Talk:History of ecology

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

I'd say this page is a nice start, but needs some development, especially in the second half. To me, the whole section on "Ecology comes of age" should be moved into one of the environmentalism pages (there are a bunch of redundant pages in need of merging and sorting). On my first quick reading, it looks to me like no material in "ecology comes of age" is ecology (science), but instead all is political / social / philosophical stuff. As it stands, the article does not cover the science of ecology past the 1950s or so.

Best, - Scott D. White 05:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. CHE 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the section heading to "Ecology and environmentalism," and I expect to eventually merge all this into the environmental movement page (leaving only a brief discussion and link on this page). I've added a section heading, on modern ecology, with no text. Right now, I'm going to look around for the tag to announce "this article needs work." Best, -Scott D. White 05:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be conflated with the environmental movement. While there is considerable overlap, ecology is fundamentally something different from environmentalism. But needs work is an understatement... it's on my list of "get to it eventually," but hopefully someone who knows more than I do will attend to it first. Thanks for your input, Scott. --ragesoss 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
second half of the article really needs some work, and reads like a somewhat slanted social history essay, but I don't have the time or expertise to work on it... probably some reference to human ecology and sociology and the transformation of the word 'ecology' in general should be made too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dackerts (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

human ecology section

To me, Human ecology is really a branch of sociology and not ecology or biology. Wikipedia has a separate human ecology page already. I would propose to remove this section from the history of ecology page, perhaps leaving a link to the HE page. Best, -Scott D. White 03:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Rachel Carson NOT listed in the spreadsheet of ecologists? It seems to me that hers was the seminal work regarding ecosystems and the one major person in the U.S. who raised the red flags about humans' negative effects on the world. I've made no changes to the pages, since I really don't have the time, but this is a major gap in this article. Especially since there are descriptions of pioneers in various disciplines. - Linda Mahoney 3/11/2010 10:14 p.m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.66.179 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Potential Additions to the Article

The article should note the importance of historical figures, such as Linnaeus, Lyell, Humboldt, and Darwin, in greater detail. Since the title of the page is the topic of the history of ecology, the earliest influences on the science should be explained with as much detail as the most recent aspects of ecology that include the environmental and conservation movements. In order to better understand these more recent concepts, it is important to comprehend the past. Additionally, I would recommend to include more relevant pictures of these important scientists, or of some sketches of their important discoveries while exploring the world for the first time. Ced015 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have recently found these books, articles, journals, ect. on the subject of the history of ecology and believe they may help us find new information on the subject:

Berkes, Fikret. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management.Taylor & Francis.

Graham, Michael H., and Paul K. Dayton. 2002. On the evolution of ecological ideas: paradigms and scientific progress. Ecology 83, no. 6:1481-1489.

Hagen, Joel B. 2008. Teaching Ecology during the Environmental Age, 1965–1908. Environmental History 13, no. 4:704-723.

Kingsland, Sharon E. 2005. The evolution of American ecology, 1890-2000.JHU Press.

McIntosh, Robert P. 1986. The background of ecology: concept and theory.Cambridge University Press.

Mitman, Gregg. 1992. The state of nature: ecology, community, and American social thought, 1900-1950.University of Chicago Press.

Neff, Mark W., and Elizabeth A. Corley. 2009. 35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics 80, no. 3:657-682.

Slack, Nancy G. 2010. G. Evelyn Hutchinson and the Invention of Modern Ecology.Yale University Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewscutt (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Relevant Sources

Will soon be adding additional information to this page. Below is a list of relevant sources I've been using to research.


Cooper, William S. “Henry Chandler Cowles” Ecology , Vol. 16, No. 3 (Jul., 1935) , pp. 281-283

Cooper, William S. “Sir Arthur Tansley and the Science of Ecology” Ecology , Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct., 1957) , pp. 658-659

Davis, Charles C. “Concerning Gaia” BioScience , Vol. 43, No. 3 (Mar., 1993) , p. 131

Kormondy, Edward J. “A Brief Introduction to the History of Ecology” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 74, No. 7 (September 2012), pp. 441-443

Leslie, Paul W. and Little, Michael A. “Human Biology and Ecology: Variation in Nature and the Nature of Variation” American Anthropologist , New Series, Vol. 105, No. 1, Special Issue: Biological Anthropology: Historical Perspectives on Current Issues, Disciplinary Connections, and Future Directions (Mar., 2003) , pp. 28-37

Vorzimmer, Peter “Darwin's Ecology and Its Influence upon His Theory” Isis , Vol. 56, No. 2 (Summer, 1965) , pp. 148-155

“Victor E. Shelford, an Appreciation”Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America , Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1955) , pp. 116-118

Walls, Laura Dassow “Rediscovering Humboldt's Environmental Revolution” Environmental History , Vol. 10, No. 4 (Oct., 2005) , pp. 758-760 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory.Bonner (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Rory.Bonner (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources

Kingsland, Sharon. "The History of Ecology ." Journal of the History of Ecology . no. 2 (1994): 349-357. (accessed February 24, 2014).

Ormerod, S., M. Pienkowski, and A. Watkinson. "Communicating the Value of Ecology ." Journal of Applied Ecology. no. 6 (1999): 847-855. (accessed February 25, 2014).

Quinn, James. "Human Ecology and Interactional Ecology ." American Sociological Review. no. 5 (1940): 713-722. (accessed February 25, 2014).

Malin, James. "Ecology and History." The scientific Monthly . no. 5 (1950): 295-298. (accessed February 25, 2014).

Wiley, H. "Ecology." science. no. 437 (1903): 794-795. (accessed February 25, 2014).

Aarssen, Lonnie. "On the progress of Ecology." Oikos. no. 1 (1997): 177-178. (accessed February 25, 2014).

Dexter, Ralph. "Facers of Ecology." The American Biology Teacher. no. 3 (1946): 80-84. (accessed February 25, 2014).

SwMcPeek (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New information/New lead

A group of students and I are researching the history of ecology. we plan on editing and adding to the article. We have developed a new lead section that we feel better outlines the history of ecology and have included relevant information we plan on adding very soon.

Ecology is generally spoken of as a new science, having only become prominent in the second half of the 20th century. Its history stems all the way back to the 4th century. One of the first ecologists whose writings survive may have been Aristotle or perhaps his student, Theophrastus, both of whom had interest in many species of animals. Theophrastus described interrelationships between animals and their environment as early as the 4th century BC.

Ecology developed substantially in the 18th and 19th century. It began with Linnaeus and his work with the economy of nature. Soon after cam Humboldt and his work with botanical geography. Wallace and Mobius then contributed with the notion of biocoenosis. Warming’s work with ecological plant geography led to the founding of ecology as a discipline. Darwin’s work also contributed to the science of ecology. Ecological thought expanded even more in the early 20th century. Major contributions included: Suess’ and Verndasky’s work with the biosphere, Arthur Tansley’s ecosystem, and Cowles ecological succession.

Ecology influenced the social sciences and humanities. Human ecology began in the early 20th century and it recognized humans as an ecological factor. Later Lovelock advanced views on earth as a macro-organism with the Gaia hypothesis. Conservation stemmed from the science of ecology. Important figures and movements include Shelford and the ESA, National Environmental Policy act, Marsh, Roosevelt, Forbes, and post-dustbowl conservation. Later in the 20th century world governments collaborated on man’s effect on the biosphere and earth’s environment.

Rory.Bonner (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edits

The lead in section is very strong and well written. There is good neutrality throughout with good citations and strong references to back them up. It is concise for the amount of information that is available for this topic. I also think that it pretty accurately describes what the article goes on to describe. The ecological murmurs section is good, I like that the history of the article comes first beginning with Linnaeus. I think a few changes that could be made would be adding hyper-links to the people like Linnaeus, taxonomy, or binomial nomenclature. I think that that the author’s quotes are great to show what the respectable sources are saying regarding the historians of the past. The botanical geography is a solid paragraph with lots of hyperlinks, which give a strong base to the rest of the article as people can look at other parts of the history. One problem I am seeing is the lack of citations. Citations are coming at the end of large paragraphs. There should be more interspersed through out the article in order to make it more credible. The separation of the article into different times is nice because to allows the reader to follow the history in a linear fashion. I also really liked the timeline of ecologists. It was a great tool to be able to look at the different ecologists that all related to the history of ecology. I think that the title of the following section could be made more concise to describe the next sections, even changing it to “Influence on Social Sciences and Humanities”, would make it more grammatically correct. The separate subsections all greatly help the strength of the article because they have many links to other pages. I also liked that the page includes the conservation and environmental movement because it is an important step in the history of ecology and the section is well written and researched. I am sure it could be separated into smaller subsections, which could lead to better organization throughout that portion of the article. All in all it was a very well written article with only a few slight changes to make. MackenzieGlaze (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ENST 244 Peer Review

Overall I would rate this as a fairly good article, giving it an 8 out of 10 as it is a great collaboration of information that just needs to be structured a little better. There are a few grammar and spelling errors so make sure to read over your work and fix those. The lead section does a good job of summarizing what will be coming later in the article, however, it focuses mainly on the names and less on the chronological theme that you follow with the rest of the article. The third sentence in the lead section about Aristotle and his student should not have the phrase "or perhaps" because this sounds less objective and more opinionated. The structure of the article overall is clear and really helps guide the reader through the history of ecology with the way you have it laid out in chronological order. One thing I noticed is that there are a few instances where you do not capitalize importance proper nouns such as Darwinian. In the section about Carl Linnaeus, you should add a hyperlink to his page as well as a hyperlink to the page on Systema Naturae because these are important aspects to the history of ecology that readers should be given the opportunity to pursue further reading on if they have the interest. Also, elaborate on the quote you provide from Reid to describe who he is and why he should be credible in commenting on Linnaeus's work. There could be more information on Malthusian influence as we have covered him quite a bit in class and he was clearly a very prominent figure in the history of ecology. The timeline of ecologists is a nice asset to the page because it briefly mentions several other components to the history of ecology in a neutral way. There is a lot of good information here. The section on conservation and environmental movements is a bit long and disorganized. This could be split up with different subheadings like the previous portion of the article. I see that you have some reliable references, but you should mention these more so we can get a sense of exactly what information is coming from where.

CJCstudent (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

After reviewing the article I found that it can be helpful in understanding the basics of history of ecology. If there were a reader who had no prior knowledge of what ecology was, this article would greatly assist this person in the comprehension of such an dense topic. Initially, that is how I analyzed the topic and the article. If I could read through the article and found out what the history of ecology means, where it derived from, and its relevance to the world, I think the article got across everything it needed to. What I thought could have been changed is the leading section. I thought the article did a good job of flowing and explaining how ecology has evolved through time. While it did express a great deal of information that was helpful, it also could have been cut short. The second half of the leading section talked about the 20th Century and its impact. I was not sure if that is when most of the contributions were made for the field of history of ecology. A suggestion could be to clear this information up. I did like the separate sections of Malthus and Darwin and their impact on the field. One minor change could be that the last names of certain thinkers are mentioned without the first name. For example you only use 'Linnaeus' last name in the leading section without giving any information on who he is and his impact. Same thing happened with Darwin further down in the 18th-19th Century sections. While they are very famous names, those who are researching for the first time would have a hard time connecting the relationship they have with history of ecology. Thomas Malthus also had a major influence on the field and on Darwin. I thought that the section could have been expanded more due to his analysis of population. The section on Human ecology and its influences on the social sciences and humanities was also in great detail which I thought is to be important especially since it was explaining the evolution of the field. The article covered a lot of information and was well-written. There are some ways the article could be improved such as adding and deleting some information but I thought the article was fairly strong.

RyH11 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no coverage of the "Prairie style movement" school of native Ecology & Landscape!

There is no coverage of the "Prairie style movement" which took place in Chicago around the turn of the 19th century with names like Olmsted, Wright and Jensen, among others. If it was not for their local groundbreaking work over a century ago turning urban Chicagoans and later the world onto the appreciation & beauty of locally evolved Midwestern prairie ecosystems like "Elm-Ash-Cottonwood" & "Oak-Hickories", today there would be no old growth & reclaimed county forest preserves, along with the great number of Municipal parks scattered throughout our modern city if not for their thoughtful efforts.

Another topic which could be included under heading of Ecology is clash between ongoing work of todays naturalists reclaiming & restoring land back to open treeless Prairies/Grasslands and Bottomland/savanna forests butting horns with citizen groups proclaiming that the invasives they are removing have as much right to live as native species. They also point out that even with precious surveys taken before urban sprawl destroyed the native landscape, what choices of restoration should take place since thousands of years of Indian produced prairie fires unnaturally kept open fields of grass & sedges from becoming forest. They also point out the unneeded and destructive utilization of herbicides to kill these invasives, which no doubt also adversely effect native organisms.

My opinion which has no place on Wikipedia is as follows. These area's along our rivers & streams which were once ancient forest was only cut down & plowed over by Riparian farmers some 140 to 170 years ago can still be properly restored today with the same human ability that destroyed/endangered them in the past. This will allow the restoration work of several generations to pass it on to future ones in 500-1000 years with this precious gift.

I too believe use of chemicals should be limited and any examples of invasive trees which do not produce seed should be allowed to stay till natural death. But every effort should be made to restore these endangered "Niche" ecosystems since the natural wildlife relies on them for sustenance which invasives do not supply.

After all, when tourists visit Chicago, they want to enjoy and see our regions iconic ancient natural ecology. Not some forest of Asian species which took over and conquered after humanity inadvertently introduced them locally while never making an effort to correct situation. Yes todays preservation methods, some unproven until time passes being performed by uncaring county forest preserve workers might be misdirected. But it's a start so lets work together! 2601:D:D000:C71:9CBE:CDE1:176A:6B88 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Scottie Ash Tree Seed2601:D:D000:C71:9CBE:CDE1:176A:6B88 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

should they be added?

Anton Kerner von Marilaun is suggested by my ecology professor - G Gratzer in BOKU. I think that there can be a long list of ecologists that COULD be added. Some rationalwhy an ecologist deserves a wikipedia page - so is notable- yet not notable enough to go in the page about their specialism would be good.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_ecology"