I would like to start by expressing the immense satisfaction I felt at the presence of Daniel Simberloff at the Faculty of Biology of the University of Barcelona on the occasion of the award of the Premi Margalef d'Ecologia 2012 (2012 Margalef Ecology Award). It was a privilege to introduce him to all those present, especially to our students, who were there in the expectation of something truly special

Pretus Real, Joan Lluís

English

Diposit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona

5www.cat-science.catDISTINGUISHED LECTURESCONTRIBUTIONS to SCIENCE 9 (2013) 5-6   Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona, Catalonia doi: 10.2436/20.7010.01.157   ISSN: 1575-6343   www.cat-science.cat O P E N A A C C E S SCONTRIBUTIONS to SCIENCE 9 (2013) 5-6similar reasoning applied to the distribution of birds in the set of islands making up remote archipelagos, in order to list rules and more rules for the assembly of communities from the organising principle of competition, as if the pat-terns observed in Nature would directly reflect the processes or mechanisms involved.It was in fact Daniel Simberloff who woke us up sud-denly from this dream. In a devastating article in 1979, Daniel Simberloff and Edward Connor rebutted one by one all the ecological mechanisms that the observed patterns seemed indisputably to reveal [1]. In the exposure of scien-tific hypotheses as false, it was made clear that it was urgent to help to mature the assumptions of ecology. Classical niche ecology, that nourished by Hutchinson and MacAr-thur with their charismatic style, was fatally shaken, and with it the presuppositions of an idealistic, metaphysical and deductive way of doing science.From then on, observations began to have their own personality and an intrinsic refutation value, and ceased to be considered simple degenerate deformations of unattain-able ideal models, like the deformed shadows projected onto the cave of the philosopher. The ecology of communi-ties had still not managed to free itself from them, deeply rooted as it was in the doctrine that worshipped the Logis-tic Equation above all contrary evidence.The Simberloff school, based at Florida State University at Tallahassee, kept developing null models for the differ-ent hypotheses gathered over the years—hypotheses that seem naive to us now—about the structure of communities. The so-called Tallahassee Mafia played a leading role in the turbulent 1980s. With the relevant null models there ap-peared patterns that were too similar to those observed, and this time only from independent—not interdependent—processes. In fact, null models generated patterns through the randomisation of the supposed mechanism they were meant to test. But we should say that Dan Simberloff does not like talking about chance, but rather about indepen-dence [6]. If we preserve some simulation variables re-sembling sufficiently the conditions observed, the null model provides us with the expected patterns under inde-I would lIke to start by expressing the immense satisfac-tion I felt at the presence of Daniel Simberloff at the Faculty of Biology of the University of Barcelona on the occasion of the award of the Premi Margalef d’Ecologia 2012 (2012 Mar-galef Ecology Award). It was a privilege to introduce him to all those present, especially to our students, who were there in the expectation of something truly special.It is in fact as students taking our first steps into the world of ecology that communities is one of the paths we tread most often. Just as the biologist is expected to have the skill to recognise the commonest species in a specific taxonomic group, so ecologists are expected to interpret the sense of the specific make-up of samples and thus the general distribu-tion of species, analysing what we have come to call the struc-ture of the community. The work of the ecologist therefore consists of organising a data table of species sorted into sam-ples and squeezing it numerically in a convenient way. In essence, what is being sought is the empiric verification of how competition among species has organised their distribu-tion into different degrees of abundance and into different rates of occurrence in samples. This would finally allow us to verify the activity of competition (note the vicious circle) and thus understand the niche of each species.And I say ‘would’, as at the turning of the 1970s and into the 1980s the validity of this procedure for gaining ac-cess to what we imagined were the great issues of ecology, this quick way of ecology, was shattered to pieces, and the theory that had supported the analysis became something close to a fairytale. At that time, acclaimed authors still used Ramon Margalef Award for Ecology 2012Daniel Simberloff: Creative and devastatingJoan L. PretusDepartment of Ecology, University of Barcelona, CataloniaBased on the introduction to the lecture given by Daniel Simberloff, recipient of the Ramon Margalef Award for Ecology, at the Aula Magna of the Faculty of Biology of the University of Barcelona on 31 October 2012.Correspondence: Department of EcologyFacultat de Biologia, Universitat de BarcelonaAv. Diagonal, 64308028 Barcelona, CataloniaTel. +34-934021509. Fax +34-934111438E-mail: jpretus@ub.eduDaniel Simberloff: Creative and devastating6 CONTRIBUTIONS to SCIENCE 9 (2013) 5-6www.cat-science.catcome to the end of its mission and was not worth keeping in an active role’ [3]. One discovers here a personal style identical in the deep conviction and determination with which both scientists express their positions, as when Sim-berloff writes in regard to the hypothesis of the existence of a minimum quotient of measures among competing species that this rule has outlived its own usefulness.Despite all that we have said, Dan Simberloff has greatly contributed to grasping specific situations in which compe-tition is the dominant driving agent, as in the detection of the evolutionary displacement of characters. In addition, he has not spared creativity when suggesting new mecha-nisms, such as invasional meltdown, in an already classic ar-ticle, a kind of invasive shock whereby at least two non-na-tive species establish positive responses by increasing their effect on the local community [5].Dan Simberloff’s dedication to invasive species in the last two decades bears witness to the strength of his internal agenda and to his commitment to the real problems of ecol-ogy. A coherence that leads from the freshness of his youth, where he became involved in insular theory through exper-imentation, and the fertile and combative period of his ear-ly maturity, to his full maturity where we see him making use of his rigorous scientific spirit to reorganise disciplines involving complex socio-environmental problems that go beyond any academic debate and necessitate taking stances in the social arena as well.Finally, I would like to stress that, over and above spe-cific styles and preferences, it is the ‘emerging’ traits such as valour, honesty and sincerity, that best unite great scien-tists: individualities that, as seen in Simberloff and Mar-galef, we appreciate above all as they tell of exemplary hu-man beings and extraordinary individuals.  References1. Connor EF, Simberloff D (1979) The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60:1132-11402. Holling, CS, Gunderson LH, Ludwig D (2001). In quest of a theory of adaptive change. In: Gunderson LH & Holling CS (eds). Panarchy: un-derstanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 3-243. Margalef R (1980) La biosfera: entre la termodinámica y el juego. Ome-ga, Barcelona, Catalonia4. Simberloff D (1970) Taxonomic diversity of island biotas. Evolution 24:23-475. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindige-nous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21-326. Vázquez D, Collins M (1999) Modelos en ecología: entrevista con Daniel Simberloff. Boletín de la Asociación Argentina de Ecología 8:34-38pendence instead of interdependence, in the absence of the mechanism, while the remaining factors imitate observed reality. The interest of Dan Simberloff in laying down alter-native hypotheses and fighting against fairytales had a long background. In 1969, the insular theory having just been launched, the supposedly informative indices of the evolu-tionary mechanisms in islands was already questioned in an article he sent to Evolution [4].But despite the collapse of the paradigm and the appar-ent anarchy in how communities began to be interpreted, Simberloff did not abandon this discipline at all. Yet many ecologists did so, clutching at the straw that the ecology of ecosystems offered them as a salvation tending towards a less problematic sphere and objectives, framed in moder-nity. An escape towards a discipline that has been recently enriching itself with the complexity of adaptive functional traits, but which at that time added apparently little to the understanding of how nature works. It perpetuated, using a renewed terminology, the myth of the Balance of Nature [2] that had always been so difficult to resist.The ecology of today is the offspring of those changes, traumatic in their way, in the subject. It is not by chance that ecology should have emerged into a period in which neutrality is the real ruler and in which, stochastic process-es generate their own patterns. We are late in tracing the steps of evolutionary biology itself, where for a time it has been necessary for neutralism to rule, before making it pos-sible, in an era technically much more sophisticated, to re-cover interest in the activities of natural selection.For all the reasons set out, Daniel Simberloff has been defined as an iconoclast, even though I would think it more appropriate to define him as a scientist committed to the improvement of scientific progress understood as a tool for the perception of the material reality that surrounds us, so stripping that reality of anachronistic idealisms.In him, as in Margalef, we detect the clear profile of the man of science—one involved, committed and indepen-dent, both creative and destructive, especially when de-taching himself from concepts that, if ever they had once been useful, regular science has transformed into obstacles, or, as Slobodkin put it, has reified them, thus thwarting progress. Margalef outlined his own way of understanding ecology by removing himself from the reigning statu quo under the niche theory, about which he eventually went on to affirm that ‘it was simply a function of our dissection skills and had no positive characteristics’ and that ‘the con-cept of niche, just as that of trophic chain, had already 

Daniel Simberloff: creative and devastating

http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/174123/1/635924.pdf

Daniel Simberloff: creative and devastating

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Diposit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona