Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The balance between concepts and complexity in ecology

  • Comment
  • Published:

From Nature Ecology & Evolution

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Ecological concepts and their acronyms can obstruct understanding of complexity by providing seemingly simple and certain descriptions of the natural world. Their use requires a balanced 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

References

  1. Lakoff, G. Environ. Commun. 4, 70–81 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fischer, J., Ritchie, E. G. & Hanspach, J. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 473–474 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Low-Décarie, E., Chivers, C. & Granados, M. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 412–418 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Turnhout, E., Neves, K. & de Lijster, E. Environ. Plann. A 46, 581–597 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Daily, G. C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S. & Arrow, K. Science 289, 395–396 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K. & Buizer, M. Conserv. Lett. 6, 154–161 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gunton, R. M. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 249–257 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Silvertown, J. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 641–648 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carrasco, L. R., Nghiem, T. P. L., Sunderland, T. & Koh, L. P. Biol. Conserv. 178, 163–170 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harwood, J. & Stokes, K. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 617–622 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ascough, J. C.II., Maier, H. R., Ravalico, J. K. & Strudley, M. W. Ecol. Model. 219, 383–399 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pocheville, A. Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. (eds Heams, T., Huneman, P., Lecointre, G., Silberstein, M.) 547–586 (Springer: Dordrecht, 2014).

  13. Hey, J., Waples, R. S., Arnold, M. L., Butlin, R. K. & Harrison, R. G. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 597–603 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sagoff, M. Biol. Philos. 18, 529–552 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. O’ Neill, R. V. Ecology 82, 3275–3284 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stirling, A. Nature 468, 1029–1031 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pyke, G. H. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 391–394 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. UNEP and Indigenous Peoples: A Partnership in Caring for the Environment (United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi, Kenya, 2012).

  19. Koetz, T., Farrell, K. N. & Bridgewater, P. Int. Environ. Agreements 12, 1–21 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wormbs, N. in The New Arctic. (eds Evengård, B., Nymand Larsen, J. & Paasche, Ø) 291–301 (Springer: Cham, 2015).

  21. Evans, M. C., Davila, F., Toomey, A. & Wyborn, C. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1855 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sutherland, W. J. & Wordley, C. F. R. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1215–1216 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Malm, A. & Hornborg, A. Anthropocene Rev. 1, 62–69 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Borgström, S., Bodin, Ö., Sandström, A. & Crona, B. AMBIO 44, 357–369 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Head, L. Nat. Plants 3, 17075 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. MacKinnon, D. & Driscoll Derickson, K. Prog. Hum. Geog. 37, 1–38 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stojanovic, T. et al. Ecol. Soc. 21, 15 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fabinyi, M., Evans, L. & Foale, S. J. Ecol. Soc. 19, 28 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jasanoff, S. Law Contemp. Probl. 69, 21–45 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Latour, B Science in Action. (Harvard Univ. Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article has evolved following conversations in many multidisciplinary fora that have recognized common disconnects between researchers and policymakers, often driven by a lack of consensus on the meaning and appropriate use of certain ecological concepts. There are therefore many people from the ecological, social and economic sciences and the humanities as well as the environmental policy sector that we thank for their input. In particular, thanks go to M. Schlüter, H. Hinz, D. Dannecker, E. Olofsson, A. Walley, A. Åberg and P. Craze. A.F.J. was supported by NSF grant DEB-1632648 (2017/2018). S.L. was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Andrew F. Johnson & Susanna Lidström

  2. Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Susanna Lidström

Authors
  1. Andrew F. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susanna Lidström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.F.J. and S.L. conceived and wrote the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew F. Johnson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, A.F., Lidström, S. The balance between concepts and complexity in ecology. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 585–587 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0507-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0507-5

  • Springer Nature Limited

Search

Navigation