Abstract
Functional language is ubiquitous in ecology, mainly in the researches about biodiversity and ecosystem function. However, it has not been adequately investigated by ecologists or philosophers of ecology. In the contemporary philosophy of ecology we can recognize a kind of implicit consensus about this issue: while the etiological approaches cannot offer a good concept of function in ecology, Cummins’ systemic approach can. Here we propose to go beyond this implicit consensus, because we think these approaches are not adequate for ecology. We argue that a sound epistemological framework to function in ecology is to be found in organizational approaches. In this line, we define function in ecology as a precise effect of a given constraint on the ecosystem flow of matter and energy performed by a given item of biodiversity, within a closure of constraints. We elaborate on this definition by developing a case study of a bromeliad ecosystem.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We cannot elaborate too much about the issue of the use of function by ecologists here. We have done this in another paper, which we recommend to the interested reader (see Nunes-Neto et al. 2013).
We must notice that there is a problem in assuming that biodiversity (which corresponds to variety) is the functional entity: variety is something inferred (an unobservable) from the observation of the entities that vary and, as a consequence, its status as a cause can be put into question. The same does not seem to happen in the case of the components of biodiversity, which are observable entities.
The changes caused by these factors can be seen as functional, but only through a non-historical perspective, such as Cummins’ (1998[1975]). They cannot be functional from an etiological perspective. Anyway, the central point here is that the origin and spread of traits can happen because of other evolutionary factors, not only selection (Cummins 2002; Nunes-Neto and El-Hani 2011). Then, since the traits originate and spread not only by natural selection, we cannot appeal always to the etiological function as an explanation.
It is important to build a distinction concerning two possible ways of understanding constraint, which are related to the hierarchical frame into which they are embedded: (1) in a nested hierarchy, constraint is a whole-part relationship: it is a restriction of the whole system organization on the component parts of the system and (2) in a control hierarchy, constraint is a restriction from higher-level entities on lower-level ones, but the higher-level entities do not necessarily contain the lower-level ones. The general framework and the case presented here follow this second interpretation of constraint, although it could also be further interpreted according to the first one.
Our definition here converges with the theoretical perspective of O'Neill et al. (1986), Allen and Hoekstra (1992) and Ulanowicz (2000). However, in spite of this convergence, we should point that, these authors did not explicitly intend to develop an approach to function for ecology, and much less they take into account the concept of organizational closure of constraints, which is crucial in ecological systems, in our understanding.
Nevertheless, we think that our approach can account also for the flow of energy in the ecosystem. We think, however, that to consider the energy now would make our analysis much more complicated.
Notice that in our approach, these factors are not functions, but can be interpreted instead as limiting factors. This is a restriction of the domain of functional language in ecology that seems necessary to exclude cases like the following: “the altitude difference caused by hills functions to create divergent communities of animals and plants”.
References
Ahl V, Allen TFH (1996) Hierarchy theory: a vision, vocabulary, and epistemology. Columbia University Press, New York
Allen T, Hoekstra T (1992) Toward a unified ecology. Columbia University Press, New York
Allen C, Bekoff M, Lauder G (eds) (1998) Nature’s purposes—analyses of function and design in biology. MIT Press, Cambridge
Almeida AM, El-Hani CN (2006) A atribuição de função à biodiversidade segundo a visão do ‘papel causal’: uma análise epistemológica do discurso ecológico das últimas duas décadas. Filosofia e História da Biologia 1:21–39
Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:19–31
Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) (2002) Functions: new essays in philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ayala FJ, Arp R (eds) (2010) Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden
Bechtel W, Richardson RC (2010) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. MIT Press, Cambridge
Benzing DH (2000) Bromeliaceae: profile of an adaptative radiation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brussaard L, Pulleman M, Ouédraogo É, Mando A, Six J (2007) Soil fauna and soil function in the fabric of the food web. Pedobiologia 50:447–462. doi:10.1016/j.pedobi.2006.10.007
Caponi G (2010) La ciencia de lo sustentable: razón de ser del discurso funcional en ecología. Principia 14(3):349–373
Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67. doi:10.1038/nature11148
Centler F, Dittrich P (2007) Chemical organizations in atmospheric photochemistries—A new method to analyze chemical reaction networks. Planet Space Sci 55:413–428
Clements FE (2000[1916]) Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. In: Keller DR, Golley FB (eds) The philosophy of ecology: from science to synthesis. University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp 35–41
Collier J (2006) Autonomy and process closure as the basis for functionality. Ann NY Acad Sci 901:280–291. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06287.x
Craver CF (2001) Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philos Sci 68:53–74
Cummins R (1998[1975]) Functional analysis. In: Allen C, Bekoff M, Lauder G (eds) Nature’s purposes—analyses of function and design in biology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 169–196
Cummins R (2002) Neoteleology. In: Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) Functions: new essays in philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 157–172
De Groot R, Wilson M, Bouman R (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408
Diaz S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655. doi:10.1016;S0169-5347(01)02283-2
El-Hani CN, Emmeche C (2000) On some theoretical grounds for an organism-centered biology: property emergence, supervenience, and downward causation. Theory Biosci 119:234–275
Emmeche C, Køppe S, Stjernfelt F (2000) Levels, emergence and three versions of downward causation. In: Andersen PB, Emmeche C, Finnemann NO, Christiansen PV (eds) Downward causation: minds, bodies and matter. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp 13–34
Godfrey-Smith P (1998[1994]) A modern history theory of functions. In: Allen C, Bekoff M, Lauder G (eds) Nature’s purposes—analyses of function and design in biology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 453–477
Huneman P (2011) About the conceptual foundations of ecological engineering: stability, individuality and values. Procedia Environ Sci 9:72–82. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2011.11.013
Jax K (2005) Function and “functioning” in ecology: what does it mean? Oikos 111(3):641–648
Kitcher P (1998[1993]) Function and design. In: Allen C, Bekoff M, Lauder G (eds) Nature’s purposes—analyses of function and design in biology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 479–503
Lavorel S, Garnier E (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556
Lunine J, Hörst S (2011) Organic chemistry on the surface of Titan. Rend Fis Acc Lincei 22:183–189. doi:10.1007/s12210-011-0130-8
Mace G, Norris K, Fitter A (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27(1):19–26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
Maclaurin J, Sterelny K (2008) What is biodiversity?. Chicago University Press, Chicago
Mikkelson G (2004) Biological diversity, ecological stability, and downward causation. In: Oksanen M, Pietarinen J (eds) Philosophy and biodiversity: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 119–229
Mossio M, Moreno A (2010) Organisational closure in biological organisms. Hist Phil Life Sci 32:269–288
Mossio M, Saborido C, Moreno A (2009) An organizational account of biological functions. Brit J Philos Sci 60:813–841. doi:10.1093/bjps/axp036
Nadrowski K, Wirth C, Scherer-Lorenzen M (2010) Is forest diversity driving ecosystem function and service? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:75–79. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.003
Naeem S (2002) Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigm. Ecology 83(6):1537–1552
Nunes-Neto NF, El-Hani CN (2006) Gaia, Teleologia e Função. Episteme 11:15–48
Nunes-Neto NF, El-Hani CN (2011) Functional explanations in biology, ecology, and earth system science: contributions from philosophy of biology. Bost Stud Philos Sci 290:185–200. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9422-3_13
Nunes-Neto NF, Carmo RS, El-Hani CN (2013) O conceito de função na ecologia contemporânea. Rev Filos Aurora 25(36):43–73. doi:10.7213/revistadefilosofiaaurora.7765
O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Pattee HH (1972) Laws and constraints, symbols and languages. In: Waddington CH (ed) Towards a theoretical biology 4, essays. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 248–258
Petchey O, Gaston K (2006) Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol Lett 9:741–758. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00924.x
Pickett STA, Kolasa J, Jones CG (2007) Ecological understanding: the nature of theory and the theory of nature. Academic Press, Burlington
Romero G, Srivastava D (2010) Food-web composition affects cross-ecosystem interactions and subsidies. J Anim Ecol 79:1122–1131. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01716.x
Saborido C, Mossio M, Moreno A (2011) Biological organization and cross-generation functions. Brit J Philos Sci 62:583–606. doi:10.1093/bjps/axq034
Schlosser G (1998) Self-re-production and functionality: a systems-theoretical approach to teleological explanation. Synthese 116:303–354
Simon H (1981) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge
Srivastava D, Kolasa J, Bengtsson J, Gonzalez A, Lawler S, Miller T, Munguia P, Romanuk T, Schneider D, Trzcinski M (2004) Are natural microcosms useful model systems for ecology? Trends Ecol Evol 19(7):379–384. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.010
Sterelny K (2006) Local ecological communities. Philos Sci 73:215–231
Tilman D, Lehman C (2002) Biodiversity, composition and ecosystem processes: theory and concepts. In: Kinzig AP, Pacala SW, Tilman D (eds) The functional consequences of biodiversity: empirical progress and theoretical extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 9–41
Ulanowicz R (2000) Ascendancy: a measure of ecosystem performance. In: Jorgensen SE, Muller F (eds) Handbook of ecosystem theories and management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 303–315
Van Gulick R (1993) Who is in charge here? And who’s doing all the work? In: Heil J, Mele A (eds) Mental causation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 233–256
Wilkinson DM (2006) Fundamental processes in ecology: an earth systems approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wouters A (2005) The function debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheor 53:123–151
Wright L (1998[1973]) Functions. In: Allen C, Bekoff M, Lauder G (eds) Nature’s purposes—analyses of function and design in biology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 51–78
Acknowledgments
Nei Nunes-Neto acknowledges to CAPES (Ministry of Education of Brazil) for a PDSE Grant (No. 6084/11-7) and to the Information and Autonomous System Research Group (University of Basque Country) for all the support to the realization of this work. Alvaro Moreno acknowledges the aid of the Research Project IT 505-10 of the Gobierno Vasco and FFU2009-12895-CO2-02 and FFI2011-25665 of the Spanish Ministerio de Economıa y Competitividad. Charbel N. El-Hani thanks the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for a productivity research Grant (No. 301259/2010-0) and both CNPq and the Research Support Foundation of the State of Bahia (FAPESB) for research funding (Project PNX0016_2009). We are indebted to Sergio Martinez and Maximiliano Martinez for thoughtful discussions of a previous version of the paper. Finally, we acknowledge an anonymous reviewer and Kim Sterelny for their valuable comments, which helped to significantly improve the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nunes-Neto, N., Moreno, A. & El-Hani, C.N. Function in ecology: an organizational approach. Biol Philos 29, 123–141 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9398-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9398-7