November 8, 2011
Ecology Explains How the World Works
![]()

Ecologists warn that New England's maples could be at risk (courtesy of flickr user paul+photos=moody)
The blog io9 is running a series of Public Science Triumphs, explaining how publicly funded science makes the world a better place. “It’s tempting to offload the cost of science onto business, but there are some kinds of research that only government can make possible,” io9 editor Annalee Newitz wrote this weekend in the Washington Post. That research, often called “basic,” may seem useless to some but can lead to great payoffs in the future. Basic research provides the foundation for monumental discoveries, fosters the development of ground-breaking technologies and gives us the information we rely on when making important decisions, like when and where to build and how strong to make a structure.
An important, and often under-appreciated, source of that information comes from the world of ecology. Everything in the world is connected, but not in the new age way most people mean when they say that. It’s all connected through more mundane (though, frankly, more fascinating) ways, like carbon and nitrogen cycles, food webs, water and fire—the subjects of the science of ecology. And it’s this kind of information that will help a builder to know why a warehouse will flood even if constructed a fair distance from the river, explain how reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone led to an increase in beaver dams and guide management decisions, such as setting levels for sustainable fishing of salmon.
Ecology is not a glamorous science; no one will ever accuse an ecologist of being motivated by money. (The practical clothes and sensible sandals usually deter such accusations.) Field sites are basic, at best. Your average college dorm provides more space and better food. But an ecologist probably won’t mind because she’s happier out in the muck anyway.
Much ecological research provides a simple slice in time, perhaps a few years of data. But to truly understand how everything is working together, more data is needed. That’s where the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network comes in. These are sites all over the world (included 26 in the U.S. LTER Network, funded by the National Science Foundation) that have been collecting data on primary production (the energy created by plants), the distribution of organisms in the ecosystem, the decay of dead organisms, the movement of water and nutrients, and the patterns of disturbances—at some sites for more than 30 years. Put that data together and an ecologist will have a picture of how organisms and the world around them are working together, and affecting the human population, too.
At Harvard Forest, for example, LTER ecologists have documented the spread of the Asian long-horned beetle (ALB), which took up residence in Worcester, Massachusetts a decade ago. Scientists have been trying to keep the beetle confined to the city, but LTER scientists found that the insect has spread to the nearby forest, infesting nearly two-thirds of the maple trees in one area. “If the ALB continues to spread outside Worcester, the abundance of red maples could provide a pathway for its dispersal throughout New England and other parts of eastern North America,” says the study‘s co-author, David Orwig of Harvard University. And if the beetles spread and take out New England’s maples, they would also destroy the region’s maple industry and even, perhaps, a good portion of the autumn tourist trade. More than one million people come to the area each year, spending about $1 billion in their quest to see the red maples’ stunning foliage. Knowing the maples are at risk may lead to changes in how the infestation is being fought.
Ecology, and especially long-term ecological projects, are scientists’ “gifts to the future,” as one of my colleagues put it. There is no Nobel Prize for ecology, and groundbreaking research papers are rare. Ecologists are pursuing this science because they simply want to know. And the benefits for the rest of us can be monumental. By better understanding how an ecosystem works, we are able to make better decisions that can save money and prevent disasters. No company is ever going to pay for this–their shareholders would never stand for it–but I’m glad to see NSF and other government agencies step in.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
























“Everything in the world is connected, but not in the new age way most people mean when they say that.”
What do you think they mean when they say that? I’m an ecologist and I got here because of that innate “new age” understanding that everything is indeed connected.
Please be more specific when dismissing general attitudes.
Perfect for government… But I agree, I can’t see private operations jumping in on this one.
What is the right amount of population in the world to maintain healthy all ecosystems?
Greenweaver, isn’t it fair to say the “new age” idea is more about a spiritual connection between things, not food web linkages and abiotic interactions. I think the article is specific enough. Ecology is a science, not an ideology that supports spiritual connectivity.
-An Ecologist.
I agree that motivation to pursue a career in ecology often comes from a more personal and subjective source. However, it has no place in the scientific discussion and often does a disservice to the rest of us trying to portray ecology as a complex and legitimate science.
In a similar manner, the article itself seems to misrepresent ecologists as a bunch of well meaning, altruistic activists. It’s my experience that ecology as a discipline would be better served if the general public thought of us as well dressed, relatively clean cut, ecohydrobiogeochemists (or something like that…). As well meaning as this article is, it fails to make a statement worth making.
Glad you pointed out the value of basic research and included ecology in the mix with the better-known sciences. But I think there are some assumptions in here that are worth examining. For example, who is the ‘we’ in this statement? “By better understanding how an ecosystem works, we are able to make better decisions that can save money and prevent disasters.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but in my experience, it’s scientists who are understanding things better, and political and business leaders who are making the decisions (better or not, with or without the science).
“And it’s this kind of information that will help a builder to know why a warehouse will flood even if constructed a fair distance from the river, explain how reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone led to an increase in beaver dams and guide management decisions, such as setting levels for sustainable fishing of salmon.”
No, it isn’t. Ecology helped explain the wolf-beaver dam connection in retrospect, but it could just as easily have explained any other result after the fact. The other two are predictions; the flooding prediction might involve ecology as a relatively minor component, but builders build what their clients specify where their clients tell them to. What happens next is not their concern. Managing fisheries on a sustained yield basis has never worked, because the models used aren’t ecological to begin with. Since nobody really knows, or knows how to know, what salmon (the example mentioned) or any other fishes “typically” encounter in the open ocean, there’s no way to model them ecologically without making huge assumptions.
anekeia: You’re mistaken about fisheries management. The sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) fishery of Bristol Bay, AK is sustainable (as is the geoduck–Panopea generosa–fishery in WA state, and several other fisheries in NZ). I did my master’s at University of Washington in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and researchers there have been working with the fishing industry in Bristol Bay to ensure its sustainability. It works because the fishery is relatively small and pretty much everyone is committed to keeping it sustainable. It also doesn’t hurt that the habitat in Bristol Bay is still in very good condition. You’re correct in saying MSY models aren’t ecology-based–they don’t take species interactions into account, for instance–but harvesting fish at MSY still pretty much works to keep a fishery sustainable. The problem is that politicians who set harvest quotas don’t want to piss off the fishermen and so they set them higher than MSY. As I heard Ray Hilborn say several times, we don’t really know how well MSY works, because virtually no one’s ever managed a fishery at that low of a harvest rate.
@An Ecologist,
“Everything is connected” means “inter-dependence” of all physical beings and their environments, from humans to ants to bacteria and viruses.
Thus, it’s not to be narrowly interpreted. It’s just that. Everything, physical beings and their environments, is interconnected and influence each other.