Talk:Ecology/Archive 1

French article
(I do not read French but some of the familiar words that I saw suggests that the Écologie article is about the anthropogenic effects of humans on the natural environment rather than ecology Either the writer confuses ecology and environmental issues or the French use the word in a different context to the English use. Alan Liefting 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC))


 * I don't think there's any point making broad assumptions about the article if you don't read French. It might be translation worthy, it's hard to tell as I've never studied the language. Some foreign language featured articles are terrible, others are well worth the effort of translation. Richard001 10:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

moved from the page 2
 The environment includes both the abiotic environment &#151 non-living things like climate and geology &#151 and the biotic environment &#151 living things like plants and animals. Much of ecological research is concerned with the distribution and abundance of organisms and how distributions are influenced by characteristics of the environment. Organisms influence their environment and the environment influences organisms.

From an ecological point of view, the Earth consists of a hydrosphere, a lithosphere, a geosphere and a biosphere. An assemblage of natural communities and species, within areas of ecological potential based on soil, climate and topography parameters are called ecoregions, and constitute a basic element in ecology. 

Re: sub articles
Re : the article is getting long, consider moving paragraph to sub articles.

Please, Lexor, consider reading my opinion on agglomeration at User talk:The Cunctator/Agglomeration.

As far as I am concerned, I do not plan to add anything more to that article. So it won't get any longer from me :-)

In doing this article, I meant to build a central place, where all the important notions could be laid down. A sort of overview of the whole field. If all these notions are removed, to be placed in their respective articles, with just a link left into place, the integration of these notions that I tried to do, will just be lost.

For example, the paragraph named homeostasis (that could be renamed if necessary, I failed to find better one), is linking and introducing abiotic ecological factor, biotic ecological factor, specific relationships, food chains, ecological niche, biogeochemical cycles, feedback controls, homeostasis and climax. Removing these to place them in their respective articles will result in removing information, the one that is providing quick reference to understand how they all relate together. We could in effect replace the whole current article with about 20 bulleted links, and let the user take care of reading 20 articles instead of one that is trying to give an overview. I do not support this. In writing this article, I tried to provide a new level of reading, global reading. If people want to know more or understand best a concept, they can then go to the more specialized articles. I think it is also a bad idea to support removing information from "here" just because some of it is in the more specialised articles. Most of the specialised articles are currently just drafts, and highly incomplete. When they are complete, we will have achieved both the broad and the depth. Please, do not remove the general information to try to hide the scarcity of the specialised information. Thanks. --Anthere


 * I wasn't suggesting moving all of this information out, in fact you could probably leave most of it there, but consider moving some more specialized information to the sub-articles. I think your goal of an global/overview summary of a field is good and I don't want to take away from that: there are far too many articles on wikipedia that are a list of bullet points to other articles, so I know where you are coming from.   So it's just a question of balance.  Right now, I think it's more-or-less fine, just a little slimming and trimming here and there might be appropriate.  But if it got too much longer it could turn into an unruly beast.  But at the very least we should make sure the linked-to Main articles (aka sub-articles) have at least the same level of information (and preferrably more in an "expanded" form) as the overview article.  It looks strange if a Main (specialized) article is orders-of-magnitude shorter than the section in the overview article.  Have a look at the articles Simulation (which I did a significant degree of copyedit/re-organization) and Computer simulation (which I created) for an example of the sort of balance I am suggesting. --Lexor 12:37, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Simulation and simulation computer are very good examples on which you did good job. Yes, that is what I mean, and what I tried to do on cuisine as well or a bit on biodiversity (but that one was a long time ago, and really need further work...). You are right that it is very important that "sub articles" are more expanded that the main one...Perhaps some points here might be moved...but I think they should rather be kept here, and expanded there.
 * I started at the top of the article a few days ago...to make links. At least that all people that had an impact on ecology development and who are leasted here, are identified as precursors in their own article, and are linked back here.
 * I suppose I will go down at time goes down and feed the sub articles little by little to ensure they are richer.


 * Anthere, I read your comments on User talk:The Cunctator/Agglomeration and I think we're basically in agreement about the level of agglomeration vs. splitting, as you say, for big topics it's clearly appropriate. Any tweaks I would do to the current entry would be fairly minor. It also looks like the Main articles are fairly robust articles in and of themselves, so the second problem with over-short specialized and too-long main articles looks less an issue in the case of Ecology. But, in general, its a problem that I think should be addressed. --Lexor 12:50, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * You are right it is important. I will try to make all these major sub articles my priorities somehow. Perhaps the homeostasis one is the lighter. Well, that is a work in progress...
 * In any case, I am glad you basically share my pov on agglomeration vs splitting, so I trust your twists will be ok. Please, just try to keep at least in one part of the main article, all the links currently available. Thanks

List breakouts
There are a number of places where lists could be broken out and referenced; lists embedded in articles contribute disproportionately to length for the content that they provide. Courtland 14:44, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Understanding
The environment is at the same time the product and the condition of this activity and thus of the survival of the species.

Any species has an activity. This activity is required at the species level for the existence of the species itself. Besides, this activity has a role in the system itself. It is part of a collection of activity, that in the end make the whole system work.

In doing this activity, there are consequences on the environment of life of the species. For example, the bees needs flower plants to feed on, and in feeding on these plants, they at the same time pollinate these plants. So the bees are an important part of that chain that insure the reproduction of flower plants. The environnement is the "condition" of existence of the bees (if there are no flowers, then the bees die).

But at the same time, the environment is the product of the species activity. When bees pollinate flowers, they allow their reproduction, and garanty there will be flowers next year. If there are no pollinators, then flowers are not pollinated, and the year after, there are no more flowers and the bees have nothing to feed on. This way, the feeding and pollinating activity on year N, has an impact on the environnement that make it possible for the bees to continue their activity in year N+1. You may say the environnement is the "product" of the species activity.

The survival of a species will require both that the environment of life is initially suitable to that species (the "condition") and that the activity of that species does not transform it so much that it de-facto becomes unsuitable ("the product").

If it is still not clear, think to human species as a species, clean water as a required environnmental factor for the human species survival, and of human activity as one factor that has an impact of quality and availability of water.

yes ?

oh, and of course, thanks for the copyediting :-)

(--anthere)


 * Ok, I think by "product and condition" you mean "cause and consequence", then. Do I have it right? Martin 00:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * you were doing cleaning up :-) perhaps "requirement" and "consequence" is more accurate ?


 * That sounds good. :) Martin 13:36, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--

I do not think the msg about biology is appropriate here. The fields mentionned are not. And it is disputed that ecology is a subfield of biology. FirmLittleFluffyThing 05:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that the last version of the parag said biological sciences not biology. But anyway those are just arbitrary names, and the question about which science is contained in which is pure "angel sex" stuff, without any meaning or consequence.  Nature doesn't give a damn about man's (or woman's) pretense to "organize" it into "sciences". IMHO the page is better without that parag.Jorge Stolfi 16:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Level of Content
What sort of an audience does this article target? It ranges from moderately complex discussions to theory to statements like: Honeybees concentrate the sugar still further as honey, which can be said to be "stored summer sunshine" (a statements that is (a) true for any storage product which has its origin in photosynthesis, and (b) shows a Temperate Zone bias). Guettarda 23:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say the article aims at a rather general audience, essentially meaning to draw ecology in big lines and provides multiplicity of relevant links. Just rewrite a bit the sentence and it shall be just fine :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Metaphysics
A link was added recently to a largely metaphysical essay. My instinct is that this is not appropriate here, but I realise that the "popular" usage is far broader than hard scientific usage (e.g., I would never have included Human ecology if I had written the article, since I see it as a different field with a similar name, but I realise that it is a valid part of this article). Given my own view of ecology I don't think this fits, but I realise that my view is coloured by my own POV. Thanks Guettarda 17:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ecological factor, abiotic, biotic & wikilinks
I trust I've not been too bold to eliminate three stub articles by merging them together into this article. It seemed that the information in this article on ecological factors was already greater than that found in any of the 3 stub articles so it made sense to me to conduct this merger. This has left two levels of redirects that I need to deal with by doing wikilink changes on the pointing pages. I will take care of those modifications in due time. Regards, Courtland 14:40, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure if I would favour changes which lengthened the article - this article is too long and in major need to revision/clean-up, rationalised sub-articles, etc. But that's neither here nor there.  What I do wonder about is the inclusion of the stamps - that would be a better image for an article about environmental conservation, or better, the environmental movement, don't you think?  Ecology as a science is (should be) value-neutral on environmental issues.  Guettarda 22:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Stamps? What does that have to do with the topic I was speaking on? The information I brought in lengthened the article by about 10 visible lines and 9 hidden lines (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecology&diff=10862341&oldid=10862307 whic shows the introduction of visible lines). Courtland 23:15, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


 * Um, ok, let me re-phrase. I don't have a problem with your changes - I have a general concern about the length of the article, but this addition to the length is minor.  Mis-read the history - I thought that the image was inserted by you as well, which is why I mentioned it in the same reply, making it a general comment on the today's changes.  No need to be so aggressive in your reply though.
 * To address your question about incorporating these other articles, my response is, no problem with that.
 * Thanks; I understand. I didn't mean to be aggressive, but I see how it could be interpreted as such (there's that "90% of communication is body language and inflection" problem once more :) ). What I probably should have used was something more along the lines of "hmm, I'm not sure what you mean about the stamps." Courtland 02:16, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * I am curious why "salinity" links to "salinity in Australia". It strikes me as odd, but then so does the line Salinity in Australian English may refer to salt in soil (see Salinity in Australia). in the Salinity article.  It's certainly not a uniquely Australian phenomenon, although the salinisation of the Wheatbelt in Western Australia is one of the more remarkable examples.  But I suppose that is more a comment on the articles in wikipedia than on your link - best of a bad lot, I suppose.  Guettarda 23:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (chuckles) that struck me as really odd too, but I didn't take the time to untie that particular knot. I used what I got served when I went looking. Courtland 02:16, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Article Organization
The article is really almost a mess, just because it is trying to do too much on one page. "Ecology" (the article) cannot attempt to cover all of the subject matter included in "Ecology" (the science). I suggest a couple of things: 1) move much of the material off to other articles; 2) join me at Wikibooks in developing a textbook if "ecology" is your passion. Remember, ecology is not everything that happens on earth or in nature; it is just a subject of study - Marshman 04:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Your suggestions as to how to better organize the article would be welcome. Courtland 06:04, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll start to look at it it terms of structure.  Ecology is a difficult subject because it is so encompassing and therefore seemingly unbounded.  - Marshman 17:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) / I'm doing this in short reorganization steps so as to not make it too difficult for other to zoom in on a particular change they may not be happy about.  I've not really eliminated much at this point, just moved some things around to make a more coherent presentation. - Marshman 23:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Natural environment
I have removed Ecology is sometimes used as a synonym for the natural environment. Ecology is the study of what lies within the natural environment. Alan Liefting 10:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * But people use the word to mean the natural environment. Non-scientists do all the time.  While we shouldn't cater towrds ignorance, we should provide navigational aids to those end up here by mistake.  Guettarda 15:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I take your point but do not agree with it. I am not sure what level of ignorance to which Wikipedaia should be catering. I have qualified the statement for clarification to those who confuse the two. Alan Liefting 20:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alan. Anthere


 * I disagree. The term ecology clearly has two meanings and the majority of English speakers consider it to be the less scientific one. I agree, and have consistently edited this article to the "proper" or "correct" use of the term as stated by Alan, but that does not obviate the need to redirect those who insist that "ecology" is synonomous with "natural environment" somewhere else. Removing the statement will simply lead to a disambig page and the rediculous loss of ecology to ecology (scientific) or some such. - Marshman 03:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Chemical Ecology
Hi all, would it be usefull to add another sub category? i am working in an institution that is called Insitute for Chemical Ecology. We are working on a lot of different compounds, e.g. volatiles, alkaloids and other toxins, cell signaling molecules, and plant hormons, which are analyzed by means of mass-spec., hplc/gc, bioassay a.o. members of these compound classes are playing an important role in the interaction of plants and their herbivores. it gets even more complex by including the predators. evaluating the defense cost with regard to 3 trophic levels is challenging but important basic research. -- Hendriks 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You could start by having a look at chemical ecology - it needs work (badly!) - Guettarda 19:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. A very important ecological topic about which Wikipedia has almost nothing at the present time - Marshman 20:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * well, it is really not much that can be found under chemical ecology. i guess i wasnt very clear: i suggest to add chemical ecology to "Disciplines of ecology" whatdaya think? -- Hendriks 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Do that too ! - Marshman

Meaning, not definition, of the word "ecology"
Guettarda removed my changes and wrote "rv polemic - pls make a case for this change on the talk page". I'm not sure what can be considered polemical in my changes, except perhaps the description/justification i gave on the history page "Wikipedia should not engage in normative language policies abandoned decades ago by all modern, scientifically produced dictionaries", and i would hope that is a general policy at Wikipedia anyhow.

My changes were no polemic; on the contrary, most of the changes i made in the article were well documented and supported and the others are considered obvious in linguistics today (e.g. economy of words, describing instead of prescribing language use, etc.). Some of the arguments presented there need to /can be shortened or perhaps removed, but it seemed senseless to spend time first discussing this change instead of showing it in context, which makes it easier to decide how much to trim/change, especially since the following 6-week-old grudging admission (by a supporter of normative language policies!) had produced no opposition: "but "incorrect" as a descriptor may have to go".

I don't however think it's a good idea to just remove contributions when they are obviously well thought through and documented. I spent a long time reading the talk page before making my changes, and i believe the arguments and references i presented in the article itself dispel and refute all contrary qualms and claims on this talk page that attempt to force users to not use "ecology" in ways the commentators (incorrectly) claim are incorrect. It makes no sense for me to copy my contribution here. Please see it in context here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecology&oldid=41594587

One necessary change comes to mind:

"Although these other uses of the word are perhaps unnecessary, they fulfill one of the most fundamental rules and needs of human communication, economy of words, and they are very common and well documented in reputable dictionaries such as those quoted and others."

=> ...and they are very common in speech and writing and well documented in reputable dictionaries such as those quoted and others. --Espoo 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] If you think that ecology should not be narrowly construed, if you think that the common (incorrect) usage should have precidence here - then by all means, make the argument, based on usage and the MoS. You are making arguments in the article. That is inappropriate. Make them here, build consensus, and then we can see where the argument will go. Guettarda 16:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, the word "polemic" came in part from your edit summary, but also from the angry, argumentative tone.
 * 2) This "Some people feel that it is incorrect to use "ecology" as a synonym for the objects studied by it, e.g. the natural environment, or for environmentalism. This is apparently due to the relative newness of the discipline (and a lack of understanding of linguistics among many scientists in other fields), for such extended use is very well established with the names of older disciplines such as physics, which also means "the physical properties and phenomena of something" (New Oxford Dictionary)" is inappropriate for the top of the page.
 * 3) The first paragraph is agrumentative and uninformative, and is full of extensive external links.  It is unhelpful to someone reading the article for information about ecology.  For example, starting the article with "Although in scientific use "ecology" often has only the restricted meaning explained below," is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  In addition, the tone is condescending.  "Although these other uses of the word are perhaps unnecessary, they fulfill one of the most fundamental rules and needs of human communication, economy of words, and they are very common and well documented in reputable dictionaries such as those quoted and others" - maybe there is need for a  page, but this material certainly does not belong at the top of this article.


 * You again ignored the contents of my contribution. It's not that important where my important example and original idea concerning the completely accepted and exactly corresponding use of the word "physics" belongs. Relevant is the fact that it "proves" my point and shows that the arguments against corresponding extended use of "ecology" are illogical. My comments about such erroneous reasoning being perhaps (apparently) due to the newness of the discipline, were the opposite of polemicism; they were an attempt to leave those who argued otherwise an easy way out. Experts on ecology can't be expected to be experts on linguistics. And where do you see anger?


 * My first paragraph is not argumentative or uninformative or full of too many external links. It provides the reader with the other meanings of the word and reputable references for these meanings. Yes, they are very good arguments for my case and against yours, and your attempt to disqualify them without any arguments means that your contribution is argumentative or worse, not mine!


 * There is no reason why the reader should not be confronted with arguments for and against a viewpoint. Simply deleting them and not even reacting to them in the discussion is not good editing! Yes, i made the argument for my viewpoint, which is also that of most experts on the English language, and i based it on usage and i even referenced the sources proving this.


 * In any case, you still haven't understood that my physics example proves you are wrong.


 * In addition, even if common usage had done something quirky with only the *word* (not *term*) "ecology" not seen in similar cases, this would, by definition, never be wrong. Common usage is common usage, and all technical use is subordinate to that, even if a word was first only used by specialists and with a different meaning. Your reasoning is exactly along the lines of monks in monasteries in the Middle Ages (and linguists until the beginning of the 20th century), who seriously thought that language use could and should be prescribed and not observed.


 * The fact is that any terms appropriated over the ages by common usage to mean something else have later always had that as their first and often soon only meaning. The restricted, technical use only survived when used among specialists. If these same specialists had to explain their technical issue to the rest of the world, they always had to use circumlocutions or coin new terms and they always had to use their old technical term in the way dictated by common usage once the word had been in common usage long enough. This probably used to be at least one generation and is nowadays perhaps only a decade or so.


 * But even today, the normative tradition is strong due to outdated teaching methods, i.e. badly trained teachers, and even things that are unnatural and contrary to the language's inner rules (not just outdated definitions of once only technical terms) are still forced down people's throats. It is a fact of life, however, that the centuries of attempts to prevent, as just one example, "split infinitives" in English are doomed to failure. People have always used this natural English construction while speaking and the invented rule based on incorrect analogy with Latin is ignored by most sane people except in formal contexts. The time will come when people dare to use it in formal contexts too, especially when its avoidance causes nonsense sentences. --Espoo 17:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Although many of your arguments are good ones, I must say I far and away agree with Guettarda that your changes were NOT improvements. I think you are making a point that the word has a technical meaning and a broader usage, which is true and has been recognized here from the start. That does not mean the article is about that broader usage; it is about the narrower (and yes technical and perhaps subordinate&mdash;although not in my mind as an ecologist&mdash; meaning).  To simply waffel at length on every encyclopedia term right in the introduction would be a disaster for Wikipedia, which wisely has mechanisms (links, disambiguations, etc.) that allow users to find whatever meaning they are seeking information on.  I'm not saying your addition is not valuable, just not where you put it.  There is an article on the "other" meaning of the word, and perhaps there would be appropriate. From early on this article has been defined as representing the technical definition.  This split is necessary to keep the two or more schools of meaning/use of the word from mixing things up on the same page resulting in a basically meaningless article.  As presented now, the introduction defines what the artricle is about (as it should). It might help you to read the diuscussion page from top to bottom first, as this point has been argued before. - Marshman 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the point was made earlier that the term "incorrectly" in the disambiguation line at the top is inappropriate, and I suspect that Espoo is again, lucidly making that argument. I'd say "commonly" or some such is better. In my heart, it is incorreect to use the word to mean environmentalim, but Espoo is right, that view amounts to swimming upstream. - Marshman 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You again ignored the contents of my contribution. Not exactly, but close enough.  While some of your ideas may be appropriate for the article, your placement and style are not.
 * As for "my physics example proves you wrong" - really? No, it doesn't prove me wrong.  And "proof" is irrelevant - there is no "proof" in Wikipedia articles, merely well referenced assertions, badly referenced assertions and original research.  Guettarda 18:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not want to appear to be ganging up on you Espoo, but after more careful reading of your changes, I see only a sort of "linguists" know the truth, and "this article is really now irrelevant"&mdash;not a good introduction to a serious subject. The physics example is not a good one (IMHO), as the common definition you present is pretty close to what I always thought Physics (the discipline) was/is. Ecology remains a discipline and ecologists do not regard the term as meaning the same as "environmentalism" even if some also use it that way ("Ecology Day", for example). I once took your approach at Plant and got beat up pretty good by those that felt everyone but me must know what a "plant" is and there was no need to point out (especially in the introduction) that there was conflict between the common, historical, technical usages of the term. - Marshman 19:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, it's senseless to admit that it's perfectly good English to say that the chemistry or physics of a lake or something else varies according to the season and to simultaneously claim that the same kind of use of the word "ecology" to mean more than the academic discipline is incorrect. Your "defense" of your illogical arguments still consists of personal attacks on my editing style instead of adult reactions to the logical content of my contributions.


 * The physics and chemistry articles, for example, do not start out with linguistically incorrect admonitions on how to use or not to use these words. The whole problem was created by the superfluous and *incorrect* statements on what constitutes incorrect use of the word "ecology" in general, i.e. in general English, and these factually incorrect statements are still there. As Marshman suggested, the solution is a disambiguation page. Trying to restrict the meaning or "first/best" meaning of the *word* "ecology" - not of the science called "ecology" - to what ecologists want it to mean is blatant ignorance of the basics of the science of linguistics and a sign of parochialism worthy of monkish scholars. This is underlined by the many unbelievably naive comments such as the following: I am not sure what level of ignorance to which Wikipedaia should be catering./ dumbing down of the citizens, but language is language and people attach the meanings they mislearn as well as those they learn / (Sadly!) Oxford English Dictionary has as definition / commonness of usage isn't sufficient for legitimacy, / Nothing says that "common" usage isn't incorrect / etc.


 * We probably can't make do without a disambiguation page because ecology is still such a new and unknown science that users do need linguistic help with this *word's* different general and technical meanings, which they don't need with "physics", for example. --Espoo 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with you as to what constitutes "correct" or "incorrect" usage of the word ecology, that really isn't the point here. Your version is not suitable for an encyclopaedia.  That's all there is to it. As for disambiguation (my suggestion, not that it matters) - it's normal to restrict articles to single meanings (see evolution).  That's just the way we write articles here.
 * By the way, for someone who compains about "personal attacks" (and it isn't a PA to point out that your edits are stylistically inappropriate), you should try to lay off the insults. As for the assertion that ecology is a "new and unknown science", I don't know what your definitions of "new" and "unknown" are.  Most sciences are far newer and more obscure.  Guettarda 21:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You still haven't understood that not my or your opinion on what constitutes correct use of a word is significant. The only decisive factor is common usage (and this is true for the common usage among experts for technical terms within the scientific community too), and this is determined and described more or less scientifically and objectively by most dictionaries nowadays. The days of prescription are over. If the majority starts saying "we sayS", then this is no longer incorrect, and in a generation or two "we saY" will not just be outdated but incorrect. It's always been that way, but due to authoritarian social structures and lack of education for all, it was often possible to delay linguistic change or to make outdated forms into "admission tickets" to power and wealth and to even impose incorrect grammar rules on language.


 * And you're still skirting the main issue, which is that the factually incorrect statements about the use of "ecology" to also mean other things besides the academic discipline need to be removed or corrected. I myself just suggested that this article could be restricted to a single meaning *if* it dropped the naive and incorrect statements about other uses of the word. My original solution attempt was to provide correct information on the different meanings of the word "ecology" here, but this can be done elsewhere too, on a separate disambiguation page.


 * I was never upset about your comments about my style; let me once again try to point out that you should try to concentrate on the contents, not the style of my corrections. If we agree on what parts of the content i proposed are appropriate and where, it's a trivial matter changing the length of my additions and their style. By brutally removing them instead of letting me and others improve them, you've made us all waste hundreds of words and a huge amount of time. It would have been much easier to edit my additions than to talk about how to do that. And in case you are indeed an expert in this article's field, your behavior violates the most basic principle of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a forum accepting and *encouraging* contributions by all, not just experts. All accept that their contributions are subject to criticism and even drastic editing, but simply removing a contribution that was obviously written in good faith and well thought out, supported, and referenced is a blatant violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. It is, in fact, vandalism. BTW, the best experts in a field are always interested in what laypeople and experts from other fields have to say about their field. This even helps them understand their own field better, not just its situation in society, and society in general.


 * And i explained very clearly what i meant with "new" and "unknown": newer and less known than physics and chemistry, obviously. I have the feeling you're purposely trying to not communicate. This *relative* newness is why both the general public and ecologists need help understanding the general and technical meanings of the word, which most people don't need with "chemistry" for example. It's obvious that "the chemistry of the lake varies according to the season" doesn't mean the science of chemistry or even the laws of chemistry but a third, metalevel in meaning. Ecologists should be happy and not upset that ecology is finally becoming so well known that metameanings for the discipline's name are developing.


 * You two are making very different points and therefore mostly talking past each other. But to be clear, I fully understand the criticism of your addition which is summarized correctly by "your version is not suitable for an encyclopaedia" - maybe better stated as "...this article of an encyclopedia". It seems you are tending to agree, but mostly wanting to make a point about linguistics.  I think we all agree on the importance of linguistics, but have differing views on where such information should be included.  And for the record, I probably would have removed your changes in one go myself had Guettarda not done so. Certainly editing to correct errors and/or style is always preferred, but some changes are so considerable to the general tenor of the article or section that it is best to start over. Guettarda did say bring it back here for discussion. I'll change the lead in disambiguation statement if that is now the main point of contention. - Marshman 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your new 'common parlance' text is a solution I can get behind, Marshman, considering my comments above about the OED, etc. Good. CHE 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've been getting a ton of negative vibes at Wikibooks lately, and your positive encouragement goes a long way towards improving my attitude about Wikipedia. Looking back at our earlier conversation re: this issue, I'm not sure why we did not "improve" it back then. - Marshman 05:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's why outside input is so important and why Wikipedia will soon be better than any existing traditional encyclopedias. (Maybe one of them will wake up and understand that their only hope of a future lies in open source and community involvement. Most of us would rather be editing Encyclopaedia Britannica than writing a new one from scratch.) Many times even agreed-upon changes just aren't made due to lack of time or because everyone is expecting someone else to make them. That's why i was so upset that my changes were just dumped. (In case someone still hasn't understood, i never objected to even drastic editing.) I'd first spent a lot of time reading this talk page, and my changes added much needed linguistic expertise. My changes were an attempt to apply the things agreed upon by you and others and additional input meant to assuage any fears that "loose", extended use of the word "ecology" was something exceptional, not seen in the case of other sciences, and in need of public rebuke.


 * Now that we've finally got rid of the *factually* (scientifically, statistically, linguistically) incorrect statement about the common uses of the word "ecology" being incorrect, we can think about how to improve the usage comment. Your edit is good, but it does not take into consideration that common use of the word is for all subjects of ecology, not just "natural environment". I suggest the following:

The word "ecology" is used in common parlance to sometimes mean environmentalism and often the objects studied by the science of ecology, e.g. natural environment, ecosystem, etc. (This usage corresponds to that established with the names of other scientific disciplines, e.g., "The chemistry of the lake changes with the seasons.")


 * And no, i'm not "mostly wanting to make a point about linguistics." My main goal was to get rid of a factually incorrect statement. That has been achieved. My second goal was to help both ecologists and laypeople understand that the common, extended meanings of "ecology" are no quirk and no threat to clarity or to the scientific discipline of ecology itself. Your comment "the common definition you present is pretty close to what I always thought Physics (the discipline) was/is." shows that you haven't understood the point. The (second!) meaning in the New Oxford that i quoted ("the physical properties and phenomena of something") is talking about the *object* of the scientific study called physics, not the scientific discipline itself. This is exactly what has happened with ecology, and it is this extended, meta-usage that was incorrectly labeled as incorrect here. Maybe my chemistry example is easier to understand.


 * My third goal is to incorporate into the existing or a new usage note the following comment made many weeks ago: "phrases like "the ecology of the Great Plains", where that means its energetic relationships and so forth, which is certainly a common usage among ecologists." --Espoo 10:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I do see the difference now, but I'm not convinced we need a lot explanation on that linguistic point here. Certainly there is a difference between ecology meaning a field of study and the ecology of some geographical unit, but that is a pretty subtle difference and not to my mind as an ecologist all that different. THe "Ecology of the Great Plains" is: "a study of the ecosystems located in middle North America". Thinking about it, are not most names of disciplines used in such a dual manner: chemistry, physics, biology, literature, medical... Both applications of the discipline word are not so extended as the popular usurping of the term to mean anything naturalistic (like "recycling is the ecological thing to do"), which is where you are meeting with resistence and perhaps by trying to put too fine a point on it. - Marshman 21:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

well this is dumb
yah i just want abiotic and biotic factors for my biomes project and i get junk on ecology, i understand that biomes is part of ecology, but can't they just make it a bit simple
 * No telling how you got here, but why not just go to biome? - Marshman 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition too narrow
The page currently reads: "Ecology, or ecological science, is the scientific study of the distribution and abundance of living organisms and how the distribution and abundance are affected by interactions between the organisms and their environment."

I think this is an extraordinarily narrow definition of the field; Ecology encompasses much more than the study of "distribution and abundance" and how this relates to interactions. I think I am going to change this definition to something more broad and also more accurate. Cazort 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of ecology
I strongly agree with the comment about the definition of ecology being too narrow. The definition of ecology that I use is: the study of the relationships between organisms and their environment; this definition is much more broad than "the abundance and distribution of organisms". To make my point, consider that an ecological study could research the way that wind, water, or sun affects an organisms's behavior, which is not necessarily speaking to the topic of abundance or distribution. For example, increasing water temperatures may put physiological stress on a certain fish population, and cause its members to become temporarily less active in feeding or swimming, but this does not necessarily affect their abundance or cause a change in their distribution. A study of the water temperature regime, its causes, and its effects on the fish population could be considered an "ecological study".Plizon 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How would that not affect their abundance and distribution? If they were under any stress surely the population would become less abundant in that area, affecting their distribution. If it was a purely theoretical experiment, wouldn't it just be a study in physiological response? In any case, you will need to provide references if you want to change the definition or present alternatives. Richard001 01:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One could also make this claim for the definition that is currently on the page. I found the current definition (Verbatim) in a book Ecology: Individuals, Populations, and Communities, by "Michael Begon, John L. Harper, Colin R. Townsend (2003).  The definition is attributed to Krebs (1972).  This definition is quite out of date and that book discusses it critically and expands on it greatly.  At the same time, that book is just one source among any...Ecology is a complex subject and there is hardly a consensus definition of ecology.  I am changing it to one more similar to what Plizon suggested.  I also want to make the point that because the definition of ecology is a tricky matter, it would not be sufficient to cite a single source in justifying a given definition.  Rather, we ought to have a broad definition, and then provide citations for how different authors define the word in different ways.  Cazort 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who coined the term "ecology"?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term was coined by Haeckel in an 1873 work (entitled "History of Creation" or something). It's probably worth appending the information about Eugenius Warming, but the way it was added earlier was unnecessarily confrontational. As for Henry David Thoreau, the OED contains a specific note pointing out that he didn't use the term - apparently "geology" was misread somewhere along the line as "ecology". Anyway, I'll try to work in Eugenius Warming a bit more neutrally. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

can you farther explain the term coined, if that is the explaination therefore it does not truly give a true meaning about the use of cology.... V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.105.63 (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Environment (biology) redirects here
Should it? There terms are hardly synonymous. What should be done with it though? We need an article on an organism's environment in general, but there is nothing at the moment besides natural environment, which refers to the environment in general and human perspectives on it. Richard001 01:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about redirecting it to Ecological_niche instead? CHE 04:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about creating a new article on this subject, describing resources and conditions as elements of an organisms external environment. There is also a lack of any article on resources outside a strictly human/economical sense. Ecological niche is similar but still probably too different for a redirect. Richard001 05:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it, of course! CHE 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page appears to be a target for vandalism. Does anyone else think some form of protection is warranted? Cazort 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening image
The photo of Warming needs to be shifted a tad to the right. It's blocking the word "habitat." --Bentonia School (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest replacing this with something else. Warming, Haeckel, Elton and others have all been called the 'father of ecology' or something like that. I think something that captures a sense of what ecology is about would be better. There are many possibilities. Richard001 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't do much to shift the image, what you're seeing (which is probably a feature of your browser/window size) is probably due to the presence of the hatnotes and the links to the portal.
 * Richard - do you have any other suggestions? We used to have the globe, I believe we had a pic of Haeckel...quite frankly I can think of a lot of bad choices, but no good choice.  Guettarda (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed the image, making a collage of other images (following the Biology example). No disrespect to Warming and his many important contributions, but his selection as the "father of ecology" is somewhat arbitrary.  Like any science, ecology has deep roots and a diverse and rich patrimony.  Besides, the articles on Physics and Evolution, for example, aren't headed by images of Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin, far less ambiguous "father figures" than Warming in their respective disciplines.  Anyways, I also added a little historical origins section.  Hope the changes meet approval!  In general, this is an extremely important and difficult article that needs a lot of work.  Best, Eliezg (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I also rewrote and expanded the lead. A big responsibility, but hopefully it is an improvement?  Best, Eliezg (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ECOLOGY IS A SCIENCE
IT IS NOT A POLITICAL VIEW! STUPID PEOPLE THINK IT MEANS SOME TOUCHY-FEELY ENVIRONMENTALIST VIEW. NO, IT'S NOT! IT IS A SCIENCE! WOULD ANYONE SAY THAT ABOUT SAY, CHEMISTRY OR PHYSIOLOGY???? NO! ECOLOGY IS JUST AS MUCH AS A SCIENCE AS PHYSICS AND GEOLOGY. SO STOP USING THE TERM POLITICALLY-CHARGED, BECAUSE POLITICS AND SCIENCE DON'T MIX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.29 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep including unscientific definitions of ecology?
"The word "ecology" is often used more loosely in such terms as social ecology and deep ecology and in common parlance as a synonym for the natural environment or environmentalism. Likewise "ecologic" or "ecological" is often taken in the sense of environmentally friendly. "

Sure, its often used popularly, but that doesn't merit the correct definition... It's so annoying if one is studying the REAL science of soil composition or models of population growth, and have it associated with hippies or whatever people think. Lots of people love to use the term chemistry to refer to romance... ie. The young couple had the right chemistry... But you don't see that reference in Chemistry page.

If you want the ecology page to be about ecology as a science, then Besides, that definition doesn't even seem to flow with what the rest of the article should be about... the science of ecology! THERE IS A DEFINITION for the science, popular or vernacular doesn't make it the correct definition... you know people say woolly mammoth is a dinosaur, in popular speech, but you don't see on the dinosaur page, "dinosaur" is used loosely used by people to refer to any big dead prehistoric animal.

This is what it says on the Dinosaur page. "It is sometimes used informally to describe other prehistoric reptiles, such as the pelycosaur Dimetrodon, the winged pterosaurs, and the aquatic ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs, although none of these were dinosaurs."

See, even though people use it informally, it still states that the usage is erroneous.

Sorry for the rant, but this kinda connotations pisses off someone studying real ecology. 74.14.118.50 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope
The beginning of this section reads

''Ecology is usually considered as a branch of biology, the general science that studies living organisms. Organisms  can be studied at many different levels, from proteins and nucleic acids (in biochemistry and molecular biology), to cells (in cellular biology), to individuals (in botany, zoology, and other similar disciplines), and finally at the level of populations, communities, and ecosystems, to the biosphere as a whole; these latter strata are the primary subjects of ecological inquiry. Ecology is a multidisciplinary science. Because of its focus on the higher levels of the organization of life on earth and on the interrelations between organisms and their environment, ecology draws on many other branches of science, especially geology and geography, meteorology, pedology, genetics, chemistry, and physics. Thus, ecology is considered by some to be a holistic science, one that over-arches older disciplines such as biology which in this view become sub-disciplines contributing to ecological knowledge. In support of viewing ecology as a subject in its own right as opposed to a sub-discipline of biology, Robert Ulanowicz stated that "The emerging picture of ecosystem behavior does not resemble the worldview imparted by an extrapolation of conceptual trends established in other sciences."[5]''

This is seriously badly written and needs a rewrite to make it sound like English. Anyone up for that? Theresa Knott | token threats 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and did a major rewrite of the section. Hope its an improvement. Best, Eliezg (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotect
The last 30 edits to this page have been vandalism and revisions. It is appropriate to semi-protect it? Eliezg (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dossiers I made could be very usefull
Biodivesirty http://bioterra.blogspot.com/2006/05/countdown-2010-save-biodiversity-salve.html Environment and Environmental Education http://bioterra.blogspot.com/2007/05/sobre-fragilidade-grandeza-dos-dias.html Thks for your attention Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioterra (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure - moving history below
I think the structure of this article could be improved by moving history of ecology down in the topic list by addressing the following sub-headings after the intro:


 * life processes explaining adaptations (Ecology and Evolution)
 * external relations and interaction among organisms (Behavioural ecology)
 * the flux of materials and energy through living communities (Ecological networks, trophics and exchange)
 * the successional development of ecosystems (Ecological succession)
 * the abundance and distribution of biodiversity in context of the environment (Demographic ecology)

I tried taking the first sentence and using short tiles. I changed the final topic from organisms to biodiversity - because molecular ecology looks at the abundance and distribution of genes. Moreover, biodiversity links importantly to ecology and should be introduced.Thompsma (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have started to write and re-arrange this article including reference in my sandbox. When I have a full-version I will present it here as an option. Every once in a while I might return here and tweak the existing article. Feel free to view the work in progress.Thompsma (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Ecology
I am no expert; I found this page while looking for a precise definition.

Googling "define: ecology" produces definitions from about 25 sources. The first 24 are very similar: essentially, the study of the interactions/relationships between organisms/living things and their environments. Then the wikipedia definition, which says "Ecology is the branch of science that studies the distribution and abundance of living organisms, and the interactions between organisms and their environment." The "distribution and abundance" part seems questionable at best, while the statement makes the precise definition seem secondary.

The two entries at the top under "Ecology can mean either:" also seem problematic. The first makes ecology a synonym for environment; the second is circular as well as wrong; it says its "an analysis or study using..." - implying that "I did an ecology" would be correct usage.

Finally, I think the definition should come before the history/etymology of the word itself, at the beginning.


 * Population ecology and behavioural ecology deal with the distribution and abundance within species. Community ecology deals with the distribution and abundance of individuals among species.  The "organisms and their environment" def. is widely used, but it is not complete.  The most basic population models ignore the environment and other species entirely.  This definition is better.  (And, with a PhD in ecology based on my experience I think I can call myself something of an "expert";)).  Guettarda 16:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment of the split definition at the very top, although possibly the circular argument needs to be fixed. Most people do use the term ecology to mean "environment" and it is necessary to make it clear up front that if that is your thing, then go work on other pages; this one is about the study of the interactions between species and their environment. Actually, the phrase "I did ecology" would be correct and proper English, as would "I did an ecology project".  It was your sentence structure that made it seem  awkward. Also, while the definition here is perhaps longer than it need be (see the Ecology textbook at Wikibooks for my preferred definition), there really is nothing wrong with it. As Guettarda is pointing out, abundance and distribution of organisms are in the forefront of what many ecologists study. So the inclusion in the definition simply expands it a bit, rather than limiting it in any way. I'm an ecologist within lots of graduate level work in my past but not the shingle. I'll review the problems you uncovered and see if we cannot tweak thinks to reduce any confusion. - Marshman 17:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mgrapes that the beginning of the article needs work, but (in agreement with Guettarda and Marhman) I think the definition hidden in there is just fine. I would at the very lest replace the circular second bullet with an actual definition.  Although I would prefer the first usage be done as a dablink like the  journal.


 * As far as the actual definition goes, my personal definition (ala Krebs' Ecology textbook), instead of the study of distribution and abundance AND the study of interactions, is the study of how interactions affect distribution and abundance. It is a subtle difference, but I like it.  Anyway, here is my vision: User:Jmeppley/Sandbox/Ecology.   Jmeppley 18:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your defintion is subtly different and better. I looked at the problem: ...the second is circular as well as wrong; it says its "an analysis or study using..." and must point out that the top "split" is not giving actual definitions of the term, but indicating two ways the word is used. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in the way this is worded. - Marshman 18:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that how interactions affect distribution and abundance is too narrow - it leaves out simple population growth models (which do not deal with interactions) and it leaves of a lot on the ecosystem ecology end of the field (which reduce all living things to "green gunk"). Guettarda 18:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I could easily go along with the changes suggested by Jmeppley. They do reduce confusion. We can always expand things a bit after the initial statement to be sure the points by Guettarda are covered. I suggest wee apply the Jmeppley change, and then tweak the wording with a sentence or two. - Marshman 18:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree with Marshman. Guettarda


 * I'll go ahead and make this change and we can hash out the exact wording of the definition (and any clarifying statements) on the live page.  I'll also throw in 2 responses and a concession for G.  I'd say that while there are models that don't deal with interactions explicitly, most do so implicitly.  (The logistic model assumes density dependent growth rate).  Also I think the very simple models are useful to ecologists because deviations from them point to important ecological factors (including interactions) that must be considered.  On the other hand I've only been in the field for a couple years and I come from a complex systems background where it is ALL about interactions, so my point of view may be more skewed than I am aware.  Jmeppley


 * I realise that most models have implicit interactions, but the simplest models are simply $$dN/dt = No + (b-d)$$ or something of the sort. You start of teaching undergrads that, then you introduce K.  Reaction-diffusion models in invasion modelling tend to ignore interactions as well, as does the Levins metapopulation model.  But maybe listing exceptions proves the rule :)
 * On your change, interactions among all the elements of an environment - I can't say I'm totally happy with the word "environment" (although it is technically accurate), and I don't know if I like the word "all" elements - in the interest of sanity I would never want to look at all the elements (it feels to me like it could be interpreted that in order to be an ecological study it must look at all the elements - but maybe I am just being a pedant). Guettarda 20:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with that part of the definition either. I started with "Ecology is the study of how interactions between organisms and their environment affect the distribution and abundance of living organisms." I switched "between" to "among" to give a sense of the complexity of things (personal bias, maybe). And I wasn't happy with "organism" in there twice, so I tried to re-word it, but I don't know if it's an improvement.  The word "all" is definitely unnecessary.  Maybe replace "living organisms" with "life" or "populations" instead? Jmeppley


 * I like the last version except...you went back to "between". Isn't "among" still the better word?  Guettarda 23:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree, but gramatically speaking, since there are two objects (the organism, its environment), I think it might have to be "between". (between two things, among many things).  We might be able to get away with "among" since "environment" implies all sorts of things, but usually in grammar rules collective nouns are singular.  I was unsure, so I left the original wording.  Jmeppley 00:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I was thinking about it as "among organisms". Guettarda 18:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"...feet and all.". That's how I edited the Article "Ecology" a few day's back - that's when I didn't know the difference between a "Discussion", a Talk: and a "History". Clutching only one straw - I had a Reference and the Article didn't - I just did it.

Now that I see the above discussion (17 postings, 19 & 20 May), all my points had been well covered! But 'nobody' had updated the Article in line with the 'decisions' from the discussion. I've found the same in the Tree of Life edits on "Capitalizations" - great points, no follow through. What to do? - - - WikiWays! WikiWay-01: If you're reasonably sure you have the right Reference, just do it - Edit the Article. Then discuss. (This won't get anywhere until someone comes up with WikiWay-02 and WW-03.)

Shouldn't someone remove the first line of Article: Ecology - in line with decisions posted 5 June (see below)? (Replacement by Ss) Secondly, how about, in addition to full bibliographic References in their proper place, the option of WikiRefns within the body of the text? (It's a standard practice, but the concept "WikiRefns" would make it ours.) It would consist of "Author Surname, Year of publication: and page no.", eg, (Krebbs, 1972: 4). 23:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC); 23:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)& Stanskis 01:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You can cite references inline, but it's better to simply use links to the reference section. You'll have to look around through the style guides to find the exact way - I have not used them enough, but the tools exist - once you do some digging. Guettarda 23:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Guettarda. Will do: had difficulty with location of main Refn. Still finding my feet. Neat User:page.Stanskis 01:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I know ecologists (sensu "biologists") bristle at being mistaken for nature-lovers simpliciter, or, worse, simply recycling enthusiasts, but I disagree with the introductory line here, that "ecology" is "incorrectly" used to mean environmentalism or concern for nature. Rather, the term has a long history of being used that way, and it's a big stretch to say that all of those uses are incorrect. Instead, as an improvement, it might be worth saying in what contexts the word is used that way. I am under the impression that the environmentalism definition of "ecology" is much more common in Europe, for instance, and that it was more common in US in the 1970s, despite that it is less commonly used that way now. Any suggestions before I do away with the word "incorrectly"? CHE 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing says that "common" usage isn't incorrect. I'd say the explanation is correct.  Guettarda 06:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I surely agree with that! I get a headache, too, about people not being able to keep the definitions straight, and I would be happy if the enviro-definition would just go away, so, hey, I'm sympathetic. But looking at usage of this term, especially internationally, it really does seem to be used in at least two different ways. So, the question now is why only the one usage is correct—what makes it exclusively right. Etymologically, the science sense is older, and the -ology ending does confer the sense of a discipline rather than a political position, but that argument would also eliminate phrases like "the ecology of the Great Plains", where that means its energetic relationships and so forth, which is certainly a common usage among ecologists. And with respect to the first motive, words do change meanings, and 40+ years of popular usage might qualify the enviro-sense as at least an alternate usage of the term, especially where in many places, to many people, the word simply means "environmentalism," and they've never heard of the science. (Sadly!) Oxford English Dictionary has as definition #2: "2. Used attrib. (and absol.) with reference to ecological issues such as industrial pollution considered in a political context; spec. applied to various political movements (esp. in western Europe) which represent the environmental or ‘green’ interest." So, the point is, commonness of usage isn't sufficient for legitimacy, I agree with you, but the environmentalist usage doesn't seem to be a case of misunderstanding (since there is a specific definition), nor of basic ignorance (since this sense is used by politicans/academics/popular authors, and is therefore unlike, say, colloquial grammar errors), and it's got a #2 usage definition in as authoritative a guide as we can appeal to, I think, (OED). So, what makes it incorrect? (respectfully, since I think it really is an interesting question about language!) CHE 07:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the timeline, it was not until the 1970s that the "incorrect" usage started to become widespread; that is hardly a "long history" however; I'd say a pretty short one. It is important to point out that the usage as a synonym for environment is not consistent with the technical term, but "incorrect" as a descriptor may have to go.  And I hate to say that, because it is to my mind one more example of the dumbing down of the citizens, but language is language and people attach the meanings they mislearn as well as those they learn - Marshman 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely after the definition given here (which is excellent by the way) you could add something like "or simply, ecology is the study of the interactions between organisms, and between organisms and the environment". It's a definition *everyone* can understand since I would say on the whole its school age children accessing this sort of article. 123.255.27.120 (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Andy

Including references, revisions, and a new project
I have taken a stab at this article and will be making some regular edits and visits to this page. The article is in desperate need of citations. I have a degree in wildlife biology, masters in zoology, publications in ecology, I manage and conduct research in amphibian ecology as president of a non-profit conservation society, and I am in my second year of another masters degree in ecoliteracy education. I was surprised to see how little had been accomplished on the wikipedia ecology section, because the topic is such an important one. I want to make this a pet project to update and include some new references over the little while. Hope I can be of some assistance and I am looking forward to comments and help from others.70.77.232.44 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Thompsma (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Thompsma. It's really great that you've taken an interest in this obviously important and under-referenced article! I'm looking forward to seeing how it evolves, and contributing where necessary.  You should consider using in-line citation style ("Harvard" author-date style referencing is not generally used in Wikipedia articles) and the  template (see:  Citation templates).  These control for consistency in formatting and allow you to re-cite efficiently by name (see how the Odum 1977 reference is dealt with).  Regarding content, I might suggest that the lede as you have rewritten it is a bit too long and digressive for a compact introduction to the subject.  A few points:
 * 1) The "from molecular scales to galactic scales" sentence is extremely broad, unspecific and unreferenced.
 * 2) Wonderful (and obviously dear to you) as amphibians may be, the Whiles et al. reference is far too specific and isolated an example of an ecological study to serve as an example in the lede.
 * 3) In my opinion, the discussion on the "Gaia hypothesis" is too long and might be better moved elsewhere.
 * I put up a version of a lede paragraph HERE.  Since you have taken such an active stab at the intro, I will let it hang out there for a while waiting for feedback before changing the main article.  Best,  Eliezg (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feeback. I will reduce, clarify, and revise in time. You are correct the Whiles et al. is far too specific - just threw it in for now - will exapand and improve.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at your version. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to second the IP user above, about your massive changes to the lede. The lede needs to present a concise, easily understandable definition of the subject. When thinking like a K-12 or undergraduate college student encountering the science of ecology for the first time, and then seeing this definition, I can't help but think that they will have absolutely no clear idea of what ecology is. No offense but the lede as it appeared before your changes was much clearer, especially the first two paragraphs. Please review Wikipedia policy about lede format and purpose here and remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge, people's first stop for an introduction to the topic. And try to think like someone who doesn't already know a lot about ecology (as you clearly do) and consider massively revising it back towards the simpler first version. Also you should not use the author/date citation in Wikipedia articles. Please don't get me me wrong, I like many of the changes in structure you have made, but just not in the lede which was one of the best cited and most discussed (see above) section of this article. You might want to take a look at Biology for Genetics for formatting help, both are fairly highly respected article. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Earthdirt. I will start to simplify. I am working with students right now and designing a conceptual inventory test for ecology - using Ed's tools through the bioliteracy project (http://bioliteracy.colorado.edu/). I'm interviewing different groups and this should give me a clearer idea on the language that is appropriate. I read the discussion above and have been in debates in other wiki articles before - simple clarity vs. conceptual accuracy. Oftentimes I come across the articles that are very simple to read and understand, but they are delivering incorrect concepts. It is important to write with clarity and accuracy on the topic. As I get feedback from my conceptual inventory tests I will revise the lead and other sections. I felt compelled, however, to take a bold move and modify this article because it was in desperate need of repair. The other sections still need work - I threw in a few textbook (classical and modern) references for each section. Once the entire scaffolding is laid down I will start to bring in case examples cited from the primary literature.Thompsma (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thompsma, the lede reads much clearer now. It's a non-traditional format, but bold is okay, and I rather like lists. Thanks for your work, the whole ecoogy project could use some work. I am interested to see what you gte out of your students/research. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition of Ecology given is a little strange to me. I have trouble only with the part "study of the distribution and abundance of organisms", I would have thought (and as I have been taught) it is the study of interactions between organisms (& between organisms and the environment). I see you list "external relations and interaction among organisms", but really it is these relations & interactions that cause the distributions and abundance.....so, I propose "distribution and abundance of organisms" and "external relations and interaction among organisms" are switched places. 123.255.61.157 (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Andy

Food chain vs food webs
I have a concern with the section on food chains & food networks. These are two very different models. The food chain describes the lineral pathway of nutrients from producers to consumers etc as you wrote. But the network is a very different model. While the food chain only visualizes alinear progression of heirarchy, there is no such heirarchy in a food web/ network. We realize that most of the nutrient source is constantly cycling through the system with only a small amount added to the system at any one time (just enough to build back what's lost through entropy.


 * I agree with you. I wanted to write at the same type about theory as often explained in books (linear type) and the reality (the food web). I perhaps was not clear, and mixed them both. Feel free to fix this to make it clearer :-) PomPom

Chemical ecology
What about Chemical ecology! It is quite an important area in Ecology! I agree!!!-Peace

Ecosystem Engineers
I find dispute with the line in the "Ecological Crisis" section towards the end that states that humans are the only species that can affect their environment. I have edited it so say "globally" and this was returned to its prior state. Almost every organism modifies its environment in some way. Please read up on "ecosystem engieers." See http://www.ecology.info/ecosystem-engineers.htm for instance. Think of beavers, etc. Any thoughts?

In Niche Construction, Odling-Smee, Laland, and Feldman develop the idea of ecosystem engineering and other forms of ecological inheritance (mirroring genetic inheritance) further and catalog hundreds of non-human examples, e.g. social insects building nests, leaf-cutter ants essentially carrying out agriculture, photosyntisizing bacteria that led to our current 21% concentration of atmospheric O2, plants that engage in allelopathy (poisoning their competitors), spiders building webs, etc. The subjecgt is rich and I might try writing something once I finish the book.

Rewrite Proposals
I think the "History of Ecology" is plenty long and detailed enough to justify a separate page History of Ecology. Anybody agree/disagree? This alone would bring the article close to manageable size, I think - Marshman 02:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC). Having seen no complaints, I will make this move shortly. The History subsection is well thought out and pretty complete, so I see no problem with the new article being a stub - Marshman 17:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I support the move (albeit a little late). Guettarda 23:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Never too late. But I have not moved anything yet 8^) - Marshman

The "Disciplines of Ecology" is little more than a long list. I wonder if it might not be worth spinning that off to its own page (while leaving the basic outline of subdisciplines where it is). As it stands, it breaks the article, reduces the readability. Anyone opposed? Guettarda 22:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the negatives you cite. And your solution is a good one. At some point it could be written out or expanded, but that could as easily be done on another page as here. - Marshman 23:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I lean towards a separate page because expanding and organising that section would make it rather longer than it is now. As it stands, I think it breaks up the flow of the article - most people would rather know more about "what ecology is".  Explaining the hierarchy of study in ecology is useful, but I think that the list of sub-disciplines is distracting where it stands.  While one could just move it down the page, I think it would fit better as a link from where it now sits.  I'll give it a day or so to let people object, and if no one does then I'll move it.  Guettarda 00:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not misunderstand, I agree with you completely. If it were only a paragraph long, its place would not be so interruptive of the text. It does best to be near the top of this article, but should just be linked out from there.  You may have noticed that I moved the link for "History of Ecology" towards the top (history is good to get out of the way early as understanding principles depends upon understanding how the principles were "founded"), but I also moved all of the history text out.  I think the same should be done for "Disciplines" - Marshman 02:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, done. Guettarda 21:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Origins of Life and Ecology" has a good structure in what it is trying to say, but I think it is hopelessly muddy. There is not enough care with the terminology. A person can seem to understand the intended meaning by suggestion but when you look closely there is so much wrong it's almost incredible. What does 'The environment is external yet interlinked directly with ecology' actually mean? What kind of list is this? "Chemistry, temperature, pressure, gravity, energy, and sunlight" or has 'chemical reaction' ever been used this way:  "The three chemical reactions include multiplication, variation, and heredity." There is more, but I don't want to belabor the point. I think the intention of the paragraph is very sound, to locate the basis of living systems in physical science, but it needs more care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisebridge (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Need some images
I'm desperately trying to find some simple food-web or trophic level images showing actual critters. I haven't been able to locate much that is freely available. Perhaps someone might be able to contribute some figures? I drew the salamander web - but it needs more work. The food web I included was from a Plos Biology article (which is free licence) - I searched every issue for a picture of a food web and this is the best I could find. It is too complex for this article I think - I might take it into photoshop to simplify things and still use it. I'm still working on other sections in my sandbox - but like to add things here to see the work in progress posted as I finish sections. Some of the wording needs to be ironed out, but it is starting to develop. This is such a huge topic!! It is going to take me a while to complete this work, but I'm enjoying it and love reading all the background material.Thompsma (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Restoring lead
I restored and slightly modified the lead section. I just finished my exams and my thesis proposal - so I will be spending time over the holidays working on here a bit. User:Apothecia had chopped and moved the lead out. Since it was left without a lead - I restored parts of it. I know it isn't perfect - this article does need a lot of work and it will take a bit of time. I asked User:Apothecia to post larger changes for discussion in here first - since the lead had already been part of an earlier discussion and agreed upon, it seemed appropriate to put it back. The bottom half of this article is terrible and much of what I have included is just too much information. I may just chop the sections that lack any citations and start new. I'm hoping to get the full framework completed over the holidays and will spend time tinkering and choping it down to size. Just finished two graduate courses in ecology - one on aquatic ecosystems and the second on ecology and society, so with this stuff fresh in my mind hope to make some positive contributions.Thompsma (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we came to an agreement about the lead before, in my mind we didn't. I agree with User:Apothecia that the lead was WAY too long and cumbersome. I decided to be bold, and have cut it down to somewhere between you two's versions. I removed the second list (two lists in a lead is crazy) and the long discourse on the abstract definition and value ecosystems it really should go in the ecosystem article or at least somewhere other than the lead. I also added wiki links to some eco articles and removed some technical and extraneous language. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I moved the cited information from the lead here (which I deleted) to Ecosystem, give it a look to make sure it looked okay there. Happy editing. Earthdirt (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Earthdirt! Looks good. I agree with yourself and Apothecia that it was too long, but to move it so that the article had no lead wasn't helpful. There is so much work to do on this!!Thompsma (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sister discipline
I don't know who put the clarification needed in the Ecology & Evolution section, but they wrote the following:

closely allied with its sister discipline" is redundant—a sister discipline is very "closely allied" by definition. The clarify tag has been added instead of just rewriting it because the two fields appear to NOT be "sister disciplines" exactly; there are certainly parallels, and there are various subfields within one that corresponds to a subfield within the other, but, particularly in the 21st century, "sister" may be going too far. A quick Google search, once any Wikipedia copies are eliminated, yields no evidence that the broad subjects of evolution and ecology are "sisters".

There may be a problem with the wording here, but it is certainly the case that ecology and evolution are regarded as sister disciplines. You will find this in any introductory textbook, for example,

Historically evolutionary biology has been viewed as the “sister discipline” of ecology and behavior (most academic institutions in which the basic biological sciences have been carved up into multiple departments combine evolutionary biology with ecology, behavior, or “organismal biology”).

Hence, I will remove the tag and will simply reword, but they are sister disciplines - metaphorically speaking. Metaphors, by the way, play a very significant role in communicating science - natural selection, selfish genes, black holes and so on...are examples of scientific metaphors.Thompsma (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To further the case that they are sisters, isn't molecular ecology essentially just a form of evolutionary studies? Earthdirt (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes...most articles in molecular ecology use DNA to trace the evolutionary history of species across time and space. Ecological, morphological and behavioural traits are mapped onto evolutionary trees to study principals of inheritance. All these things interelate, but the person who flagged this was correct that the sentence structure need to be re-worded.Thompsma (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting unreferenced sections
I just spent a bit of time going through the lower sections and placed tags throughout. I would like to delete much of these unreferenced sections. Any objections? Any suggestions on the index and heading structure? Many of the sections are still too wordy - but I think to improve this article that these unreferenced parts should just go.Thompsma (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After working through the entire article - I just went ahead and deleted these sections. They were poorly organized and without citations they could not be verified.Thompsma (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization suggestions
Curious to know if anyone has any suggestions on the organization of this article? Ecology is such a broad topic that this could go on forever. The list at the bottom of the article is useful so that people can still learn about other ecological branches or disciplines. I've scanned at least 10 textbooks on ecology and used their organization to develop what has been done thus far. However, there are some really important branches of ecology that have not even been touched upon. I will try to put a priority list together and see what people think should and should not be included. Here is a brief list of some of the more important or obvious branches:


 * Urban ecology
 * Landscape ecology
 * Human ecology
 * Ecology of the seas
 * Metapopulation ecology
 * Ecological economics
 * Political ecology
 * Spatial ecology
 * Paleoecology

Some of these overlap. Wondering if these deserve a paragraph each or how to deal with this? Suggestions?Thompsma (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting I was just going to comment here about the structure of the article. You've made a lot of changes and deletions today and I am having trouble sorting them out. I would say that I appreciate your work on this article and the effort and care you have put into referencing it. I would like to point out that this is a general audience encyclopedia article which is meant to introduce people to the main ideas of ecology clearly and without overly scientific language -this is not a college textbook on college (think of it as a junior high/high school textbook), we need to start with the basics. Major articles like these really aim to the layman looking at the topic for the first time, it should focus on the MAIN ideas and direct the reader through links to more detail on these. After the lead is essentially jumps into an arcane discussion of ecology and chemical evolution and early life on earth (I think a lot of this needs cut from this article and perhaps moved to other articles. While I appreciate teaching ecology as a story of life on earth and that one might want to start at the beginning, we might better serve the readers with a discussion of ecosystems on the earth currently, first.  The way it is now, I don't think this gets across the main ideas of ecology very well. We should begin with a discussion of ecosystems (which never formally happens), and the levels or organization and interactions (which happens much later).  In summary my suggestions are this: 1) restructure the article to start with the simplest and most basic and important features of ecology first; 2) use much less technical language; and 3) we don;t need anything about your list of topics above, there is more than enough in the article already (save these for Outline of ecology). You seem to be enjoying making a lot of changes to the article and if you want I will let you have at it and won't mess around with it until you are done.
 * Since WikiProject Ecology is essentially inactive, when you are closer to finished, if you want I can post some notices to ecology editors I know to see if we can get some more reviewers and editors involved. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Great feedback Earthdirt. I'll keep working away and will use your comments as a guide.Thompsma (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Population Ecology formula
The rate of population change formula is incorrect, or at least imprecise. The "B - D" expression cannot be correct as defined because there is no time normalization. It could be corrected with a "delta t" denominator, however I don't see what this expression contributes, and so I've removed it. Ggpauly (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The ecology of Sound-pressure waves need to be added
Explanations:

Currently, I am taking one advanced course about critical listening online for further training. Through our discussions, we found ball-liked sound-wave lying upon Space & Time is also following some principles of ecological complexity and in its sub-categories. The ecology of sound-pressure waves have three levels in its channel which have the relationships with the whole atmosphere-environment from physics-ecology to the ecology of subjective perception: The first level is about the diverse properties produced by the structured ears including multiple-channels internally - which are reflecting the environmental complexity outside, The second level is in the atmosphere - the non-linearity pressures and multiple-layers spreading in some layers of intermedia, such as air and water etc. They - sound-wave and its on-going layers of intermedia are forming a huge ecology influencing the effectiveness of sound-wave's extending, throughout-ly. Indeed, they are the interactions of multiple energies and their channelling-out intermedia, but felt as air-pressures or certain intermedia's pressures' changes ball-liked wave by wave and in the middle. Finally, the nature of sound-waves’ diversity, complexity and harmony (or accumulation) root in the diversity of sound-sources - because of the differences of sound-sources' materials and qualities, then the energies submitted out are of the differences and what heard by us are of the multiple-layers and multiple-channels as a huge portfolio. Sound-waving is real air-pressure waving and real Space-Time's waving. Deeply hiding behind, the fact should be Energies-sources' transmissions, transformations, spreading, extensions, acceptance and meta-analysis, which belongs to and is quite in the research interests of ecology. Hierarchically thinking about the whole procedure including the three staged levels, we would find there are also an ecological video.

Following this idea, I had reviewed the part 'Relation to the environment' and found in either 'Physical environments' or 'Radiation: heat, temperature and light' of the bigger category - 'Relation to the environment', it should add one sub-category named 'Sound in ecology', because that especially: in 'radiation, heat, temperature and light' - these expressive formations of energies, sound' nature indeed is the same as them and locating among them. Why was this lack, in human being's sensory, made - as not in encyclopaedia? In my opinion, this is caused by the thinking of human beings is usually directly focusing on visual resources - they are vivid or somethings which would give us the direct touching feelings - such as warmth or potentially harmful senses - such as radiations; but when it comes to normal sound-waves, we usually didn't want to think it as one ball-liked formation of energy and spreading throughout environments. Then, we might just put it into the mental reasoning sensory without thinking of it as two origins' ecology coherently - objective and subjective ones linked by ecological channel, between. In other perspective, biological diversity, as producing sound resources, then integrated with matters' sound-waving instability, are also reflecting environmental complexity and ecological continuity. After all, I thought this part 'The ecology of Sound-pressure-waves need to be added' is needed to put in.

Thanks to the enlightenments and new knowledge above gotten from my learning through an online course. Here, I would like to put a reference for the above: FutureLearn (2016) 'Week 1' and 'Introduction to Week 2 2.1' in Critical Listening for Studio Production Queen's University Belfast. Queen's University Belfast: FutureLearn (Web-address). [Online] Available at: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/critical-listening-for-studio-production/2/steps/39672. (accessed: 2nd October, 2016)

Jason M. C., Han (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia presents reliably sourced, well-established information in a condensed form. I fear your suggested addition qualifies in none of these criteria.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Elmidae, my frield, really thanks for your suggestions. But, why did you say it wasn't the reliably sourced in formation in a condensed form? Please give the evidences which sentence should be critiqued, wasn't right or correct - especially putting some evidental references. Really thanks. If not, your stance cannot stand loudly, even with some mistakes. In my opinion, Wikipedia presents not only some well-published information in the reality or online, but some advanced research tendencies, some summeries and some pieces of new common knowledge which have already been recognized and even some true facts always being oral presented out generations by generations, but didn't be published before. There is a Chinese saying goes likt that: Black cats or white cats, even if they can catch mice, they are good cats. Oh, dear friend, I have to say: Who did give you some authorities that you can critism and judge some new tendencies and pieces knowledge which certain groups of people paid energy and time to research,summerize and proof out even in virtual classrooms, without totally investigating in the true situations, without presenting the practice of learning, tutoring, teaching, or researching in this fields, without reviewing the articles and references, and without making some practises all around the worlds? So, friend, you know. If you can't give some evidences that they were in 'none of these criteria', your suggestion cannot stand. I have to say: my friend, this is free disscussion part with freedom, don't make some judgements so earlier. About this case, What we really need to do is to assess which sentence above are not correct through reading information online, which sentence has some lacks; and then give some evidental suggestions, rather than emptily taking and denying. This is a good attitude which a wikipedia writer needs to obtain. We need to disscuss the possibilities of this tendency widely and try to learn more from this field in future, in order to give reasonable disscussions and comments. Wikipeadia also has some creative copyrights, which belong to all the commons arround the worlds. Common peoples' encyclopedia need to be read, reviewed, researched, supplied, modificated, up-dated and developped by commons ourselves. If after reasoning, investigating, life-seeking, and practising, we will find some principles and facts are quite right, even without somr reasons founded currently, we can still record these pieces as common's knowledge for commons. The more reasonable steps should be: firstly, we need to create a dissicussion and put all of the right parts about this field together; and then, we can produce much widely disscussions accordingly. Finally, after a period, if we found these pieces of knowledge are still standing strongly, we have to recognize them, give them a place and have the responsibilities to associate them by pushing on a writing summerizing all the right parts. No one wants Wikipeadia will become a out-dating and old-fashioned and yellow-paged book once, without era supports; but what we want is that it can be a digital book with creativities and new views about new developments up-dating. Post-digital era needs to be totally digitalized and posted, with every indications' supports online even if some tiny details as comments, talks online. If they are reasonably enough, they can be supported. Meanwhile, no one wants Wikipeadia became certain persons or certain groups' individual book with old authorities allowed by some 'so-called recognized formal-organizations' only, or even money or some other unnecessary issues' controlling, and without listioning to commons' and life's voices about some real truths. Indeed, these sentences above about sound-pressure-waves' evironmental ball-liked spreading as an ecological channel, have plenty documentary supports to be a sub-category of ecology. Just, no one organizations before want to recognize this fact. However, to be honest, my daily energy and time are really very limited with plenty learnings, teachings and tasks, which caused the volunteering collecting-jobs put in this field will be really small. There were lots of things need me to do and identified; but, my time isn't allowed. So, sorry. You knew, it's not to say that a huge project will have all been done by the person who saw it. Therefore, through my and my team's educational researching, listening experiments through educational approaches, careful studying and learning, we found it and would like to present a widely talk here waiting one day it would be muture, then pushing out it as a whole online.

All in all, friend, really thanks, though I can't quitely agree with your ideas. Evirimental Sound-pressure waves upon Times & Spaces and its energy submitted surrounding as in a whole ecology and as its very important part composed, should be a sub-category added in, about which we can produce future disscussions. If not and this part's lack is still existing, some accross-discplinaries subjects and schools, in this field, will lose their fundations and interests, and their researches cannot be accepted totally by main developping tendency; meanwhile, some true facts about sound in ecological evironment will still be hidden behind; and more importantly, commons will not know and share this new one and its pathways, which would bright some benifits to their daily living, learning and working. Again, Hoping more considerations would be made in this field. Thanks!

Jason M. C., Han (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120420174946/http://dbs.umt.edu/courses/biol406/readings/Wk6-Kodric-Brown%20and%20Brown%201984.pdf to http://dbs.umt.edu/courses/biol406/readings/Wk6-Kodric-Brown%20and%20Brown%201984.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110410105207/http://www.behavecol.com/pages/society/welcome.html to http://www.behavecol.com/pages/society/welcome.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716163330/http://www.naherpetology.org/pdf_files/1407.pdf to http://www.naherpetology.org/pdf_files/1407.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files%5C8392%5Carticles%5C9961%5CTheSumIsGreaterthantheParts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Autecology
Missing - should be added: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=autecology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.102.86 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502051519/http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6920_spring2010/readings/Grumbine_1994.pdf to http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6920_spring2010/readings/Grumbine_1994.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510183920/http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/comunidades/pdf/pdf%20curso%20posgrado%20Elena/Tema%201/LevinsLewontinSynthese1980.pdf to http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/comunidades/pdf/pdf%20curso%20posgrado%20Elena/Tema%201/LevinsLewontinSynthese1980.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130331100623/http://www.hillnet.com/silent_spring.pdf to http://www.hillnet.com/silent_spring.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720094351/http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/gmeyer/envsc330/CeballosEhrlichmammalextinct2002.pdf to http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/gmeyer/envsc330/CeballosEhrlichmammalextinct2002.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917004108/http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/teaching/papers_to_read/cox_etal_nat_00.pdf to http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/teaching/papers_to_read/cox_etal_nat_00.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917171800/http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/pierce/people/eastwood/resources/pdfs/Scale-ant2004.pdf to http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/pierce/people/eastwood/resources/pdfs/Scale-ant2004.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725021431/http://nospam.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_46/issue_5/1158.pdf to http://nospam.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_46/issue_5/1158.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509135622/http://ibcperu.org/doc/isis/10408.pdf to http://ibcperu.org/doc/isis/10408.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706210905/http://www.bio.ucalgary.ca/contact/faculty/pdf/FriedmanHarder2004.pdf to http://www.bio.ucalgary.ca/contact/faculty/pdf/FriedmanHarder2004.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722230444/http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/comunidades/pdf/pdf%20curso%20posgrado%20Elena/Tema%201/gleason1926.pdf to http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/comunidades/pdf/pdf%20curso%20posgrado%20Elena/Tema%201/gleason1926.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820005408/http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/ajw/Reprints/goldblatt_et_al_2006.pdf to http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/ajw/Reprints/goldblatt_et_al_2006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706210914/http://www.bio.ucalgary.ca/contact/faculty/pdf/Harder_Johnson_09.pdf to http://www.bio.ucalgary.ca/contact/faculty/pdf/Harder_Johnson_09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720120313/http://limnology.wisc.edu/courses/zoo955/Spring2005/food%20web%20seminar%20papers/hairston93AmNat.pdf to http://limnology.wisc.edu/courses/zoo955/Spring2005/food%20web%20seminar%20papers/hairston93AmNat.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915202156/http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/esmg/papers/Redfield_revisited_2.pdf to http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/esmg/papers/Redfield_revisited_2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618175313/http://www.biology.duke.edu/upe301/LEVIN92.pdf to http://www.biology.duke.edu/upe301/LEVIN92.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519082210/http://www.seaaroundus.org/researcher/dpauly/PDF/2005/JournalArticles/MethodIdentifyKeystoneSpeciesFoodWebModels.pdf to http://www.seaaroundus.org/researcher/dpauly/PDF/2005/JournalArticles/MethodIdentifyKeystoneSpeciesFoodWebModels.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722142406/http://www.bolinfonet.org/pdf/McCann_2007_biostructure.pdf to http://www.bolinfonet.org/pdf/McCann_2007_biostructure.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515183451/http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/novikoff.pdf to http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/novikoff.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611095626/http://research.usm.maine.edu/gulfofmaine-census/wp-content/docs/Palumbi-et-al-2009_Managing-for-ocean-biodiversity.pdf to http://research.usm.maine.edu/gulfofmaine-census/wp-content/docs/Palumbi-et-al-2009_Managing-for-ocean-biodiversity.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821182334/http://paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf to http://paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610135513/http://nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/pimm/publications/pimmreprints/71_Pimm_Lawton_Cohen_Nature.pdf to http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/pimm/publications/pimmreprints/71_Pimm_Lawton_Cohen_Nature.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720120231/http://limnology.wisc.edu/courses/zoo955/Spring2005/food%20web%20seminar%20papers/polis96AmNat.pdf to http://limnology.wisc.edu/courses/zoo955/Spring2005/food%20web%20seminar%20papers/polis96AmNat.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724172003/http://theory.bio.uu.nl/rdb/te/Projects/Papers/Scheffer_pnas06_comments.pdf to http://theory.bio.uu.nl/rdb/te/Projects/Papers/Scheffer_pnas06_comments.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710163453/http://www.earthobservations.com/documents/committees/uic/200809_8thUIC/07b-Health0Montira-Pongsiri-BON-Article-in-Science.pdf to http://www.earthobservations.com/documents/committees/uic/200809_8thUIC/07b-Health0Montira-Pongsiri-BON-Article-in-Science.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719182303/http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB427/READINGS/ShermanEtAl1995.pdf to http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB427/READINGS/ShermanEtAl1995.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709012018/http://www.demonsineden.com/Site/Research_publications_files/Silvertown%20et%20al.%202006.pdf to http://www.demonsineden.com/Site/Research_publications_files/Silvertown%20et%20al.%202006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815150110/http://myweb.dal.ca/br238551/thompson_hem_star_shur_ecology07.pdf to http://myweb.dal.ca/br238551/thompson_hem_star_shur_ecology07.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024222432/http://163.238.8.180/~fburbrink/Courses/Seminar%20in%20Systematics/Wiens_Graha_m_AnnRev2005.pdf to http://163.238.8.180/~fburbrink/Courses/Seminar%20in%20Systematics/Wiens_Graha_m_AnnRev2005.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630202203/http://picea.sel.uaf.edu/manuscripts/zhuang07-ea.pdf to http://picea.sel.uaf.edu/manuscripts/zhuang07-ea.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621010455/http://www.gereon.es/theory/ecology/ to http://www.gereon.es/theory/ecology/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423003943/http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx to http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/CLIM690/onjacobetal12.pdf
 * Added tag to http://ambio.allenpress.com/archive/0044-7447/36/8/pdf/i0044-7447-36-8-639.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.botanischergarten.ch/BiodivVorles-2005WS/Nature-Insight-Biodiversity-2000.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814012502/http://www.lsu.edu/faculty/carstens/pdfs/Steele.etal.2005.pdf to http://www.lsu.edu/faculty/carstens/pdfs/Steele.etal.2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * good job, Botty McBotface. GangofOne (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090920093119/http://www.biology.lsu.edu/webfac/kharms/HerreEA_etal_1999_TREE.pdf to http://www.biology.lsu.edu/webfac/kharms/HerreEA_etal_1999_TREE.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.isa.utl.pt/dbeb/ensino/txtapoio/HistEcology.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.isa.utl.pt/dm/biodiv/biodiv09_10/Niche%20dynamics%20in%20space%20and%20time.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.botanischergarten.ch/BiodivVorles-2005WS/Nature-Insight-Biodiversity-2000.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720115206/http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_40/issue_5/0845.pdf to http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_40/issue_5/0845.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231165339/http://www.helsinki.fi/~ihanski/Articles/Nature%201998%20Hanski.pdf to http://www.helsinki.fi/~ihanski/Articles/Nature%201998%20Hanski.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303194011/http://www.mun.ca/biology/igamberdiev/PhotosRes_CO2review.pdf to https://www.mun.ca/biology/igamberdiev/PhotosRes_CO2review.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905195222/http://labs.bio.unc.edu/Peet/courses/bio669/papers/Ch1_supp_readings/Palmer_White.pdf to http://labs.bio.unc.edu/Peet/courses/bio669/papers/Ch1_supp_readings/Palmer_White.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726213308/http://karljaspers.org/files/tansley.pdf to http://karljaspers.org/files/tansley.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905195208/http://labs.bio.unc.edu/Peet/courses/bio669/papers/Ch1_supp_readings/Whittaker1973.pdf to http://labs.bio.unc.edu/Peet/courses/bio669/papers/Ch1_supp_readings/Whittaker1973.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete: Individual ecology
I nominate that the section on Individual Ecology gets deleted. There are no references and it sticks out like a hangnail. The heading could be changed to individual heterogeneity, but I don't think that it is a particularly relevant aspect of ecology. Any concerns?2001:569:FAA2:8300:2994:B895:2B58:1B84 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I deleted and transferred links to other sections where they were mentioned.2001:569:FAA2:8300:816:4AD3:A7F:252D (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Add a note about "disease ecology"
"Disease ecology" or the "ecology of disease" is a term becoming more and more popular in scientific and non-science arenas. I would like to add a paragraph where to explain why it is a non-sense to use the term disease ecology. Please advice if you think this may be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahat mar (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

biology
how are terrestrial animals able to survive in their environment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.103.70 (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternative definition
Ecology is a science and activity of studying negative impact of human activity on ecosystems (including individual species and including people as a species, and including anthropogenic ecosystems such as cities) and its minimization. A person involved in ecology is ecologist. The adjective is ecological. The adverb is ecologically. Other names for ecology, though it is recommended not to use them, are environmentalism, environmental protection, nature protection. Ecology is different from bioecology which is a science about relations between different organisms and relations between organisms and their environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.63.152 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, no. This gets it completely backwards. Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)