Advertisement

Is Present Ecology a Systemic Discipline? New Scientific Paradigms Lead to Bionomics

  • Vittorio IngegnoliEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Systems Thinking book series (CST)

Abstract

If the basilar concept of Ecology is the “Ecosystem” is this a desecrating title? The answer depends on considerations related to the challenges come up by Reality, which is complex, creative and needing freedom: these questions brought Galilean scientific method and Science to crisis and drove them towards a change of its fundamental principles, therefore to new scientific paradigms. That’s the reason of new biological disciplines, more available to study complex systems, e.g. epigenetics, agroecology, systemic medicine, bionomics, and environmental health. All of them, especially bionomics, underline the limits of ecology in studying complex systems: here the ambiguity of the concept of ecosystem, a reinterpretation of biodiversity and resilience and the completion of the Spectrum of Biological Organization on Earth are briefly enlightened.

Well, what’s Bionomics? It’s the new discipline investigating the Laws of Life on Earth as a hierarchical organization of complex systems, acting as living entities: so, it transforms many principles of traditional Ecology and confirms the preeminent importance of the systemic approach to correctly evaluate and care the Planetary Health, to which it gives a wide theoretical corpus. A short synthesis of some of the main aspects of Bionomics and Landscape Bionomics is given.

References

  1. Agazzi, E. (Ed.). (2014). Science, metaphysics, religion. Milano: F. Angeli. (Chap. I).Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, R. G. (1996). Ecosystem geography. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besedovsky, H. O., del Rey, A., & Sorkin, E. (1981). Lymphokine-containing supernatants from con A-stimulated cells increase corticosterone blood levels. Journal of Immunology, 126, 385–387.Google Scholar
  4. Braun Blanquet, J. (1926). Etudes phytosociologiques en Auvergne. Clermont Ferrand: Mont-Louis G.Google Scholar
  5. Bronowski, J. (1969). Nature and knowledge: The philosophy of contemporary science. Condon lectures, London, Oregon State System of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  6. Crick, F. (1970). Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature, 227, 561–563. Baltimore, D. (2001). Our genome unveiled. Nature, 409, 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Einstein, A. (1944). Einstein archives (pp. 61–574).Google Scholar
  8. Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiografisches, (© 1949, 1970) Library of Living Philosophers, Chicago. tr.it. Autobiografia scientifica, in. A. Einstein Opere scelte, Bollati- Boringhieri, Torino.Google Scholar
  9. Giglio, E. (2002). Synthetic glossary. In V. Ingegnoli (Ed.), Landscape ecology: A widening foundation (pp. 323–333). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Giuliani, A. (2015). Complessità Organizzata. In L. Urbani Ulivi (Ed.), Strutture di Mondo, il pensiero sistemico come specchio di una realtà complessa (Vol. III). Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  11. Ingegnoli, V. (1971). Ecologia territoriale e progettazione: significati e metodologia. In L’ingegnere di fronte alla sopravvivenza umana, Milano, Coll. Ingegneri (Vol. I, pp. 398–400).Google Scholar
  12. Ingegnoli, V. (1980). Ecologia e progettazione (p. 310). Milano: CUSL.Google Scholar
  13. Ingegnoli, V. (1991). Human influences in landscape change: Thresholds of metastability. In O. Ravera (Ed.), Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems: Perturbation and recovery (pp. 303–309). Chichester: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  14. Ingegnoli, V. (2001). Landscape ecology. In D. Baltimore, R. Dulbecco, F. Jacob, & R. Levi-Montalcini (Eds.), Frontiers of life (Vol. IV, pp. 489–508). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Ingegnoli, V. (2002). Landscape ecology: A widening foundation (pp. XXIII + 357). Berlin, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingegnoli, V. (2005). An innovative contribution of landscape ecology to vegetation science. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 53, 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ingegnoli, V. (2011). Bionomia del paesaggio. L’ecologia del paesaggio biologico-integrata per la formazione di un “medico” dei sistemi ecologici (pp. XX + 340). Milan: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ingegnoli, V. (2015). Landscape bionomics. Biological-integrated landscape ecology (pp. XXIV + 431). Heidelberg, Milan, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Ingegnoli, V., & Giglio, E. (2005). Ecologia del Paesaggio: manuale per conservare, gestire e pianificare l’ambiente (pp. 685 + XVI). Napoli: Sistemi editoriali SE.Google Scholar
  20. Ingegnoli, V., & Giglio, E. (2017). Complex environmental alterations damages human body defence system: A new bio-systemic way of investigation. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 13, 170–180.Google Scholar
  21. Ingegnoli, V., & Pignatti, S. (2007). The impact of the widened Landscape Ecology on Vegetation Science: Towards the new paradigm (s. IX, Vol. XVIII, pp. 89–122). Springer Link: Rendiconti Lincei Scienze Fisiche e Naturali.Google Scholar
  22. Lorenz, K. (1978). Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung: Grundlagen der Ethologie. Berlin, Wien: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lovelock, J. (2007). The revenge of Gaia: Earth’s climate crisis & the fate of humanity. London, New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  24. Lovelock, J., & Margulis, L. (1974). Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis. Tellus XXVI.Google Scholar
  25. Naveh, Z., & Lieberman, A. (1984). Landscape ecology: Theory and application (pp. XXVII + 360). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. O’Neill, R. V., De Angelis, D. L., Waide, J. B., & Allen, T. F. H. (1986). A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Odum, E. P. (1971). Fundamentals of ecology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: WB Saunders.Google Scholar
  28. Odum, E. P. (1983). Basic ecology. CBS College Publ. USA.Google Scholar
  29. Pignatti, S. (1995). Ecologia vegetale. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar
  30. Pignatti, S., Box, E. O., & Fujiwara, K. (2002). A new paradigm for the XXIth Century. Annali di Botanica, II, 31–58.Google Scholar
  31. Rivas-Martinez, S. (1987). Nociones sobre Fitosociologıa, biogeografıa y bio-climatologia. In La vegetacion de España (pp. 19–45). Madrid: Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.Google Scholar
  32. Tansley, A. G. (1934). Editorial note, to Michelmore’s Letter to the Editor. Journal of Ecology, 22, 317.Google Scholar
  33. Tüxen, R. (1956). Die heutige potentielle naturliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationkartierung. Angew. Pflanzensoziologie Stolzenau/Weser, 13, 5–42.Google Scholar
  34. Von Humboldt, A. (1846). Kosmos. Stuttgard.Google Scholar
  35. Waddington, C. H. (1942). The epigenotype. Endeavor, 1, 18–20 (Reprinted in Int J Epidemiol 2012, 41, 10–13).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes: A discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology (pp. ix + 262 pp). Allen & Unwin ed., London.Google Scholar
  37. Zonneveld, I. S. (1995). Land ecology. SPB Amsterdam: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and Policy—ESPUniversità Statale di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations