia. To Jesper Hoffmeyer and Sergey Chebanov for good conversations on this topic. To the editors of this volume for an excellent work. To colleagues for their permanent support. To ETF and CECT for supporting the research.

References

  1. Ainsworth, G. C. (1976). Introduction to the history of mycology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bains, P. (2006). The primacy of semiosis: An ontology of relations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beklemishev, V. N. (1951) Беклемишев, В. Н. (1951). О классификации биоценологических (симфизиологических) связей. Бюллетень Московского общества испытателей природы 56(5), 3–30.Google Scholar
  4. Belomesyatseva, D. B. (2002). The fungi in the consortium of common juniper in Belarus. Mycena, 2(1), 4–16.Google Scholar
  5. Berthos, A., & Christen, Y. (Eds.). (2009). Neurobiology of “Umwelt”: How living beings perceive the world. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Brenner, K., Karig, D. K., Weiss, R., & Arnold, F. H. (2007). Engineered bidirectional communication mediates a consensus in a microbial biofilm consortium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(44), 17300–17304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Caron, D. A. (2000). Symbiosis and mixotrophy among pelagic microorganisms. In D. L. Kirchman (Ed.), Microbial ecology of the oceans (pp. 495–523). New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, R. S. (Ed.). (2009). Relating to environments: A new look at Umwelt. Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  9. Church, A. H. (1920). The lichen symbiosis. Journal of Botany, British and Foreign, 58, 213–219. 262–267.Google Scholar
  10. Clements, F. E. (1928). Plant succession and indicators. New York: H. W. Wilson.Google Scholar
  11. Cobley, P. (Ed.). (2010). The Routledge companion to semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Elvers, K. T., & Lappin-Scott, H. M. (2004). Biofilms and biofoulding. In M. Schaechter (Ed.), The desk encyclopedia of microbiology (pp. 161–167). Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Fagot-Largeault, A. (2009). Anthropological physiology: von Uexküll, Portmann, Buytendijk. In A. Berthos & Y. Christen (Eds.), Neurobiology of “Umwelt”: How living beings perceive the world (pp. 1–5). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Favareau, D. (Ed.). (2010). Essential readings in biosemiotics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Florkin, M. (1965). Approches moléculaires de l’intégration écologique: Problèmes de terminologie. Bulletin de l’Académie Royale de Belgique (Classe des Sciences), 5e série, 51, 239–248.Google Scholar
  16. Frank, A. B. (1877). Ueber die biologischen Verhältnisse des Thallus einiger Krustenflechten. Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen, 2, 123–200.Google Scholar
  17. Gaino, E., Lancioni, T., La Porta, G., & Todini, B. (2004). The consortium of the sponge Ephydatia fluviatilis (L.) living on the common reed Phragmites australis in Lake Piediluco (central Italy). Hydrobiologia, 520, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gauthier, M. J., & Aubert, M. (1981). Chemical telemediators in the marine environment. In E. K. Duursma & R. Dawson (Eds.), Marine organic chemistry: Evolution, composition, interactions and chemistry of organic matter in seawater (pp. 225–257). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gleason, H. A. (1926). The individualistic concept of plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 53, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gómez, F. (2007). On the consortium of the tintinnid Eutintinnus and the diatom Chaetoceros in the Pacific Ocean. Marine Biology, 151, 1899–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harries-Jones, P. (2002). Where bonds become binds: the necessity for Bateson’s interactive perspective in biosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 30(1), 163–181.Google Scholar
  22. Hejný, S. (1972). Editorial note. Folia Geobotanica, 7(1), 1.Google Scholar
  23. Hess, E. H. (1962). Imprinting and the critical period concept. In E. L. Bliss (Ed.), Roots of behavior (pp. 254–263). New York: Hoeber-Harper.Google Scholar
  24. Hess, E. H. (1973). Imprinting: Early experience and the developmental psychobiology of attachment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.Google Scholar
  25. Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: Scranton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Höxtermann, E., & Mollenhauer, D. (2007). Symbiose und Symbiogenese—Entdeckung und Entwicklung eines biologischen Problems. In A. Geus & E. Höxtermann (Eds.), Evolution durch Kooperation und Integration: Zur Entstehung der Endosymbiosetheorie in der Zellbiologie (pp. 227–284). Marburg: Basilisken-Presse.Google Scholar
  27. Ikeshoji, T. (1977). Self-limiting ecomones in the populations of insects and some aquatic animals. Pesticide Science, 2, 77–89.Google Scholar
  28. Jablonka, E. (2001). The systems of inheritance. In S. Oyama, P. E. Griffiths, & R. D. Gray (Eds.), Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution (pp. 99–116). Cambridge: A Bradford Book.Google Scholar
  29. Krause, B. (2002). Wild soundscapes. Berkeley: Wilderness.Google Scholar
  30. Kull, K. (1999). Symbiosis is semiosis. In E. Wagner, J. Normann, H. Greppin, J. H. P. Hackstein, R. G. Herrmann, K. V. Kowallik, H. E. A. Schenk, & J. Seckbach (Eds.), From symbiosis to eukaryotism: Endocytobiology VII (pp. 663–668). Geneva: Geneva University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kull, K. (2009a). Biosemiotics: to know, what life knows. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 16(3/4), 81–88.Google Scholar
  32. Kull, K. (2009b). Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: the semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kull, K., & Zobel, M. (1994). Vegetation structure and species coexistence. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica, 29, 433–437.Google Scholar
  34. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, F. J., & Feldman, M. W. (2001). Niche construction, ecological inheritance, and cycles of contingency in evolution. In S. Oyama, P. E. Griffiths, & R. D. Gray (Eds.), Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution (pp. 117–126). Cambridge: A Bradford Book.Google Scholar
  35. Levich, A. P. (1983). Semiotic structures in ecology, or does there exist an ecological code? In Man and biosphere. 8th issue (pp. 68–77). Moscow: Moscow University Press. (Левич А.П. 1983. Семиотические структуры в экологии, или существует ли экологический код? // Человек и биосфера. М.: Изд-во Моск. университета, 68–77.)Google Scholar
  36. Masing, V. (1976). Мазинг, В. (1976) Проблемы изучения консорций. Значение консортивных связей в организации биогеоценосов (под ред. И. А. Селиванов), с. 18–27. Министерство Просвещения РСФСР, Пермский Государственный Педагогический Инcтитут, Пермь.Google Scholar
  37. Masing, V. (1981). Consortia as elements of the functional structure of biocenoses. In L. Laasimer (Ed.), Anthropogenous changes in the plant cover of Estonia (pp. 64–76). Tartu: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR, Institute of Zoology and Botany.Google Scholar
  38. Matafonov, D. V., Kuklin, A. P., & Matafonov, P. V. (2005). Consortia in aquatic ecosystems of the Transbaikalia. Biological Bulletin, 32(5), 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Popa, R. (2004). Between necessity and probability: Searching for the definition and origin of life. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Porras-Alfaro, A., Herrera, J., Sinsabaugh, R. L., Odenbach, K. J., Lowrey, T., & Natvig, D. O. (2008). Root fungal consortium associated with a dominant desert grass. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 74(9), 2805–2813.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rabotnov, T. A. (1972). Consortia, the importance of their study for phytocoenology. Folia Geobotanica, 7(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  42. Rabotnov, T. A. (1973). Работнов, Т. А. (1973) Некоторые вопросы изучения консорций. Журнал общей биологии 34, 407–416.Google Scholar
  43. Ramensky, L. G. (1952). Раменский, Л. Г. (1952) О некоторых принципиальныx положениях современной геоботаники. Ботaнический Журнал, 37(2), 181–201.Google Scholar
  44. Reinke, J. (1872a). Ueber die anatomischen Verhältnisse einiger Arten von Gunnera L. Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, 9, 100–108.Google Scholar
  45. Reinke, J. (1872b). Über gonidienartige Bildungen in einer dikotylischen Pflanze (Gunnera). Botanischer Zeitung, 30, 59–61. cit. in Höxtermann 2007.Google Scholar
  46. Reinke, J. (1873a). Zur Kenntniss des Rhizoms von Corallorhiza und Epipogon. Flora, 56, 145–152. 161–167, 177–184, 209–224.Google Scholar
  47. Reinke, J. (1873b). Untersuchungen über die Morphologie der Vegetationsorgane von Gunnera. In J. Reinke (Ed.), Morphologische Abhandlungen (pp. 45–118). Leipzig: W. Engelmann. cit. in Höxtermann 2007.Google Scholar
  48. Reinke, J. (1901). Einleitung in die theoretische Biologie. Berlin: Verlag von Gebrüder Paetel.Google Scholar
  49. Rothschild, F. S. (1994). Parallels to biosemiotics in Viktor von Weizsaecker’s writings. In F. S. Rothschild (Eds.) Creation and evolution: A biosemiotic approach (pp. 90–95), (Hess, Jozef Ph., trans.). Jerusalem: J. Ph. Hes.Google Scholar
  50. Ryan, F. (2002). Darwin’s blind spot: Evolution beyond natural selection. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  51. Sapp, J., Carrapiço, F., & Zolotonosov, M. (2002). Symbiogenesis: the hidden face of Constantin Merezhkowsky. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 24(3/4), 413–440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sööt, T. (2009). Konsortsiumi mõiste ökoloogias. (Bakalaureusetöö.) Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. [Manuscript.]Google Scholar
  53. Strasburger, E., Lang, W. H., Karsten, G., Jost, L., & Schenck, H. (1912). A text-book of botany. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Uexküll, J. von (1980). In T. von Uexküll (Ed.), Kompositionslehre der Natur: Biologie als undogmatische Naturwisenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein.Google Scholar
  55. Uexküll, J. von (1982[1940]). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SemioticsUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations