In the spirit of the theory of biocomplexity and of the non-linear emergent characters of ecological systems, the eco-field is a new paradigm that integrates the vision of the landscape as a neutral matrix (like a habitat) in which organisms are living, and contemporarily as a product of the human mind. Eco-field is defined a ‘cognitive field’ created by the interference between functional traits and the ‘real world’. Species-specific environmental suitability is the result of the quality of the different eco-fields and the landscape becomes a cognitive entity. The eco-field paradigm can be extended to the emergent properties of the systems. The eco-field of emergences is the geographic space in which the emergent properties appear. The eco-field of organisms and the eco-field of emergences, like results of aggregated entities, have in common the multidimensionality of landscapes, refusing the vision of landscape like a neutral geographic matrix for organisms and processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Bradbury R. H., Green D. G. & Snoad N. (2000) Are ecosystems complex systems? In: Complex Systems (eds T. R. Bossomaier & D. G. Green) pp. 339–365. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Capra F. (1996) The Web of Life. Doubleday-Anchor Book, New York.
Cilliers P. (1998) Complexity & Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge, London.
Farina A. (1993) Editorial comment: From global to regional landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 8: 153–154.
Farina A. (2000) Landscape Ecology in Action. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.
Farina A., Belgrano A. & Villa A. E. P. (in prep.) Eco-Field: an Integrated Semiotic Vision of the Landscape.
Graham M. H. & Dayton P. K. (2002) On the evolution of ecological ideas: Paradigms and scientific progress. Ecology 83: 1481–1489.
Grinnell J. (1917) The niche-relationships of the California thrasher. Auk 34: 427–433.
Hoffmeyer J. (1997) Biosemiotics: Toward a new synthesis in Biology. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 9: 355–376.
Hutchinson G. E. (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 22: 415–427.
Jorgensen S. E., Mejer H. & Nielsen S. N. (1998) Ecosystem as self-organizing critical systems. Ecological Modelling 111: 261–268.
Kauffman S. (1993) The Origins of Order. Oxford University Press, New York.
Kolasa J. & Pickett S. T. A. (1991) Ecological Heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Kull K. (1998a) Semiotic ecology: different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies 26: 344–371.
Kull K. (1998b) On semiosis, Umwelt, and semiosphere. Semiotica 120: 299–310.
Manson S. M. (2001) Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity theory. Geoforum 32: l405–414.
Maturana H. R. & Varela J. F. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living. Rediel Publishing Co, Dordrecht.
May R. (1974) Biological populations with non-overlapping populations: stable points, stable cycles, and chaos. Science 186: 645–647.
May R. (1976) Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics. Nature 261: 459–467.
May R. (1986) When two and two does not make four: non-linear phenomena in ecology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 228: 241.
Merry U. (1995) Coping with Uncertainty: Insights from the New Sciences of Chaos, Self-Organization, and Complexity. Praeger, Connecticut.
Mitchell M. & Powell R. A. (2002) Linking fitness landscapes with the behavior and distribution of animals. In: Landscape Ecology and Resource. Linking Theory with Practice (eds J. A. Bissonette & I. Storch) pp. 93–124. Island Press, Washington.
Muller F. (1997) State-of-the-art in ecosystem theory. Ecological Modelling 100: 135–161.
Naveh Z. (2003) What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 7–26.
Noth W. (1998) Ecosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies 26: 332–343.
Phillips J. D. (1999) Divergence, convergence, and self-organization in landscapes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89: 466–488.
Prigogine I. & Stengers I. (1984) Order Out of Chaos. Bantam, New York.
Pulliam R. (1988) Sources-sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.
Pulliam R. (1996) Sources and sinks: Empirical evidence and population consequences. In: Population Dynamics in Ecological Space and Time (eds O. E. Rhodes, R. K. Chesser & M. H. Smith) pp. 45–69. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Thompson J. N., Reichman O. J., Morin P. J., Polis G. A., Power M. E., Sterner R. W., Couch C. A., Gough L., Holt R., Hooper D. U., Keesing F., Lovell C. R., Milne B. T., Moles M. C., Roberts D. W. & Strauss S. Y. (2001) Frontiers of ecology. Bioscience 51: 15–24.
von Bertalanffy L. (1969) General System Theory. Braziller, New York.
von Uexkull J. (1940) Bedeutungslehre. Leipzig, Barth.
Wu J. & Hobbs R. (2002) Key issues and research topics in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17: 355–365.
About this article
Cite this article
FARINA, A., BELGRANO, A. The eco-field: A new paradigm for landscape ecology. Ecol Res 19, 107–110 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00613.x
- eco-field paradigm
- hierarchical level of complexity
- landscape ecology theory