Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 107–117 | Cite as

Quantitative assessment of organism–environment couplings

  • J.-L. Torres
  • O. Pérez-Maqueo
  • M. Equihua
  • L. Torres
Article

Abstract

The evolutionary implications of environmental change due to organismic action remain a controversial issue, after a decades—long debate on the subject. Much of this debate has been conducted in qualitative fashion, despite the availability of mathematical models for organism–environment interactions, and for gene frequencies when allele fitness can be related to exploitation of a particular environmental resource. In this article we focus on representative models dealing with niche construction, ecosystem engineering, the Gaia Hypothesis and community interactions of Lotka–Volterra type, and show that their quantitative character helps bring into sharper focus the similarities and differences among their respective theoretical contexts.

Keywords

Coevolution Homeostasis Extended phenotype Ecosystem engineering Niche construction Gaia hypothesis Lotka–Volterra models 

References

  1. Ackland GJ, Gallagher ID (2004) Stabilization of large generalized Lotka-Volterra foodwebs by evolutionary feedback. Phys Rev Letts 93(15):158701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boni MF, Feldman MW (2005) Evolution of antibiotic resistance by humans and bacterial niche construction. Evolution 59(3):477–491Google Scholar
  3. Dawkins R (1999) The extended phenotype, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawkins R (2006) The selfish gene, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Gurney WSC, Lawton JH (1996) The population dynamics of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 76(2):273–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hooke R (1994) On the efficacy of humans as geomorphic agents. GSA Today 4(9):224–225Google Scholar
  7. Hooke R (2000) On the history of humans as geomorphic agents. Geology 28(9):843–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (2006) Evolution in four dimensions. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1997) Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78(7):1946–1957Google Scholar
  12. Laland LN (2004) Extending the extended phenotype. Biol Philos 19:313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laland KN, Sterelny K (2006) Perspective: seven reasons (not) to neglect niche construction. Evolution 60(9):1751–1762Google Scholar
  14. Laland LN, Odling-Smee FJ, Feldman MW (1999) Evolutionary consequences of niche construction and their implications for ecology. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:10242–10247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leigh ER (1968) The ecological role of Volterra’s equations. In: Gersten-haber M (ed) Some mathematical problems in biology, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp 1–61Google Scholar
  16. Lenton TM (1998) Gaia and natural selection. Nature 394:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewontin RC (1982) Organism and environment. In: Plotkin HC (ed) Learning, development and culture, Wiley, New York, pp 151–170Google Scholar
  18. Lewontin RC (1983) The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Scientia 118:65–82Google Scholar
  19. Lotka AJ (1956) Elements of mathematical biology. Dover Publications, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Lovelock JE, Margulis L (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the gaia hypothesis. Tellus 26:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. May RM (2001) Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P et al (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation. contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (2003) Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Orr JC, Fabry VJ, Aumont O et al (2005) Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pippard AB (1974) The elements of classical thermodynamics, Chapter 7. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Sugimoto T (2002) Darwinian evolution does not rule out the Gaia Hypothesis. J Theoret Biol 218:447–455. doi: 10.1006/yjtbi.3091 Google Scholar
  27. Torres J-L (2001) Biological power laws and Darwin’s principle. J Theoret Biol 209:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Torres J-L, Castillo-Guajardo D, Equihua M, Pérez-Maqueo O, Sosa V, Torres L (2007) On a new method to study drastic change in ecosystems. Bull Math Biol 69:1815–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J et al (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Volterra V (1926) Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature 118:558–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Watson AJ, Lovelock JE (1983) Biological homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of Daisyworld. Tellus 35B:284–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.-L. Torres
    • 1
  • O. Pérez-Maqueo
    • 1
  • M. Equihua
    • 1
  • L. Torres
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Ecología, A.C.XalapaMexico
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigaciones BiológicasUniversidad VeracruzanaXalapaMexico

Personalised recommendations