The model of the organism in ecology: possibilities and boundaries for describing synecological units

Angela Weil
Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Chair of Landscape Ecology

     Full text: Not available
     Last modified: February 15, 2005
     Presentation date: 07/14/2005 9:15 AM in ROZH 107
     (View Schedule)

Abstract
Synecological units (units containing individual organisms or populations of different species due to the relationships with their environment) have often been described like organisms. Such descriptions are controversial for many reasons. I deal with a question of the philosophy of ecology: To what extent is it appropriate to describe synecological units according to the model of an organism, a model which essentially comprises teleological assumptions.
My analysis is based on Kant’s concept of the organism presented in his "Critique of the Power of Judgement". A deduction from this theory can be made for ecology: The first and only way to gain objective knowledge about ecological phenomena is causal explanations without any teleological assumption; neither about the whole unit nor about any of the unit’s elements. In cases, however, where the possibility, but not the necessity with which certain traits occur can be explained causally, we can increase our knowledge heuristically by two ways of teleological judgment: (a) Traits are attributed to the "external organizations" of the single organisms within a synecological unit; the "external organization" of an organism refers to the importance (purposiveness) of environmental factors for it. In this case the synecological unit itself is not judged as an organism and therefore is not judged teleologically. (b) Traits are attributed to the "internal organization" of a synecological unit; from this perspective the single organisms within the unit are no longer seen as independent organisms but as organs or parts of an organ of the whole unit as an organism. In this case the concept of a "synecological organism" is possible.
The analysis of many descriptions of synecological units from ecological literature shows that in most cases there is no reason for such heuristics: The concepts "organization" (also "self-organization"), "function", "emergence", "hierarchy", "self-maintenance", and "regulation" in meanings referring to organisms are not valid to describe traits of ecosystems which can be explained causally. If the mentioned concepts should be used, their meanings need to be clearly defined as separate from the former ones. If traits of a community are attributed to interactions between single organisms within the community, there is no need to assume the community itself as an organism even if these interactions are obligatory mutualistic. According to their functions, single organisms of the community that seem to serve others can be divided into functional groups, and their niches (roles for others) can be defined. Here, the concepts "function", "functional group", and "niche" are used to refer to organisms (the single organisms of the community) but not assuming the community itself is an organism. Some authors describe certain synecological units which might result from certain processes of group selection as "superorganisms"; however, they mention no traits which can justify a description of those units as organisms. The only cases in which the description of a synecological unit as an organism could be valid are cells showing traits of an (unicellular) organism but besides having parts which belong to different species (due to their origins).