‘Species’ Is Not the (Only) Unit of Biodiversity: A Process-Philosophical Perspective on Conservation Concepts

IF 1.5 4区 生物学 Q3 MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
Ole Martin Sandberg, Anthony Schultz, Ragnhildur Guðmundsdóttir, Skúli Skúlason
{"title":"‘Species’ Is Not the (Only) Unit of Biodiversity: A Process-Philosophical Perspective on Conservation Concepts","authors":"Ole Martin Sandberg,&nbsp;Anthony Schultz,&nbsp;Ragnhildur Guðmundsdóttir,&nbsp;Skúli Skúlason","doi":"10.1111/maec.12857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>In this paper, we argue that the concept of ‘species’ should not be the main focus of research and policies in biodiversity conservation. Diversity is important at all levels of life: within species as well as among them and within and among ecosystems. First, we give a brief overview of the debate about the necessity to find a unified concept of ‘species’. In this, we side with Charles Darwin, who insisted that no strict definition could be given to this term, which is ultimately a matter of arbitrary and pragmatic human language. This did not worry Darwin, and neither should it concern biologists or ecologists today. Darwin's great discovery relied on a recognition of the many differences within species, not on their similarities. Next, we argue that the focus on species and the neglect of other diversity measures in the conservation discourse have led to problems in public perception of—and policies on—conservation and biodiversity. In areas with few species, intraspecific diversity is often of utmost importance to ecosystem processes and functions, and such regions may provide the environmental conditions that enable and promote the diversification of specialised subgroups in the absence (or reduction) of interspecific competition. We give some examples of these processes based on research in marine and freshwater ecosystems, focusing on Iceland and the subarctic region. Finally, we refer to alternative, emerging methodologies of assessing ecosystem health which go beyond the quantitative method of counting species and subspecies and instead emphasise more complex phenomena such as relations, interactions and processes. These approaches, we suggest, are consistent with the philosophical tradition called ‘process ontology’, and we argue that both ecological research and conservation policy can benefit from a process philosophical perspective. Finally, we briefly discuss our motivations for finding this topic to be of importance.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49883,"journal":{"name":"Marine Ecology-An Evolutionary Perspective","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Ecology-An Evolutionary Perspective","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/maec.12857","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that the concept of ‘species’ should not be the main focus of research and policies in biodiversity conservation. Diversity is important at all levels of life: within species as well as among them and within and among ecosystems. First, we give a brief overview of the debate about the necessity to find a unified concept of ‘species’. In this, we side with Charles Darwin, who insisted that no strict definition could be given to this term, which is ultimately a matter of arbitrary and pragmatic human language. This did not worry Darwin, and neither should it concern biologists or ecologists today. Darwin's great discovery relied on a recognition of the many differences within species, not on their similarities. Next, we argue that the focus on species and the neglect of other diversity measures in the conservation discourse have led to problems in public perception of—and policies on—conservation and biodiversity. In areas with few species, intraspecific diversity is often of utmost importance to ecosystem processes and functions, and such regions may provide the environmental conditions that enable and promote the diversification of specialised subgroups in the absence (or reduction) of interspecific competition. We give some examples of these processes based on research in marine and freshwater ecosystems, focusing on Iceland and the subarctic region. Finally, we refer to alternative, emerging methodologies of assessing ecosystem health which go beyond the quantitative method of counting species and subspecies and instead emphasise more complex phenomena such as relations, interactions and processes. These approaches, we suggest, are consistent with the philosophical tradition called ‘process ontology’, and we argue that both ecological research and conservation policy can benefit from a process philosophical perspective. Finally, we briefly discuss our motivations for finding this topic to be of importance.

“物种”不是生物多样性的(唯一)单位:保护概念的过程哲学视角
在本文中,我们认为“物种”的概念不应该成为生物多样性保护研究和政策的主要焦点。多样性在生命的各个层面都很重要:物种内部、物种之间、生态系统内部和生态系统之间。首先,我们简要概述了关于寻找“物种”统一概念的必要性的争论。在这一点上,我们站在查尔斯·达尔文的一边,他坚持认为这个术语不可能有严格的定义,它最终是一个武断和实用的人类语言问题。达尔文并没有为此担心,今天的生物学家和生态学家也不应该为此担心。达尔文的伟大发现是建立在对物种之间许多差异的认识之上的,而不是建立在物种之间的相似性之上的。其次,我们认为,在保护话语中,对物种的关注和对其他多样性措施的忽视导致了公众对保护和生物多样性的认知和政策上的问题。在物种较少的地区,种内多样性往往对生态系统过程和功能至关重要,这些地区可能提供环境条件,在缺乏(或减少)种间竞争的情况下,实现和促进专门亚群的多样化。基于对海洋和淡水生态系统的研究,我们给出了这些过程的一些例子,重点是冰岛和亚北极地区。最后,我们提到了评估生态系统健康的替代方法,这些方法超越了计算物种和亚种的定量方法,而是强调更复杂的现象,如关系、相互作用和过程。我们认为,这些方法与被称为“过程本体论”的哲学传统是一致的,我们认为生态研究和保护政策都可以从过程哲学的角度受益。最后,我们简要地讨论了我们认为这个主题很重要的动机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Marine Ecology-An Evolutionary Perspective
Marine Ecology-An Evolutionary Perspective 生物-海洋与淡水生物学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Marine Ecology publishes original contributions on the structure and dynamics of marine benthic and pelagic ecosystems, communities and populations, and on the critical links between ecology and the evolution of marine organisms. The journal prioritizes contributions elucidating fundamental aspects of species interaction and adaptation to the environment through integration of information from various organizational levels (molecules to ecosystems) and different disciplines (molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry, physiology, marine biology, natural history, geography, oceanography, palaeontology and modelling) as viewed from an ecological perspective. The journal also focuses on population genetic processes, evolution of life histories, morphological traits and behaviour, historical ecology and biogeography, macro-ecology and seascape ecology, palaeo-ecological reconstruction, and ecological changes due to introduction of new biota, human pressure or environmental change. Most applied marine science, including fisheries biology, aquaculture, natural-products chemistry, toxicology, and local pollution studies lie outside the scope of the journal. Papers should address ecological questions that would be of interest to a worldwide readership of ecologists; papers of mostly local interest, including descriptions of flora and fauna, taxonomic descriptions, and range extensions will not be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信