, Volume 193, Issue 9, pp 3003–3024 | Cite as

Are there general causal forces in ecology?

  • Mark SagoffEmail author


In this paper, I adopt the view that if general forces or processes can be detected in ecology, then the principles or models that represent them should provide predictions that are approximately correct and, when not, should lead to the sorts of intervening factors that usually make trouble. I argue that Lotka–Volterra principles do not meet this standard; in both their simple “strategic” and their complex “tactical” forms they are not approximately correct of the findings of the laboratory experiments and historical studies most likely to confirm them; nor do they instruct ecologists where to look for likely intervening factors. Evidence drawn from long-term case studies and other available data sets suggests that the populations of predators and their prey are not regulated by an interaction between them but are controlled by transient, contingent, and accidental events that affect each animal and each population individualistically. This paper argues that the presence of general forces or processes in ecology should be determined by comparing competing models of these forces not just to each other or to a null model but also to case studies that may challenge theoretical approaches with convincing individualistic causal accounts of the phenomena.


Philosophy of ecology Lotka–Volterra models Isle Royale 


  1. Abrams, P. A., & Matsuda, H. (1997). Prey adaptation as a cause of predator-prey cycles. Evolution, 51(6), 1742–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrewartha, H. G., & Birch, L. C. (1954). The distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Annual Report 2013–14. School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan USA 49931-1295. 23 April. Online at
  3. Arditi, R., & Ginzburg, L. R. (2012). How species interact: altering the standard view on trophic ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bangs, E. E., & Fritts, S. H. (1996). Reintroducing the gray wolf to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24, 402–413.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, C. B. (2010). Measuring food insecurity. Science, 327(5967), 825–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botkin, D. B. (1990). Discordant harmonies: a new ecology for the twenty-first century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boyce, M. S. (2000). Modeling predator-prey dynamics. Research techniques in animal ecology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Britton, N. (2012). Essential mathematical biology. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  9. Bromley, D. (2012). We’ll be nice to nature when it’s goof for us. Breakthrough Journal, spring. Published online at:
  10. Brush, M. (2014). National Public Radio report, available online at
  11. Bryant, J. P. (1981). Phytochemical deterrence of snowshoe hare browsing by adventitious shoots of four Alaskan trees. Science, 213(4510), 889–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cartwright, N. (2007). Causal Powers: What are They? Why do we need them? What can and cannot be done with them? Contingency and Dissent in Science Project.Google Scholar
  13. Coleridge, S. T. (1818). Essay VI. The friend (Vol. 3). London: Rest Fenner.Google Scholar
  14. Colyvan, M., & Ginzburg, L. R. (2003). Laws of nature and laws of ecology. Oikos, 101, 649–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colyvan, M., & Ginzburg, L. R. (2014). Ecological laws. Oxford Bibliographies Online. Available at:
  16. Colyvan, M., & Ginzburg, L. R. (2010). Analogical thinking in ecology: looking beyond disciplinary boundaries. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85(2), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cortez, M. H., & Weitz, J. S. (2014). Coevolution can reverse predator-prey cycles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), 7486–7491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deng, B. (2013). An inverse problem: Trappers drove hare to eat lynx. In: preparation for publication. Available online at
  19. Economist Magazine. (2014). December 8. Available online at:
  20. Ehrlich, P. R. (1970). Looking Backward from 2000 A.D. The Progressive, 34(4), 1.Google Scholar
  21. Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1990). The Population Explosion. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, M. R., Mike, B., Stephen, J. C., Sasha, R. X. D., Sandra, D., Stephen, E., et al. (2013). Predictive systems ecology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 1771.Google Scholar
  23. Finerty, J. P. (1980). The population ecology of cycles in small mammals: mathematical theory and biological fact. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Flanders, S. E. (1948). A host-parasite community to demonstrate balance. Ecology, 29, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fodor, Jerry A. (1974). Special sciences (or: the disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, 28(2), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuller, T. K. (1989). Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs, 105, 3–41.Google Scholar
  27. Futuyma, D. J. (1998). Wherefore and whither the naturalist? American Naturalist, 151, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garrott, R. A., Gude, J. A., Bergman, E. J., Gower, C., White, P. J., & Hamlin, K. L. (2005). Generalizing wolf effects across the greater yellowstone area: a cautionary note. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(4), 1245–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gause, G. F. (1934). The Struggle for Existence. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gause, G. F., Smaragdova, N. P., & Witt, A. A. (1936). Further Studies of interaction between predator and prey. Journal of Animal Ecology, 5, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gilpin, M. E. (1973). Do hares eat lynx? American Naturalist, 105, 727–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ginzburg, L. R., & Colyvan, M. (2004). Ecological orbits : How planets move and populations grow. Cary: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Greene, H. W. (1986). Natural history and evolutionary biology. In M. E. Feder & G. V. Lander (Eds.), Predator–prey relationships: perspectives and approaches from the study of lower vertebrates (pp. 99–108). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, C. A. (1988). An assessment of several of the historically most influential theoretical models used in ecology and of the data provided in their support. Ecological Modelling, 43(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanski, I. (1991). The functional response of predators: worries about scale. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 6(5), 141–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.Google Scholar
  37. Hausman, D. M. (1992). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hebblewhite, M. (2013). Consequences of ratio-dependent predation by wolves for elk population dynamics. Population Ecology, 55(4), 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holling, C. S. (1966). The strategy of building models of complex ecological systems. In K. E. F. Watt (Ed.), Systems analysis in ecology (pp. 195–214). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huffaker, C. B. (1958). Experimental Studies on Predation: Dispersion Factors and PredatorPrey Oscillations. Hilgardia, 27, 795–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jensen, C. J. (2007). Predation and its consequences: Insights into the modeling of interference. ProQuest.Google Scholar
  42. Jost, C., Devulder, G., Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., & Arditi, R. (2005). The wolves of Isle Royale display scale-invariant satiation and ratio-dependent predation on moose. Journal of Animal Ecology, 74(5), 809–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jost, C., Arino, O., & Arditi, R. (1999). About deterministic extinction in ratiodependent predator-prey models. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 61(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keith, L. B., Cary, J. R., Yuill, T. M., & Keith, I. M. (1985). Prevalence of helminths in a cyclic snowshoe hare population. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 21(3), 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kincaid, H. (1997). Individualism and the unity of science: Essays on reduction, explanation, and the special sciences. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  46. Lange, M. (2005). Ecological laws: what would they be and why would they matter? Oikos, 110(2), 394–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lawler, S. (2001). Ecology in a bottle. In W. Resetarits & J. Bernardo (Eds.), Experimental ecology: issues and perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lawton, J. H. (1999). Are there any general laws in ecology? Oikos, 84, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leigh, E. R. (1968). The ecological role of Volterra’s equations. In M. Gerstenhaber (Ed.), Some mathematical problems in biology (pp. 1–61). Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  50. Levandowsky, M. (1976). The cats in Zanzibar. Quarterly Review of Biology, 51, 417–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Levin, S. A. (1980). Mathematics, ecology, and ornithology. The Auk, 97(2), 422–425.Google Scholar
  52. Levin, S. A. (1981). The role of theoretical ecology in the description and understanding of populations in heterogeneous environments. American Zoologist, 21(4), 865–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levins, R. (1966). The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist, 54, 421–431.Google Scholar
  54. Loreau, M., & Mazancourt, C. (2013). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecology letters, 16(s1), 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luckinbill, L. S. (1973). Coexistence in laboratory populations of Paramecium aurelia and its predator Didinium nasutum. Ecology, 54, 1320–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Malthus, T. R. (1966). First essay on population, 1798 (Vol. 14). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marcotty, J. (2014). Pellet gun felled Isabelle, the wolf that escaped Isle Royale: The 5-year-old lone wolf left Isle Royale for the mainland on an ice bridge that formed on Lake Superior this winter. Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 15.
  58. Massarelli, N., Hoffman, K., & Previte, J. P. (2013). Effect of parity on productivity and sustainability of Lotka–Volterra food chains. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 67, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Matthewson, J., & Weisberg, M. (2008). The structure of tradeoffs in model building. Synthese, 170, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mech, L. D., & Fieberg, J. (2014). Re-evaluating the northeastern Minnesota moose decline and the role of wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(7), 1143–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mill, J. S. (1963 [1843]). The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. 7. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mill, J. S. (1995 [1848]). On the definition and method of Political Economy, reprinted as pp. In D. Hausman (Ed.), 1995 (pp. 52–68). The Philosophy of Economics: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Montgomery, R. A., Vucetich, J. A., Roloff, G. J., Bump, J. K., & Peterson, R. O. (2014). Where wolves Kill Moose: The influence of prey life history dynamics on the landscape ecology of predation. PloS One, 9(3), e91414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nelson, M. P., Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., & Vucetich, L. M. (2011). The Isle Royale Wolf-Moose Project (1958-present) and the wonder of long-term ecological research. Endeavour, 35(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nicholson, A. J. (1933). The balance of animal populations. Journal of Animal Ecology, 2, 131–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Peterson, R. O. (2013). It’s a wonderful gift. Science, 339, 142–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pickett, S. T., Kolasa, J., & Jones, C. G. (2007). Ecological understanding: the nature of theory and the theory of nature. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  68. Pielou, E. C. (1981). The usefulness of ecological models: a stock-taking. Quarterly Review of Biology, 56, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pyle, R. M. (2001). The rise and fall of natural history. Orion Autumn, 2001, 16–23.Google Scholar
  70. Ronald, P. H., & Waser, N. M. (2010). Ecological invariance and the search for generality in ecology. The Ecology of Place: Contributions of Place-Based Research to Ecological Understanding, 1, 69–90.Google Scholar
  71. Sagarin, R., & Pauchard, A. (2012). Observation and ecology: Broadening the scope of science to understand a complex world. Washington, DC: Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Salt, G. W. (1983). Roles: their limits and responsibilities in ecological and evolutionary research. American Naturalist, 122, 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schaffer, W. M. (1984). Stretching and folding in lynx fur returns: Evidence for a strange attractor in nature? American Naturalist, 124, 798–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schmidly, D. J. (2005). What it means to be a naturalist and the future of natural history at American universities. Journal of Mammalogy, 86(3), 449–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sen, A. (1984). Resources, values and development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sergio, F., Schmitz, O. J., Krebs, C. J., Holt, R. D., Heithaus, M. R., Wirsing, A. J., et al. (2014). Towards a cohesive, holistic view of top predation: a definition, synthesis and perspective. Oikos, 123(10), 1234–1243.Google Scholar
  77. Simberloff, D. (1980). A succession of paradigms in ecology: Essentialism to materialism and probabilism. Synthese, 43, 3–39. doi: 10.1007/bf00413854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Simberloff, D. (2004). Community ecology: is it time to move on? The American Naturalist, 163(6), 787–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Simon, H. A. (1963). Problems methodology–discussion. The American economic review. Papers and Proceedings of the Seventy-Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 53(2), 229–231.Google Scholar
  80. Sinclair, A. R. E., & Gosline, J. M. (1997). Solar activity and mammal cycles in the Northern Hemisphere. American Naturalist, 149, 776–784.Google Scholar
  81. Smith, D. W., Peterson, R. O., & Houston, D. B. (2003). Yellowstone after wolves. BioScience, 53(4), 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith, F. E. (1952). Experimental methods in population dynamics: A critique. Ecology, 33(4), 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stenseth, N. C., Falck, W., Bjørnstad, O. N., & Krebs, C. J. (1997). Population regulation in snowshoe hare and Canadian lynx: Asymmetric food web configurations between hare and lynx. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(10), 5147–5152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Strong Jr, D. R. (1982). Null hypotheses in ecology. In E. Saarinen (Ed.), Conceptual issues in ecology (pp. 245–259). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  85. Turchin, P. (2003). Complex population dynamics: A theoretical/ empirical synthesis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Veilleux, B. G. (1979). An analysis of the predatory interaction between Paramecium and Didinium. Journal of Animal Ecology, 48, 787–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vucetich, J. A., Nelson, M. P., & Peterson, R. O. (2012). Should Isle Royale wolves be reintroduced? A case study on wilderness management in a changing world. In: George Wright Forum (Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 126-147).Google Scholar
  88. Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., & Schaefer, C. L. (2002). The effect of prey and predator densities on wolf predation. Ecology, 83(11), 3003–3013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., & Nelson, M. P. (2013). Predator and Prey, a delicate dance. New York Times Opinion Page, May 8.Google Scholar
  90. Vucetich, J., & Peterson, R. O. (2014). Ecological Studies of Wolves on Isle Royale.Google Scholar
  91. Weinstein, M. S. (1977). Hares, lynx, and trappers. American Naturalist, 111, 806–808.Google Scholar
  92. Weisberg, M., & Reisman, K. (2008). The robust Volterra Principle. Philosophy of science, 75(1), 106–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. White, T. C. R. (2013). Experimental and observational evidence reveals that predators in natural environments do not regulate their prey: They are passengers, not drivers. Acta Oecologica, 53, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wilcove, D. S., & Eisner, T. S. (2000). The impending extinction of natural history. Chronicle of Higher Education; September 15, 47(3), B24.Google Scholar
  95. Winterhalder, B. P. (1980). Canadian fur bearer cycles and Cree-Ojibwa hunting and trapping practices. American Naturalist, 111, 870–879.Google Scholar
  96. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Woodward, J. (2000). Explanation and invariance in the special sciences. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51(2), 197–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhou, C., Fujiwara, M., & Grant, W. E. (2013). Dynamics of a predator-prey interaction with seasonal reproduction and continuous predation. Ecological Modelling, 268, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Institute for Philosophy and Public PolicyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations