Guide to the study of animal ecology

by Charles C. Adams

Whether sociology is regarded as a response of man to his fellows or to the whole of his environment is inconsequential in its bearing upon whether or not it is ecological. The response of man, as an animal, to a part or the whole of his environment is strictly ecological. Huxley recognized one relation very clearly, and that is that the ecological relations of individuals do not currently include the higher synthesis which deals with them as associations, or “aggregates” as he terms them. So far as known to the writer, human activities in general have never been fully and comprehensively oriented from the ecological standpoint, even by the humanitarians themselves, although some important preliminary steps have been taken. It looks as if such a viewpoint might give a new unity to all studies of human relations.

There is still another class of persons, particularly teachers and isolated students, who desire first of all to understand and interpret their own vicinity, and who will inquire which of the three plans their work best fits. If such a one begins with the detailed study of each species, the general survey will not be completed during his lifetime. If he uses the larger taxonomic units, he may survey the field by going over the same ground again and again, with each of the different groups successively in mind, until the entire field has been surveyed. Or, lastly, he may divide the area into associations and study the animals which are found living together, and by studying one association after another he may cover the entire field. A teacher will find certain important advantages in this plan, and certain disadvantages. One of the most important considerations in its favor is that such a study results in a familiarity with the kinds of animals one actually finds in natural groups, as when his class is on an excursion. The natural history which a farmer, a fisherman, a summer vacationist, or a sportsman acquires is grouped in this same manner. Thus to a large number of people this is the natural method of approach, and is generally of most permanent value, except possibly to some professional teachers or zoölogists. One of its greatest disadvantages is that in most of the literature which one must use, the animals are not grouped in this way, but taxinomically.

The individual, aggregate, and associational methods of study are in themselves subject to diverse angles of approach, and each has its particular advantages and disadvantages. Of the methods of approach mention will be made of three only, the descriptive, the comparative, and the genetic or method of processes. The descriptive method must develop to some degree before the genetic problems can be adequately stated, and the mature development of the genetic may, and generally does, lag far behind that of the descriptive. The reason for this is simple, for it is evident that it is much easier to describe what we see than it is to explain how it originated or its process of development. At present biology as a science is mainly in the descriptive stage, though it is slowly but surely becoming explanatory and genetic. The developmental or explanatory method is so difficult that every possible expedient—observation, comparison, reflection, experiment, etc.—must be used to secure the proper development of the main phases of ecology. There is a marked tendency in the naturalist to master one system of work, as observation or experiment, and to use it as a tool almost exclusively, turning from one phase of the subject to another, and continuing the use of the same method. This way of working is favorable to a good technique, but its weakness is that it often tends to give its user a feeling of the great superiority and reliability of the result reached by his method, and a correspondingly less appreciative recognition of results secured by other methods. To observe, to experiment, to reflect, to dissect, to stain, and to collect are only partial methods of investigation, and this fact should be realized and be kept in mind when estimating values and planning work.

The aim of the ecologist is professedly genetic or explanatory because it is the study of responses to all conditions of the complete environment. But these responses must be described, and the conditions influencing them as well, so that a descriptive aspect is an essential part in all phases of ecology. In the study of the responses of an individual, an order, or an association, pure description of the responses is necessary; but a description which will at once describe and show the working of the processes by which the results were produced, is of quite a different order. This phase of explanation has been most concisely expressed and applied by the students of the physical sciences, and biologists may profit much from a study of their methods.

When, however, we turn to the viewpoint of the development of the science of ecology as a whole, a symmetrical development of the subject is most desirable. The preponderating influence of any special point of view tends, like dominance in general, to smother or suppress other germinating and competing ideas. The different special interests each have their advantages and disadvantages, as does a general interest. Diversity in students leads to diversity in the development of the subject, and a variety of emotional appeals to the student has its advantages. And just as the special student should devote some attention to the general bearing of his work, so also should the student of the general aspects cultivate some special field of interest.

The preceding discussion of the aims and methods in ecological study has been intended to indicate some of its general bearings, and to give the student some idea of the tests or criteria which may be used to aid in steering his course through the maze of observations which he may make and the opinions which he encounters. It is of equal importance for the student to be able to perceive ecological relations as recorded by others, because one person’s experience is so limited compared with the general body of recorded fact and inference. Furthermore, there are also so many degrees and kinds of work that go by the name ecological, which may or may not be, and so many also which are truly ecological but which do not pass under that name, that it is necessary that the student shall be able to see through its diverse guises and recognize its essential character. Whenever the question arises as to the ecological character of a fact, inference, or conclusion, its ecological validity may be tested in the following way:

Do the facts, inferences, or conclusions show a response to the inorganic or organic environment:

1. As an individual of a species or kind of animal?

2. As a group of taxonomically related animals?

3. As an association of interacting animals?