Talk:Ecology/Archive 2

Article length
I realize that there is a notice to cut the article down in the edit page, but this needs to be acknowledged at the top, summarily, I will be adding a length tag to the article. As it says in the template, please do not remove it until further discussion and revision to the article (hopefully some more main article creation), as well as reduction of sections in places.Apothecia (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the length of this article and trying to cut each section down to as small a size as I can. It is a long article - but it is also a HUGE topic. If you visit chemistry, physics, evolution, biology or any other subject matter that is comparably expansive - the lengths are not all that different. This article is a bit longer - but not by much. It is one of the most diverse scientific disciplines out there - so an added length is to be expected. I tried to focus on the key subject areas within ecology and to provide wiki links to other relevant pages where the subject can be or is already expanded on further. The history section probably could be cut down some - but it is a tough task to summarize this into a few paragraphs. I recently added the section on ecosystem services and the biodiversity crisis because these two particular topics are so relevant and topical to the modern discussion on ecology. However, I didn't include a section on industrial ecology - for example - but this is also a HUGE ecological field. I'm reading through some of the advise on wikipedia for articles that are too long to see if I can find some ideas on what to do.Thompsma (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The evolution article is actually longer and it is a featured article.Thompsma (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * History of biology - another featured article of similar length. Hence, it seems as though the length could be cut down slightly by tightening up the sections, but it isn't out of scope or reason in relation to these other articles. The History of Biology article is particularly well-done and lengthy. It seems to me given the nature of Ecology as a subject that it is destined to be a lengthy article as well. Thompsma (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a recount on these articles and ecology is actually longer. I will start working on cutting the material down and putting sections into other articles.Thompsma (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some article word length comparisons:


 * Lions (FA) = 12,045
 * Domestic Sheep (FA) = 10,833
 * Ecology = 10,739
 * On the Origin of Species (FA) = 10,730
 * Dinosaur (FA) = 10,693
 * Evolution (FA) = 9,755
 * History of biology (FA) = 7,761
 * Ant (FA) = 7,687
 * DNA (FA) = 7,254
 * Archaea (FA) = 6,021
 * Genetics (FA) = 5,882
 * Biology (GA candidate) = 4,259


 * Given the above list - the length of ecology seems entirely reasonable. I have been going through the article and trimming some sections down.

"Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose."[]


 * Hence, ecology could possibly be edited and reduced by 1000 words or so - but I don't think it is absolutely necessary. I think the length tag should be deleted.Thompsma (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is responding to this issue. I vote we just remove the 'too long' tag. It is ugly sitting at the top of the article and I don't think it accomplishes much for its intent.Apothecia do you have any replies or feedback?Thompsma (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Replace 'too long' tag with 'under construction' tag which its. Complete your full article without bothering about length. Afterwards when you feel you have done justice, decide critically on sections to thin & shift mtrl to existing or new articles. IMHO. AshLin (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The idea is good - but I am not a fan of the 'under construction' tag either - all of wikipedia is forever 'under construction' and so no need for this clutter. The size of the article has grown recently - my fault. I am now comfortable with the scope of the article - it has covered most of the introductory concepts on ecology. Despite the size - lots of introductory eco-concepts are still missing, like phoresy, industrial ecology, ecopsychology, etc.). However, the goal of these wikipedia articles is not to give exhaustive coverage of every discipline. I would like to start discussing section by section what needs to be reduced.

Here is the current break-down:


 * 1) 1 Levels of organization and study - 3,600 words
 * 2) 2 Ecology and evolution - 1,800 words
 * 3) 3 Ecology and the environment - 2,700 words
 * 4) 4 Historical roots of ecology - 1,900 words
 * 5) 5 Ecosystem services and the biodiversity crisis - 1100 words

Grand total: 11,100 words

We could set goals to reduce each section to make the task more manageable. I propose the following goals:


 * 1) 1 Levels of organization and study - 3,400 words
 * 2) 2 Ecology and evolution - 1,600 words
 * 3) 3 Ecology and the environment - 2,500 words
 * 4) 4 Historical roots of ecology - 1,500 words
 * 5) 5 Ecosystem services and the biodiversity crisis - 1000 words

Grand total: 10,000 words

Does this seem reasonable? The next question is - what to remove? Do we re-write to reduce or do we prioritize concepts and remove others? In the meantime, however, I still vote we remove the ugly too long tag at the top.Thompsma (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just did some edits and achieved one of the goals laid out:


 * 1) 1 Levels of organization and study - 3,386 words
 * This size reduction down to 10,000 words can be accomplished by simple edits.Thompsma (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 2 Ecology and evolution - is now 1,608 wordsThompsma (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem obsessed with numbers, my friend. Numbers are meaningless as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Except in the context that if an article is short (it's short only if it is missing stuff which should be there) we develop it, if its long (having material beyond what is expected in a section) then we move some material out to stubs/other articles etc.
 * If you go by this yardstick, you are liable to take decisions more in line with Wikipedia's interests. AshLin (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it an obsession with numbers, but certainly statistics are an effective way of organizing things. When I first starting to write this article I didn't plan out any particular size to the paragraphs and/or content. However, now that things have been conceptually organized and comprehensive - I think it is a good editorial technique to set quota's for different sections. This plan might change over time, but I would like to see this article go to FA status. Grants, abstracts and other professional publications all set number quotas, so it is a writing technique. The numbers I have set are not a strict quota - but I think that it is a useful guide that could help to bring us down to the recommended 10,000 word size for an article that can be navigated by the reader. Once the article reaches approximately the 10,000 word mark - I will pull the too-long tag down. Thanks AshLin!Thompsma (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of what you say, your attitude towards the 'numbers' seems balanced. However dont struggle to cut it down to 10,000 words. Remember Lion is 12000+. So even if Ecology is 11,500 so what. Its a large and complex multidisciniplinary field so a long article is to be expected. I dont think GA/FA will hold this 10,000 word limit as sacrosanct.AshLin (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The size has been reduced to the goals set out above!!! I'm removing the 'Too Long' tag.Thompsma (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

History of ecology section

 * Like AshLin, I'm not that concerned with word length. Just with clarity and simplicity. I'm going to work on the Historical roots section in my second sandbox and then move it back. I will mostly rearrange some sections for continuity and perhaps delete some of the less important details which could be moved to the main article on this subject. I actually think that all or most of the List of ecologists table should be moved to the History of Ecology article. Also while Ellen Swallow Richards is a fascinating female scientist who did some periphery work on ecology, I don't understand why she rates a photo on the Ecology page, can you fill me in. The According to the DYK tool, outside of quotes, captions, and tables the section is 1,125 words. Earthdirt (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines. I put Ellen Swallow Richards photo up - but agree that it doesn't really fit prominently into the history; making decisions on the fly. I agree about the table as well - I was thinking of doing this, but if you want to take on this section I'll work on Ecology and the Environment. Thanks! Thompsma(talk) 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I moved the table to History of Ecology. Did a copy edit to the rest where I eliminated redundant or excessive details not related to the "roots of ecology", a block quote, a picture. I also added wikilinks, some minor details, and and subheadings. Look it over and see if I invalidated any of your citations. The article is now under 1000 words of narrative. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Earthdirt - I'll take a look at it soon. I'm starting to go through the Ecology and Environment section and once this is cut down to size we can remove the 'Too long' tag. I nominated this article for GA review - if you or anybody knows of any keen reviewers perhaps you could nudge them this way.Thompsma (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW - I hadn't heard of the DYK tool - I was copying text and doing a word count in MSWord - this might account for the differences in our word counts.Thompsma(talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Slight change suggestion
In the last paragraph for "ecosystem services and the biodiversity crisis" would it not be better to also use the Costanza et al. (1997) paper that if memory serves me correct placed an approximate dollar value on ecosystem services that I would say more people relate to and recognise (pollination etc.), rather than the carbon storage example given? 123.255.24.2 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Andy

Good point. That last section was a recent addition by me and I haven't taken the time to go through it all that thoroughly. It needs some revision. I've been going through the article section by section as I try to cut back on the size and to clarify some of the points I made earlier - but haven't gotten through to the end as of yet. Much of the information and citations were posted as a sort of road map. I'm happy, however, to see that someone has taken an interest in this section of the article - I find ecological economics particularly interesting. The article definitely needed something about the loss of ecosystems and I thought that the ecological economic approach was one way of integrating this topic. Pollination is a good example - wetland waste water filtration and flood retention is another example that is studied extensively in cost-evaluation procedures. I chose carbon retention because it is topical in context of climate change concerns. Any number of examples could be used - I did post the photo of the bee pollinating flowers as an example of ecosystem services.

"We have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16–54 trillion (1012) per year, with an average of US$33trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a minimum estimate. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year." Thompsma (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds/looks good! 138.75.1.150 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Andy

Finished?
I have finished going through this from top to bottom. I added a few extra bits and pieces and cut here and there. We managed to reduce some sections smaller than outlined goal - so I added a few important extras in the final section. I'm going to move on to some of my other projects and leave this for a while and will wait to see what the review says. Thanks everyone!!Thompsma (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

History of Ecology - irrelevant information??
I just took a look at Earthdirt latest revision where the following was chopped out:

"...and he is also remembered as the South African General who fathered the concept of apartheid and arrested Ghandi."

I disagree that this is irrelevant. History shouldn't be retold nor can it be understood as an isolated parcel. Information such as this puts the story into context of the times and it makes it interesting. Imagine how relevant this is when you consider that holism is quite possibly one of the most important and unifying ecological concepts of our time and to think it was fathered by Jon Smuts a highly racial individual with blood soaked on his hands. He single handedly managed to conceive of the most unifying and the most and destructive social policies of time. What a polarity!! It is true that we can't cover everything in this article - but it is important contextual social connections remain in effect when you write about history. I would like to see this information re-instated because it has bearing on thinking about ecology and I think it is a pivotal piece of information to have. People need to know where these ideas come from and ecological holism is one of the big ideas of our time.[] Hope that I'm not stepping on your foot Earthdirt - you're doing a great job, I just disagree with this change and the conceptual basis for it being classed as irrelevant. You are not the first person who cut this information out. The part about Ghandi might be a little less relevant, but this is what made Smuts an internationally recognized figure in the first place so I included it.Thompsma (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then again - I do tend to hold onto my favorite bits. I'd be interested in hearing the discussion on this. The history of ecology is such a difficult one to do. Unlike history of evolution, ecology didn't have Darwin and the polar figures / debates that followed. Most people were pretty accepting of ecology - who doesn't like ecology? The Smut holism / apartheid polarity is one of the few divisive bits of history I can think of and it seems like a big one in context of modern social ecology.Thompsma (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, the bit about Smuts is interesting. However, since we trying to streamline, perhaps it isn't needed to understand the overall picture of ecology. Perhaps it could be moved to the Smuts article or to the History of Ecology article. Perhaps "irrelevant" was the wrong word, not sure what the right word is. It's related to the concept, however it may be extraneous or superfluous to a broad discussion of "ecology" and is better suited to a a sub-article as I mentioned above. To me it certain is not vital to understanding a basic history of ecology and how it came about. The whole subsection (other than the first and last sentence) is actually borderline unnecessary in my view and is more a discussion of specific concepts rather then the origin of ecology as a science. In any event, I won't get in any edit wars over this tidbit. Earthdirt(talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great points - and no worry's about an edit war - just discussing the issue in the spirit of understanding the power of collaborative minds. I don't know if I agree that it is borderline unnecessary to the history of ecology. The Clement's vs. Gleasonian ecological paradigm was a very significant debate that was fought out in the literature for nearly a century. The problem with ecology is that we could make millions of sub-articles - but then we loose the collective image. I read the most interesting paper yesterday and cited it in the article. There is a quote from it that seems relevant here:

"Although some discussion in this article is brief due to space limitation and some issues in this article have been discussed in other contexts, integrating all relevant important topics in one article provides a holistic view of the relationships among CHANS (Coupled Human and Natural System) complexities, implications, and prospects."[]

When I come into a wiki article - I rarely link to other sub-headings to gain the full appreciation for a topic. I think that most people prefer to see the main elements integrated in one page. This article is about ecology - so it should necessarily be holistic in its presentation. I feel we have solved much of the streamlining problems and have a bit of extra room to fine tune the concepts. Through the recent edits we came in under the targeted goals. I don't think a few points of key interest hurts. I will take another look at this paragraph and see if I can make it more succinct.Thompsma (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I modified the paragraph. Does this read better?Thompsma (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, it reads much better now, more integrated and less like an aside. Earthdirt (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

PARALLEL DEVELOPMENTS Why is this section necessary? Parallel to what? And regarding the term; "other countries" this is always trouble. Who gets to be the normal/regular countries and who is the group of other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostril (talk •contribs) 06:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Incredible
Wow! -- I took a moment to visit your article. What a massive undertaking; so much information. First, I suggest looking through you contents to determine if it can be trimmed down any. Its hard to give up sections that represent time and effort; however, it is possible for an entry to become too ungainly. If, after a serious analysis, you feel each section is both important to the understanding and would not be better suited as a separate article elsewhere - then - make sure all the sections are clearly defined so that one can seek out what information they need from the table of contents. Few will scan an article this long in search of the answer to whatever question brought them here in the first place; therefore It must be organized. Such organization into clearly defined section would eliminate any concerns over length. You would know best on why people will come here and what specific headings would most likely lead them to the section they seek.

There may be options for reducing bulk within each heading as well. For example:
 * Since ecology refers to any form of biodiversity, ecologists can conduct research on the smallest bacteria to the global flux of atmospheric gases that are regulated by photosynthesis and respiration as organisms breath in and out of the biosphere.
 * Your goal is to impress upon the reader the wide scope of this topic. Too much information, thus the reader may miss your goal. Perhaps:


 * Since ecology refers to any form of biodiversity, ecologists research everything from tiny bacteria's role in nutrient recycling to the effects of tropical rain forest on the earth's atmosphere. (slightly shorter)

Truly an amazing undertaking. The range of your knowledge on this subject is impressive. Congratulations. If time permits I'll give it a thorough read through; from a non-expert perspective  :)   --JimmyButler (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy!! I had every intent to leave this article and move onto another place. I keep getting drawn back to here. I guess I am finished the main framework for this article -now comes the final decision making on the working and sorting it out. I'm going to implement your suggestion. Thanks!!Thompsma (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto to everything Jimmy Butler said. Simplifying is important and your work was herculean to say the least! I'm going to reassess the article to B since that's the highest it can go without formal review and it's certainly there. Earthdirt (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now read some of the commentary on the talk page concerning length. In defense, the extensive use of referencing as well as the additional information following the text give the article the illusion of being longer than it actually is. Also the use of imagines (very well done) contribute to this illusion. The word count suggest that it is within reason for a topic of this magnitude. The referencing (a typical and severe weakness in Wikipedia) serves as model for others.--JimmyButler (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Breaking up the sentence sometimes increases clarity. Make the point, then support with examples of case studies:


 * Long-term ecological studies, such as sites managed by the Long Term Ecological Network including the Hubbard Brook study, in operation since 1960, provide important ecological track records; the longest experiment in existence is the 'Park Grass Experiment' that started in 1856

The essential theme: Long-term ecological studies provide important ecological track records.


 * The addition of supporting detail is a double edge sword. The intent of the sentence may be overlooked by excessive info. If the examples are just a supportive role; then perhaps limit the number. If they too are essential; I suggest breaking up the sentence.


 * Long-term ecological studies provide important ecological track records. For example, research at the Long Term Ecological Network which includes the Hubbard Brook study have been in operation operation since 1960. The longest experiment in existence is the 'Park Grass Experiment' that started in 1856.

Great point Mr. Butler. This is one of my weak points in writing that has been pointed out to me before. I will fix this sentence.Thompsma (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Terms for natural units
I noticed that Apothecia had expanded the size of the table of definitions for natural groupings to span the entire page. It doesn't look right. I think it looked better the way it was. Thought I'd throw this out there see what other people think. Great to see all the action in here!!Thompsma (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked it better the other way also. Earthdirt (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went in and changed it back to the smaller width and altered the text to valign="top". This might have been why Apothecia thought it needed to be changed. There was something wrong with the look of the text and I hope this fixes the problem. The other table in Trophic Dynamics is formatted the same way.Thompsma(talk) 01:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

List
I'm not sure if FA is your ultimate goal... but I remember getting hammered on the use of list. Personally, I like them for visual organization; however, I ultimately had to convert them into prose to conform to the standards. Your list is in the introduction; which makes it an easy target for the "opposers". However, if FA is not the long-term plan - I would leave it as it is. Cheers!--JimmyButler (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have any particular goal in mind. I just think ecology is important and I want this to read well. If FA is what it takes to achieve this, this is my goal. Hopefully we can convince the "opposers" that tables are helpful and part of normal practice. I have encyclopedia's at home that contain tables with definitions.Thompsma (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realized that you were referring to the list in the lead!! Yes...it does break with convention, but I think it is really the only effective way to present this information. It lays it out much more clearly than if it were put into a paragraph. I'll fight the opposers on this one!!Thompsma (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Text: Biodiversity includes species diversity, ecosystem diversity, and genetic diversity. ...... Preventing species extinctions is one way to preserve biodiversity but does not necessarily protect other forms of biodiversity such as landscape diversity.
 * My knowledge is limited - which is good because I'm actually learning as I read.. thus, the landscape diversity seemed to pop out of nowhere; especially since three types are stated in a prior sentence. Everything after the "but" feels like there is a need for expansion or future enlightenment.
 * Text: For example, habitat might refer to an aquatic versus terrestrial environment that can be further categorized as montane or alpine ecosystems.

The term versus, is this in the context "as opposed to" - for some reason, it confuses me. Could stating it: "might refer to an aquatic or terrestrial environment, the latter being further categorized as montane or alpine ecosystems Minor criticism - I was able to hang with this section - very well written - with absolutely beautiful examples! Congrats --JimmyButler (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great input JimmyButler. I'll change this some time today.Thompsma (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record I agree completely about my incorporation of the new idea of landscape diversity. I like the migration example, it's brilliant actually. Though I think it may be "over cited" with 5 or so foot notes, perhaps some could be removed. Earthdirt (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked the landscape idea as well, which is what Peter Kareiva uses in his paper on Biodiversity Coldspots. It is over cited - I will try to cut this down. I have been reading in this area quite intensively so I got carried away. I had actually written a sentence or two about this in relation to ecological health, ecological integrity and landscape diversity as a measure of this and I'll see if I can put this back in.Thompsma (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went back to include landscape diversity and remember why I took it out. Landscape diversity is a complicated bit of business to explain and might require a paragraph of its own because it isn't defined anywhere else in the article. I put a wiki link to Landscape ecology. If you can think of a good way to include this Earthdirt, let me know. The picture of seral stages shows the landscape, but it might be nice if we could put an image like this up:

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HRE/becweb/system/how/index.html

This image shows regional and landscape diversity. I wonder if we could bring this image into this article as part of the public domain? Any thoughts?Thompsma(talk) 07:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been working on this. I really liked the way that Earthdirt had re-worded this section. However, as I read a little more closely there were a few conceptual mistakes.

"Biodiversity is a contracted form of biological diversity and is a composite term that describes..."

"Biodiversity is a measurement of biological diversity and describes..."


 * The first sentence (mine) is too wordy. The second sentence (Earthdirt's) is incorrect, it is not a measurement of biological diversity - it is biological diversity just said another way. I'll fix this as well. 70.77.232.44 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Thompsma(talk) 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I like current version. Nicely done, we'll get it there eventually. Earthdirt (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Ecology figure
The history of ecology section could be brightened up with a new and better figure. The first ecological experiment would be a great image to have:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/295/5555/639.pdf?ck=nck

The image comes from: G. Sinclair, London’s Gardener’s Mag. 1, 14 (1826), with CREDIT: THE BRITISH LIBRARY. I went to the British Library website, but the image must have been scanned in. I wonder if there is some way we could obtain this image for the history of ecology section? Does anybody have any thoughts on this, because I don't fully understand how the copyright issues work with these sorts of things.Thompsma (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything published over 125 years ago in the UK is unquestionably in the public domain. Earthdirt (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote the author of the paper to see if he would be willing to donate it. There might be an issue with a screen capture from the version published in Science.Thompsma (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seed and spore dispersal
Some mention of seed dispersal in the wind section would be good. Smartse (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.Thompsma (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

New image in history of ecology
Earthdirt helped me with the image of the first ecological experiment in history of ecology section. Thanks!!Thompsma (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Trophic image
An administrator in wikipedia commons deleted the trophic image that I created. I must have made an error in the upload. The admin could have messaged me since I indicated clearly in the image that it was entirely my own work. I'll have it restored.Thompsma (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What is Ecology about?
First of all: thank you to the authors of this article for taking on the huge effort of writing about the complex science of ecology. Ecology has many aspects and can be divided in many ways into subdisciplines, making it very difficult to write a concise and structured article about it. As the article is now, the authors have come a long way towards this goal, however, I think there is still a long way to go before this article can be rated as good.

I think one of the main problems now is that on many occasions the article confuses the scientific discipline of ecology with the subject that it studies. This article should be about the scientific discipline, and not directly about natural phenomena. For instance, the section "Metabolism and the early atmosphere" and "Physical environments", really should have no place in this article, at least not in their current form. Also, the comparison between Ecology and Evolution is incorrect. The correct comparison is betweenEcology and Evolutionary biology. Have a look at the article on biology: it's about the science, not about life itself. Just like Astronomy is about a science, and not about stars.

Another problem is the definition of ecology in the lead of the article. In textbooks and the scientific literature there are different definitions, but the ones I think are best are along the lines of "Ecology studies the distribution and abundance of living organisms, and the interactions between organisms and their environment." I copied this from theBiology article. The textbook that both Biology and Ecology refer to for the definition is "Ecology: individuals, populations, and communities" by Begon, Harper and Townsend. Yet the article Ecology uses a different definition! In the view of Begon, Harper and Townsend the ultimate subject matter of ecology is the distribution and abundance of organisms, and they are right. Have a look at the introduction of the book yourself: http://books.google.nl/books?id=3xklog5kVGMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_slider_thumb#v=onepage&q=&f=false.

Then there is the structure of the article. Looking at content listing, I think the structure is quite good. In part it reflects how ecology is dived in subdisciplines in the most important way, namely that of the levels of biological organisation: individuals, populations, and communities. However, the first section now has subsections "Ecological niche", "Population ecology", "Community ecology" and "Biome and biosphere". The odd ones out here are "Ecological niche" and "Biome and biosphere" because they are not scientific disciplines. "Ecological niche" strikes me as even more odd because I do not think of it as a level of biological organisation. But then, I do not think there is a discipline by the name of "individual ecology", so I am not sure what goes in its place.

I do agree that Evolutionary ecology is a major subdiscipline of ecology. I am not sure which fields in ecology deal with "physical environments" in the way the section in this article does.

There are also other ways in which ecology is divided in fields. One is by method: observational, experimental and theoretical ecology. Another is by type of organism: microbial, plant, and animal ecology. A third way is by habitat type: terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecology. I think these are all major subdisciplines of ecology which should be mentioned in the article.

Something else I miss is a concise text about the major problems in ecology such as biodiversity in the face of competition (the paradox the plankton: so many species on so view resources) or the applied problem of how to conserve biodiversity.

If the authors currently working on the article allow me, I will propose a new lead for the article, based on the current one, and post it here.

OpenScience (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Openscience you are more than welcome to rewrite the lead, that's what Wikipedia is all about, collaboration. Feel free to make live changes, but posting to the talk page may be desirable for collaboration. One thing to keep in mind during your rewrite is that the level of the language needs to be SIMPLE so that all readers of this general encyclopedia benefit from it, especially those who have so little idea about science and ecology that they look up a word like Ecology. Your comments make a lot of sense to me, as you can see in the discussion above we have been looking for ways to cut information out of this very long article. Your specific thoughts (or work on this) are very welcome. Peace,Earthdirt (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is sometimes important to distinguish discipline from phenomenon. In the case of entomolgy/insects this distinction is clear. In the case of ecology I think it is blurred. Before reading this thread I had no doubt that ecology is used for both. Whether this is true seems to be the central point of this thread. What is the word for the phenomenon? When looking at uses of ecology in popular (google) web pages I find that in many cases it is not possible to determine from the context whether phenomenon or discipline is intended. But on insect ecology I found the following statement: Blandine Prache is doing some research focused on understanding the ecology and identity of insect species involved in the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. In this case I think it is clear that ecology is used to refer to the phenomenon. --Ettrig (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi OpenScience. I have taken a short break from this article and will be returning to it. It is great to have someone giving their points - but I also agree with Earthdirt that this needs to be discussed. I have some serious concerns about some of the things you have proposed. First - there are many definitions of ecology - which is why many resources were used in putting together the lead to this article. You have cited one book - this lead it based on numerous reputable books on ecology and ideas on the subject matter - INCLUDING THE BOOK YOU REFER TOO. I don't really see how this article hasn't captured the nested idea behind individuals, populations and communities in ecology - this is certainly a strong theme that gets expressed throughout the content of this article.

"For instance, the section "Metabolism and the early atmosphere" and "Physical environments", really should have no place in this article, at least not in their current form."


 * I think you should take at one of the classical texts on Ecology that was written by: Allee, W.; Emerson, A. E., Park, O., Park, T., and Schmidt, K. P. (1949). Principles of Animal Ecology. W. B. Saunders Company.


 * Allee et al. (1949) devote almost 3/4 of their book to this approach. It appears in modern texts and dialogue on ecology and others in this discussion forum have thrown in their weight and support. You will also notice that these sections are heavily cited by modern peer-reviewed literature taken from ecological journals. Hence, I don't really understand your point that this isn't ecological. In the current review this section was given the highest praise for how it was written. These are themes that are of profound significance to ecology and they recur in all the literature on the subject. Hence, I think the argument you have made is very weak. However, you may have somewhat of a valid point - others have suggested some reservations about this - so it will be interesting to see what others have to say.

"The odd ones out here are "Ecological niche" and "Biome and biosphere" because they are not scientific disciplines."


 * Huh?? It may be true that they are not scientific disciplines - but they are definitely an active area of scientific inquiry in ecology. Please spend a moment doing a search in the peer-reviewed scientific journal of Ecology - you will see that these are very much and active area of the science.


 * I agree with openscience that "Ecological Niche" and "Biome and Biosphere don't really fit under "Levels of Organization and Study". The question is not whether they are aspects of ecology (they certainly are), but whether they parallel "Population Ecology" and "Community Ecology" as levels of study. I think that niche theory is generally studied within community ecology. To be a parallel level of organization to population and community ecology, "Biome and Biosphere" might be relabeled as "Global Ecology". Also, I would think that ecosystem ecology is a necessary category under "Levels of Organization and Study".(Thompsma, thanks for all your work on this, it's great to see this article be improved!)Sinusoidal (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sinusoidal! What you ahve said makes a lot of sense. I actually commented below about ecosystem ecology before I read your post. The section on ecology and the environment can essentially be retitled as ecosystem ecology and reorganized into your suggested structural design. I'll try to work on this as I plug away.Thompsma(talk) 01:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"I do agree that Evolutionary ecology is a major subdiscipline of ecology. I am not sure which fields in ecology deal with "physical environments" in the way the section in this article does."


 * The first sentence here is patently incorrect and if you are uncertain about the second sentence I will tell you which fields in ecology deal with physical environments - ALL OF THEM DO. I've been a practicing ecologist and educators on the subject for over ten years now and this has been a highly evident part of the discipline.


 * Many of the points you have raised do not come across very convincing, but I do appreciate that you have joined in the discussion. Certainly put in your proposals, but there are many other wikipedia articles that are in much worse shape that this one. I think we should all focus on completing the GA review - follow through on what the editor suggests and then reconsider modifying some of the sections. The sub-articles linked by this article are in desperate need of contributions. Perhaps you might be interested in working on one of the others - such as food webs or biogeography. If we can encourage people to work on these stubs and start articles - this would actually help this article out a great deal. Perhaps you could even clip sections of this article to reduce it in size and move it to other sections. Thompsma (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All this being said - if you feel the desire to put a new lead proposal together - it would be great to have new ideas.Thompsma (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Earthdirt, Ettrig and Thompsma,

Thanks for your responses. I really like discussions on topics I spend so much time on.

First about the distinction between the scientific discipline and the things it studies: you are right, Ettrig, "ecology" can refer to both, as says my dictionary. But the same is true for biology, yet the wikipedia article Biology is about the science. And also, the definition in the lead of the Ecology article only mentions the scientific discipline.

That brings me to my second point: the definition of ecology. Thompsma, I really think the definition should include "the distribution and abundance of organisms in space and time" or something very similar, because that is what ecology is about, and I can cite many authors who agree with me. I cited Begon, Harper and Townsend because that is the one reference that the article now cites for the definition. But it got it wrong! It looks like however wrote the definition in the lead did not read past the first two sentences of the cited textbook. Let me quote the book:


 * The word 'ecology' was first used by Ernest Haeckel in 1869. Paraphrasing Haeckel we can define ecology as the scientific study of the interactions between organisms and their environment. [...] A more informative, much less vague definition has been suggested by Krebs (1972): 'Ecology is the scientific study of the interactions that determine the distribution and abundance of organisms.' This definition has the merit of pinpointing the ultimate subject matter of ecology: the distribution and abundance of organisms [...]

I have more things to say, but I have no time, and not for the coming 10 days (off to a course on evolutionary dynamics - very important to ecology! ;-) ). But I will be back. :-) --OpenScience (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - you are correct. The first few sentences in the lead are kinda weak and could be fixed. I haven't been back to look at the lead in quite a while - I have been so busy working on the meat of the rest of the article. The second paragraph, however, was put together to capture what it is that you have put. I have seen that definition before and I have read everything by Ernst Haeckel as well. It is a better definition - if you want to start tweaking parts of the lead this would be great. If you have access to the classical Allee textbook - I do suggest that you take a look at it in reference to the physical environment sections. I signed it out of our library and read through it - it was a real eye opener even for being so dated. It was gave me the inspiration for putting those sections into this article.Thompsma (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also - I don't know if you've read through the entire article yet - but you will see in the history of ecology section the Haeckel definition is included.Thompsma (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had much time to write and read for wikipedia, but here's a first draft of the proposal. There are several things wrong with it still, especially the last two sentences, which just float a bit unconnected to the rest of the text. When compared to the original lead, there are more things left out than new things included. Mostly the reason for leaving something out is that I think we should stick to the most important things since we are not going to be exhaustive anyway. Other things I changed because I did not understand them. Please let me know what you think so that we can work towards something we agree on. --OpenScience (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed lead
Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house" or "home"; -λογία, "study of") is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the interactions between organisms and their environment[citations needed], or, more specifically, of the interactions that determine their abundance and distribution.[1, more citations needed] The discipline of ecology emerged from the natural sciences in the late 19th century, but most of its development took place in the second half of the 20th century.

Subjects that ecology studies include:

* the ways in which biodiversity is maintained in nature * the movement of materials and energy through ecosystems * the successional development of communities of species * interactions that shape adaptations

Ecology is closely related to the disciplines of physiology, evolution, genetics and behavior.[4] It is different from environmentalism and or environmental science.[1][2][3]


 * Hi OpenScience - first, I'd like to say thank you for taking the time to put your efforts forward. It is great to see people coming into ecology to help out. Your version is shorter and more to the point. The first sentence is a little weak where you have ", or, more specifically,". This could be worded better and I'm not sure if it improves the current version.


 * Hey. :) Maybe "or, more specifically" is not so good, but the what follows is a definition you see often in one form or the other. Maybe leave out "more specifically"?--OpenScience (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to retain some mention that ecology deals with different levels of organization - organismal, population, community, ecosystem, landscape and global ecology are the levels most often identified and captured in the following sentence:


 * "Since ecology refers to any form of biodiversity, ecologists research everything from tiny bacteria's role in nutrient recycling to the effects of tropical rain forest on the Earth's atmosphere."


 * Perhaps the preceding could be re-worded, but I think we need some way to capture the levels of organization. I kinda like the existing sentence that leads into the list and would like to suggest that it remain, but your modified wording of the list that follows looks great:


 * One commenter here said this sentence was meant to impress people. :) I would try to be a bit more serious, though the point you want to make is a good one.--OpenScience (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Like many of the natural sciences, a conceptual understanding of ecology is found in the broader details of study, including:"


 * I think we could say something more about the fact that ecology is different from environmentalism or environmental science - perhaps following through on the first paragraph we could include the following:


 * I've tried to incorporate your feedback and use this to tie the ideas together. I'm interested to see the feedback. Earlier in your post you had taken issue with the way that 'Ecology and the environment' section is framed. The reviewer has suggested that having the name of the article in a sub-title is frowned upon. I'm thinking that we could title this Ecosystem ecology - defined in Campbell's intro biology text as: "Ecosystem ecology emphasizes energy flow and chemical cycling among the various biotic and abiotic components." Reading through the text on ecosystem ecology - there is a clear overlap with the topics headed in this section of the article. These are my suggestions.Thompsma(talk) 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)