Foundation of CS-DC e-Laboratory: Open Systems Exploration for Ecosystems Leveraging

  • Masatoshi FunabashiEmail author
  • Peter Hanappe
  • Takashi Isozaki
  • AnneMarie Maes
  • Takahiro Sasaki
  • Luc Steels
  • Kaoru Yoshida
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


We established a Complex Systems Digital Campus (CS-DC) e-laboratory “Open Systems Exploration for Ecosystems Leveraging” in view of redesigning sustainable social-ecological systems related to food production ranging over food, health, community, economy, and environment. 6 projects have begun to collaborate in e-laboratory, namely Synecoculture, P2P Food Lab, Open Systems Data Analytics, The Bee Laboratory, Open Systems Simulation and One-Health Food Lab. As a transversal methodology we apply open systems science to deepen scientific understanding and for a continuous amelioration of the management. The projects involve scientists, engineers, artists, citizens and are open to collaboration inside and outside of the e-laboratory. This article summarizes foundational principles of these projects and reports initial steps in operation.


Urban Gardening Sound File Edible Species Ecological Optimum Sustainable Food Production 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We acknowledge Hidemori Yazaki, Kousaku Ohta, Tatsuya Kawaoka, Kazuhiro Takimoto, and Shuntaro Aotake who worked as research assistant in the Sects. 2 and 3, Kana Maruyama and Tatsuya Hiroishi in Sect. 3.


  1. 1.
    Abbott LK, Murphy DV (2003) Soil biological fertility. A key to sustainable land use in agriculture. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aiba S et al (2005) Dynamics, productivity and species richness of tropical rainforests along elevational and edaphic gradients on Mount Kinabalu, Borneo. Ecol Res 20:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altieri MA (2002) Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 1971:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bärlocher F (2005) Leaf mass loss estimated by litter bag technique. In: Methods to study litter decomposition. Springer, Houten, pp 37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnosky AD et al (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486:52–58ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bedoussac L, Justes E, Journet E-P, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Naudin C, Corre-Hellou G, Prieur L, Jensen ES (2014) Intercropping 2014. An application of ecological principles to improve nitrogen use efficiency in organic farming systems. In: Bellon S, Penvern S (eds) Organic farming, prototype for sustainable agricultures. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bell G (2005) The permaculture way. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River JunctionGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burlingame B (ed) (2010) Proceedings of the international scientific symposium biodiversity and sustainable diets united against hunger, 3–5 November 2010. FAO Headquarters, Rome. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell DC, Carlisle-Cummins I, Feenstra G (2013) Community food systems: strengthening the research-to-practice continuum. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev 3(3):121–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carter VG, Dale T (1975) Topsoil and civilization. University of Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corre-Hellou G, Dibet A, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Crozat Y, Gooding M, Ambus P, Dahlmann C, von Fragstein P, Pristeri A, Monti M, Jensen ES (2011) The competitive ability of pea–barley intercrops against weeds and the interactions with crop productivity and soil N availability. Field Crop Res 122:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cushing JM et al (2002) Chaos in ecology. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Schutter O (2014) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, United Nations General AssemblyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dorigo WA et al (2007) A review on reflective remote sensing and data assimilation techniques for enhanced agroecosystem modeling. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 9(2):165–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    EEA (2015) The European environment – state and outlook 2015: synthesis report, European Environment Agency (EEA), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    e-laboratory website. (2015)
  17. 17.
    Encyclopedia of Life. (2015)
  18. 18.
    FAO (2014). The state of food and agriculture, food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fukuoka M (1978) The one-straw revolution: an introduction to natural farming. Rodale Press, EmmausGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Funabashi M (2011) Fondation de la Synécoculture: Vers une agriculture de synthèse écologique et rentable, Actes du colloque Transversalités de l’Agriculture Biologique. English translation available at: Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Funabashi M (2013) IT-mediated development of sustainable agriculture systems–toward a data-driven citizen science. J Inf Technol Appl Educ 2(4):179–182Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Global Biodiversity model for policy support. (2015)
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Glover D et al (2010) Increased food and ecosystem security via perennial grains. Science 328(5986):1638–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Glover D et al (2010) Plant perennials to save Africa’s soils. Nature 489:359–361ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJoumal 69:211–221Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Graham LE (1993) Origin of land plants. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Green EP et al (1996) A review of remote sensing for the assessment and management of tropical coastal resources. Coast Manag 24:1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Groombridge B, Jenkins MD (2002) World atlas of biodiversity: earth’s living resources in the 21st century. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Harvard School of Public Health (2011) The global burden of non-communicable diseases. A report by the World Economic Forum and the Harvard School of Public HealthGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hashimoto S, Nakamura S, Saito O, Kohsaka R, Kohriki C, Tanaka R (2014) Measuring ecosystem services of social-ecological production landscapes of Noto: toward the economics of Satoyama. In: Proceedings of international conference, sustainable management including the use of traditional knowledge in Satoyama and Other SELPS, pp 17–26Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hector A et al (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    HLPE (2013) Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome (2013).
  35. 35.
    Holdridge LR (1947) Determination of world plant formations from simple climatic data. Science 105:367–368ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Homgren P, Thuresson T (1998) Satellite remote sensing for forestry planning. Scand J For Res 13:90–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Huggins DR et al (2008) No-till: the quiet revolution. Sci Am 299(1):70–77ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (2009) Synthesis report with executive summary: a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports.
  39. 39.
    Introne J, Laubacher R, Olson G, Thomas M (2014) Solving wicked social problems with socio-computational systems, Kunstliche Intelligenz, February 2013.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Isozaki T (2012) Combining stage algorithm for discovering causal models. In: Proceedings of UAI workshop on causal structure learningGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Isozaki T (2014) A robust causal discovery algorithm against faithfulness violation. Trans Jpn Soc Artif Intell 29(1):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Isozaki T, Ueno M (2009) Minimum free energy principle for constraint-based learning Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of ECMLPKDD 2009, Part1. LNAI, vol 5781. Springer, Berlin, pp 612–627Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jackson W (2002) Natural systems agriculture: a truly radical alternative. Agric Ecosyst Environ 88:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Japan Integrated Biodiversity Information System. (2015)
  45. 45.
    Japan Node of Global Biodiversity Information Facility. (2015)
  46. 46.
    Jeavons J (2012) How to grow more vegetables (and fruits, nuts, berries, grains, and other crops) than you ever thought possible on less land than you can imagine, 8th edn. Ten Speed Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    KNEU-project (2014) KNEU-developing a knowledge network for European expertise on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy making economic sectors. BiodiveristyKnowledge.
  48. 48.
    Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F (2006) World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Z 15:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kremen C, Iles A, Bacon C (2012) Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol Soc 17(4):44Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kuhnlein HV et al (ed) Indigenous peoples’ food systems & well-being. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Center for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment, Rome (2013).
  51. 51.
    Lane D, Maxfield R, Read D, van der Leeuw S (2009) From population to organised thinking. In: Lane D, van der Leeuw S, Pumain D, West G (eds) Complexity perspectives in innovation and social change. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lévi-Strauss C (1990) La Pensée Sauvage. Pocket, ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Libellium agriculture kit. (2015)
  54. 54.
    Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lynch J (2013) Choose satellites to monitor deforestation. Nature 496:293–294ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mader P et al (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296:1694–1697ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Malézieux E, Crozat Y, Dupraz C, Laurans M, Makowski D, Ozier-Lafontaine H, Rapidel B, de Tourdonnet S, Valantin-Morison M (2008) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    McVigar TR, Jupp DLB (1998) The current and potential operational uses of remote sensing to aid decisions on drought exceptional circumstances in Australia a review. Agric Syst 57(3):399–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Michels M (2011) A beehive monitoring system incorporating optical flow as a source of information. Masters thesis, Freie Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mollison B, Holmgren D (1978) Permaculture one: a perennial agriculture for human settlements. Trasworld Publishers, Melbourne. ISBN: 978-0-938240-00-6Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Montgomery DR (2012) Dirt: the erosion of civilizations. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Newbold T et al (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520:45–50ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pearl J (2000) Causality, models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pool R (1989) Ecologists flirt with chaos. Science 243(4889):310–313; New SeriesGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Putman RJ, Wratten SD (1984) Principles of ecology. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Reichenbach H (1956) The direction of time. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rosenqvist A (2003) A review of remote sensing technology in support of the Kyoto protocol. Environ Sci Pol 6:441–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sasaki T (2013) Hierarchical multi-agent-based model for simulating the prevalence and evolution of influenza virus. In: Spring simulation multi-conference, pp 62–69Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sasaki T (2013) Simulating limited diversity in evolution of influenza. In: ECAL 2013: 12th European conference on artificial life, pp 470–471Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sheppard SRJ, Cizek P (2009) The ethics of Google Earth crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape visualization. J Environ Manag 90:2102–2117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Smith LC (1997) Satellite remote sensing of river inundation area, stage, and discharge: a review. Hydrol Process 11:1427–1439ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    SOER (2010) The state of soil in Europe. A contribution of the JRC to the European Environment Agency’s Environment State and Outlook Report, European Environment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    The Bee Laboratory open source video database. (2015)
  75. 75.
    The Bee Laboratory open sensor data. (2015)
  76. 76.
    The Bee Laboratory pollen database. (2015)
  77. 77.
    The Sound Beehive installation at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (IBE) in Barcelona (May–June 2015). (2015)
  78. 78.
    The Sound Beehive installation at the AI and the Arts exhibition for the international conference of artificial intelligence in Buenos Aires, Argentina (July 2015).
  79. 79.
    The World Bank (2008) World development report, agriculture for development (2008).
  80. 80.
    Thop KR, Tian LF (2004) A review on remote sensing of weeds in agriculture. Precis Agric 5:477–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tokoro M (2010) What is open systems science? In: Tokoro M (ed) Open systems science: from understanding principles to solving problems (the future of learning). IOS Press, FairfaxGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Tokoro M (ed) (2010) Open systems science from understanding principles to solving problems. IOS Press, FairfaxGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tokoro M (2015) A new method for new challenges. Sci Am 499:64–66; Innovation Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tree of Life web project. (2015)
  85. 85.
    Tucker CJ (1980) A critical review of remote sensing and other methods for non-destructive estimation of standing crop biomass. Grass Forage Sci 35:177–182ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009) The environmental food crisis - the environment’s role in averting future food crises.
  87. 87.
    United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2012) Avoiding future famines: strengthening the ecological foundation of food security through sustainable food systems, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi. Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Verbitskii VB, Verbitskaya TI (2007) Ecological optimum and effect of delayed action of a factor. Dokl Biol Sci 416:386–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Von Frisch K (1953) The dancing bees: an account of the life and senses of the honey bee. Harvest Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Walker S, Wilson JB, Steel JB, Rapson GL, Smith B, King WMG, Cottam YH (2003) Properties of ecotones: evidence from five ecotones objectively determined from a coastal vegetation gradient. J Veg Sci 14(4):579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    WHO (2003) Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic disease. Technical Report Series 916. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    World Economic Forum (2010), Realizing a New Vision for Agriculture: a roadmap for stakeholders.
  93. 93.
    World Economic Forum (2013) Achieving the new vision for agriculture: new models for action.
  94. 94.
    Yoshida K, Funabashi M (2014) Taste analysis on conventionally, organically and naturally grown cabbage. In: 1st IMEKOFOODS, October 12–15, RomeGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Yoshida K, Shimizu-Yoshida Y, Funabashi M (2014) Functional and compositional characteristics of conventionally, organically and naturally grown cabbage and carrots. In: 4th International conference on food studies, October 20–21, PratoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masatoshi Funabashi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Hanappe
    • 2
  • Takashi Isozaki
    • 1
  • AnneMarie Maes
    • 3
    • 4
  • Takahiro Sasaki
    • 1
  • Luc Steels
    • 2
  • Kaoru Yoshida
    • 1
  1. 1.Sony Computer Science LaboratoriesInc., 3-14-13, Higahi-GotandaShinagawa-KuJapan
  2. 2.Sony Computer Science Laboratory ParisParisFrance
  3. 3.OKNOBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.So-oNBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations