Talk:Ecology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic ecology topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!

This is part of a WikiProject.
Ecology Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the assessment scale
WikiProject Biology
Biology Portal

Ecology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for Ecology: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Lead could be about twice as long
    • Summarize the history of ecology article.
Priority 1 (top) 

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Stuff moved from the article

[edit] References

  • Humboldt, A. von, 1821. Essai sur la géographie des plantes, accompagné d’un tableau physique des régions équinoxiales, fondé sur les mésures exécutées, depuis le dixième degré de latitude boréale jusqu’au dixième degré de latitude australe, pendant les années 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, et 1903 par A. De Humboldt et A. Bonpland. Paris: Chez Levrault, Schoelle et Cie. Sherborn Fund Fascimile No.1.
  • Humboldt, A. 1805. Voyage de Humboldt et Bonpland. Voyage aux régions équinoxiales du nouveau continent. 5e partie. “Essai sur la géographie des plantes”. Paris. Facs intégral de l’édition Paris 1905-1834 par Amsterdam: Theatrum orbis terrarum Ltd., 1973.
  • Humboldt, A. 1807. Essai sur la géographie des plantes. Facs.ed. London 1959. His essay on “On Isothermal Lines” was published serially in English translation in the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal from 1820 to 1822.

not really necessary in the article itself, but it was to solve the issue of a date of publication (1805 or 1807) - Anthère 00:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I moved these to Ecology (history) where they are important references. - Marshman 02:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 w:fr: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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Chemical ecology

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Definition of Ecology

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

Googling "define: ecology" [1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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]

  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 {{disambiguation}} page, but this material certainly does not belong at the top of this article.

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)

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—although not in my mind as an ecologist— 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"—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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)