Guide to the study of animal ecology

by Charles C. Adams

Notes are generally taken in one of two forms, in a book or on loose slips of paper or cards (Hopkins, 1893; Sanderson, 1904). It seems to be very generally agreed that if a book is used it should be of small size, of about 4 × 6 inches, so that it may be conveniently carried in the pocket. For a permanent record such books are a great convenience when once indexed. But when using such notes, while preparing a report, they are not so convenient as the note slips, unless one limits such a report to the form of a narrative. About ten years ago the writer began using a form of notebook in which an aluminum cover held the loose note slips. Thus while in the field one has the advantage of a book with a firm writing surface, and also that of the loose-leaf plan. This form of cover is now used by a number of field naturalists. The disadvantage of the slips not being bound might be remedied in part by using some form of punched slips which are convenient for binding.

Each one must decide for himself which form of recording notes answers his needs most satisfactorily. There are advantages in uniformity, but with the variable nature of work, it is sometimes very convenient to use both methods of recording.

Some students have no method of recording their observations or reflections upon their lines of interest. This seems to be unwise and suggests a method of business without bookkeeping. The efficiency of some students is greater than that of others, not so much because they possess superior mental ability, but because they have superior methods of preserving whatever useful ideas occur to them, while the others, from their lack of records, have no cumulative store upon which to draw. This is an important form of capital. Note keeping is readily seen to consist not only of observations, but also of suggestions, inferences, conclusions, and reflections of any kind which will facilitate methods of work and the interpretation of the facts.

In describing environments, it is desirable to use the same general method for different localities so that the descriptions may be comparable and show some degree of standardization. This method has been found very useful in taxonomic studies and has similar advantages here. A brief general statement of the most conspicuous features may precede, and be followed by detailed descriptions. The order may well vary with individual workers, but a uniform method is desirable throughout any single piece of work and has obvious advantages. Thus one practical plan applied to a forest habitat is, to describe the substratum, the soil, rock, etc., then the forest litter of organic débris, then the boles of the trees and the forest crown and its character, and finally the operation of those agencies which are causing changes in the forest and which will perpetuate or change it in the future. No practical forester would be content to shut his eyes to the future crop of wood, and in the study of animal habitats we must not be content to rest below such a commercial standard. To some this seems very theoretical, and yet a farmer who counts upon a crop in five months, or a forester, in fifty years, is not so branded, and the ecologist need have no fear in using such practical methods. In other words, we should consider the future stages of the developing habitat and learn to perceive the evidences which show in which direction development or change is taking place; or to determine the “orderly sequence of external nature.” Not only should the future be considered, but we should strive also to read the record backward and interpret the past in terms of processes now in operation. In this respect the point of view of the geologist who interprets the past in terms of present processes may well merit our attention. To understand our habitats they must be studied not only in their length and breadth, but also in depth—past and future—as they have all three dimensions.

The preceding remarks bear equally well upon observations of the activities of animals in nature, on account of the absence of controlled conditions, for these methods have almost as much significance as the study of the environments themselves; and equally careful observations and descriptions are essential, if the detailed processes of animal activities and their transformations are to be recorded.

An experienced naturalist finds that from year to year the amount of notes which he takes increases rapidly, and in a very direct ratio to the progress which he makes in his study. Good note taking is not a passive process, but one which calls for an alert mind. The prolonged interest which is necessary to secure detailed observations implies such a frame of mind. Every one soon tires of any subject unless new features are constantly being discovered.

In the description of the associations in any given habitat, the problem is much simplified if one has a clear idea of dominance, knows how to recognize it, and understands some of its main implications. The dominant forms are the most common and powerful individuals in the association. They may or may not be the most conspicuous, from a superficial view. Conspicuousness may depend upon size, but dominance refers to large absolute numbers and to influence exerted. We may profitably compare an association of animals in a given habitat to a play upon the stage. The environment corresponds to the stage. The dominant members of the association correspond to the leading characters, the secondary species, always present, to the essential but subordinate characters. The individual animals adjust themselves to one another, especially to the dominant forms, and to the environment, as the personalities in the play adjust themselves to the dominant characters, to one another, and to the environment. In both groups some individuals are dominant, some used and useful, some are tolerated, others pick up the crumbs, still others are predatory or parasitic, and all must be mutually adjusted to one another and to the environment.

The number of dominant species within an association is relatively limited, a fact which holds for both plants and animals. A knowledge of perhaps 200 or 300 species of animals (and 150 plants) will enable one to work advantageously in many localities (as in the state of Illinois). Of this number perhaps not more than about one half or one third can be considered dominant. Every one who has tried to make extensive local lists of species knows that it requires many years of collecting to secure a large number of species. These rare species are generally of quite minor importance ecologically. Considerations of this character should be encouraging to those who may be intimidated by the idea of large numbers of species. Then, of course, it should be remembered that there are many aspects of ecological work which do not meet with this variety of animals.

IV. THE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION AND DETERMINATION OF SPECIMENS

Ecological study does not end with collecting specimens, and it may not begin there. The importance of collecting and preserving specimens will vary with the phase of ecological study considered. In the field study of behavior of a single species there may be almost no collecting of animals but much collecting of notes; but if one is devoted primarily to the recognition and study of the composition of associations and their interrelations, much collecting will have to be done. Also, when studying the ecological relations of some taxonomic unit, as in aggregate ecology, the number of associates is so large that one must do rather extensive collecting. But even the exhaustive study of the behavior of any single species will necessitate considerable collecting. The necessity for this has been shown by Forbes (1880, The Food of Fishes, p. 20) as follows: “If one wishes to become acquainted with the black bass, for example, he will learn but little if he limits himself to that species. He must evidently study also the species upon which it depends for its existence, and the various conditions upon which these depend. He must likewise study the species with which it comes in competition, and the entire system of conditions affecting their prosperity. Leaving out any of these, he is like one who undertakes to make out the construction of a watch, but overlooks one wheel; and by the time he has studied all these sufficiently, he will find that he has run through the whole complicated mechanism of the aquatic life of the locality, both animal and vegetable, of which his species forms but a single element.”