Research methods in ecology

by Frederic E. Clements

13. Reconnaissance and investigation. In striving to indicate the true value and worth of ecological study, it becomes necessary to draw a definite line between what we may term reconnaissance and investigation. By the former is understood the preliminary survey of a region, extending over one or two years. The objects of such a survey are to obtain a comprehensive general knowledge of the topography and vegetation of the region, and of its relation to the other regions about it. The chief purpose, however, is to gain a good working acquaintance with the flora: a reconnaissance to be of value must do this at all events. Certain general facts will inevitably appear during this process, but they will invariably need the confirmation of future study. It would be an advantage to real ecology if reconnaissance were to confine itself entirely to the matter of making a careful floristic survey. Investigation begins when the inquiry is directed to the habitat, or to the development and structure of the formation which it bears, i. e., when it takes up the manifold problems of the οἶκος. Such a study must be based upon floristic, but the latter becomes a part of investigation only in so far as it leads to it. Standing by itself, it is not ecological research: it is the preparation for it. This distinction deserves careful thought. The numerous recruits to ecology have turned their attention to what lay nearest to hand, with little question as to its value, or to where it might lead. The result has been to make reconnaissance far outweigh investigation in amount, and to give it a value which properly belongs to the latter. Furthermore, this mistaken conception has in many cases, without doubt, prevented its leading to valuable research work.

14. Resident investigation. Obviously, if reconnaissance is a superficial survey, and investigation thorough extensive study, an important distinction between them is in the time required. While one may well be the result of a journey of some duration, the other is essentially dependent upon residence. In the past the great disparity between the size of the field and the number of workers has made resident study too often an ideal, but in the future it will be increasingly the case that a particular region will be worked by a trained ecologist resident in it. This may never be altogether true of inaccessible and sterile portions of the globe. It may be pointed out, however, that, between the tropics and the poles, residence during the summer or growing period is in essence continuous residence. In the ultimate analysis, winter conditions have of course some influence upon the development of vegetation during the summer, but the important problems which a vegetation presents must be worked out during the period of development. For temperate, arctic, and alpine regions, then, repeated study during the growing period for a term of years has practically all the advantages of continuous residence. For all practical purposes, it is resident study.

15. The dangers of a restricted field. In the resident study of a particular region, the temptation to make an intensive investigation of a circumscribed area is very strong. The limits imposed by distance are alone a sufficient explanation of this, but it is greatly increased by the inclination toward detailed study for which a small field offers opportunity. This temptation can be overcome only by a general preliminary study of the larger region in which the particular field is located. The broader outlook gained in this way will throw needed light upon many obscure facts of the latter, and at the same time it will act as a necessary corrective of the tendency to consider the problems of the local field in a detached manner, and to magnify the value of the distinctions made and the results obtained. Such a general survey has the purpose and value of a reconnaissance, and is always the first step in the accurate and detailed investigation of the local area or formation. Each corrects the extreme tendency of the other, and thorough comprehensive work can be done only by combining the two methods. When the field of inquiry is a large area or covers a whole region, the procedure should be essentially the same. A third stage must be added, however, in which a more careful survey is made of the entire field in the light of the thorough study of the local area. The writer’s methods in the investigation of the Colorado vegetation illustrate this procedure. The summers of 1896, 1897, 1898 were devoted to reconnaissance; those of 1899–1904 were given to detailed and comprehensive study by instrument and quadrat of a highly diversified, representative area less than 20 miles square, while the work of the final summer will be the application of the results obtained in this localized area to the region traversed from 1896–98. This is practically the application of methods of precision to an area of more than 100,000 square miles. It also serves to call attention to another point not properly appreciated as yet by those who would do ecological work. This is the need of taking up field problems as a result of serious forethought, and not as a matter of accident or mere propinquity. A carefully matured plan of attack which contemplates an expenditure of time and energy for a number of years will yield results of value, no matter how much attention an area may have received. On the other hand, an aimless or hurried excursion into the least known or richest of regions will lead to nothing but a waste of time, especially upon the part of the ecologist, who must read the articles which result, if only for the purpose of making sure that there is nothing in them.

APPLICATIONS OF ECOLOGY

16. The subjects touched by ecology. The applications of ecological methods and results to other departments of botany, and to other fields of research are numerous. Many of these are both intimate and fundamental, and give promise of affording new and extremely fruitful points of view. It has already been indicated that ecology bears the closest of relations to morphology and histology on the one side, and to physiology on the other—that it is, indeed, nothing but a rational field physiology, which regards form and function as inseparable phenomena. The closeness with which it touches plant pathology follows directly from this, as pathology is nothing more than abnormal form and functioning. Experimental work in ecology is purely a study of evolution, and the facts of the latter are the materials with which taxonomy deals. Forestry has already been termed “applied ecology” and in its scientific aspects, which are its foundation, it is precisely the ecology of woody plants, and of the vegetation which they constitute. Apart from botany, the physical side of ecology is largely a question of soil physics, and of physiography. On the other hand, vegetation is coming more and more to be regarded as a fundamental factor in zoogeography and in sociology. Furthermore, with respect to the latter, it will be pointed out below that the principles of association which have been determined for plants, viz., invasion, succession, zonation, and alternation, apply with almost equal force to man.

17. Physiology and pathology. The effect of ecology in emphasizing the intrinsically close connection between physiology and morphology has already been mentioned. Its influence in normalizing the former by forcing it into the field as the place for experiment, and by directing the chief attention to the plant as an organism rather than a complex of organs, is also rapidly coming to be felt. Ecology will doubtless exert a corrective influence upon pathology in the near future. This is inevitable as the latter ceases to be the merely formal study of specific pathogenic organisms, and turns its attention to the cause of all abnormality, which is to be found in the habitat, whether this be physical, as when the water-content is low, or biotic, when a parasitic fungus is present. The relative ease with which specific diseases can be studied has helped to obscure the essential fact that the approach to pathology must be through physiology. Much indeed of the observational physiology of the laboratories has been pathology, and it will be impossible to draw a clear line between them until precise experiment in the habitat has come into vogue.

18. Experimental evolution. As a result of the extremely fragmentary character of the geological record, nothing is more absolute than that there can be no positive knowledge of the exact origin of a form or species, except in those rare cases of the present day, where the whole process has taken place under the eye of a trained observer. The origin of the plant forms known at present must forever lie without the domain of direct knowledge. If it were possible, by a marvel of ingenuity and patience to develop experimentally Myosurus from Selaginella, this would not be absolutely conclusive proof that Myosurus was first derived in this way. When all is said, however, this would be the very best of presumptive evidence. It must also be recognized that this is the nearest to complete proof that we shall ever attain, and with this in mind it becomes apparent at once that evidence from experiment is of paramount importance in the study of evolution (the origin of species).

The phase of experimental ecology which has to do with the plant has well been called experimental evolution. While this is a field almost wholly without development at present, there can be little question that it is to be one of the most fertile and important in the future. Attention will be directed first to those forms which are undergoing modification at the present time. The cause and direction of change will be ascertained, and its amount and rapidity measured by biometrical methods. The next step will be to actually change the habitat of representative types, and to determine for each the general trend of adaptation, as well as the exact details. By means of the methods used and the results obtained in these investigations, it will be possible to attack the much more difficult problem of retracing the development of species already definitely constituted. This will be accomplished by the study of the derived and the supposed ancestral form, but owing to the great preponderance of evolution over reversion, the study of the ancestral form will yield much more valuable results.

The general application of the methods of experimental ecology will mark a new era in the study of evolution. There has been a surplus of literary investigation, but altogether too little actual experiment. The great value of De Vries’ work lies not in the importance of the results obtained, but in calling attention to the unique importance of experimental methods in contributing to a knowledge of evolution. The development of the latter has been greatly hindered by the dearth of actual facts, and by a marked tendency to compensate for this by verbiage and dogmatism. This is well illustrated by the present position of the “mutation theory,” which, so far as the evidence available is concerned, is merely a working hypothesis. An incredible amount of bias and looseness of thought have characterized the discussion of evolution. It is earnestly to be hoped that the future will bring more work and less argument, and that the literary evolutionists will become less and less reluctant to leave the relative merits of variation and mutation to experiment.

19. Taxonomy. Taxonomy is classified evolution. It is distinct from descriptive botany, which is merely a cataloguing of all known forms, with little regard to development and relationship. The consideration of the latter is peculiarly the problem of taxonomy, but the solution must be sought through experimental evolution. The first task of the latter is to determine the course of modification in related forms, and the relationships existing between them. With this information, taxonomy can group forms according to their rank, i. e., their descent. The same method is applicable to the species of a genus, and, in a less degree, perhaps, to the genera which constitute a family. The use to which it may be put in indicating family relationships will depend largely upon the gap existing between the families concerned. While interpretation will always play a part in taxonomy, the general use of experiment will leave much less opportunity for the personal equation than is at present the case. Taxonomy, like descriptive botany, is based upon the species, but, while there may exist a passable kind of descriptive botany, there can be no real taxonomy as long as the sole criterion of a species is the difference which any observer thinks he sees between one plant and another. The so-called species of to-day range in value from mere variations to true species which are groups of great constancy and definiteness. The reasons for this are obvious when one recalls that “species” are still the product of the herbarium, not of the field, and that the more intensive the study, the greater the output in “species.” It would seem that careful field study of a form for several seasons would be the first requisite for the making of a species, but it is a precaution which is entirely ignored in the vast majority of cases. The thought of subjecting forms presumed to be species to conclusive test by experiment has apparently not even occurred to descriptive botanists as yet. Notwithstanding, there can be no serious doubt that the existing practice of re-splitting hairs must come to an end sooner or later. The remedy will come from without through the application of experimental methods in the hands of the ecologist, and the cataloguing of slight and unrelated differences will yield to an ordered taxonomy.