tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post7738011727396060350..comments2024-03-19T06:40:22.220-04:00Comments on The EEB & Flow: A good null model is hard to findMarc Cadottehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08335319636148357534noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-64955842528322132872012-02-21T13:25:18.879-05:002012-02-21T13:25:18.879-05:00I have recently become very aware of these types o...I have recently become very aware of these types of environmental issues because of the business we are in. It seems like these two Peters kind of complement each other. One believes a theory must be validated by an experiment, whilst the other believes maths are necessary for validation. Maybe combine the two together and if a theory passes muster with both of these guys it can be assumed that they have come up with a very strong case!green investinghttp://www.greenworldbvi.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-73144047102104429742012-02-14T20:12:33.689-05:002012-02-14T20:12:33.689-05:00It may not be a coincidence that they're both ...It may not be a coincidence that they're both good to learn from, and not just because they're both very good ecologists. Peter and Peter are rough contemporaries, and in part they're teaching the stuff that they learned during their own training. They both have a skeptical streak. Peter M. doesn't buy any idea that hasn't worked in an experiment, and Peter A. doesn't buy any idea that hasn't been rigorously demonstrated mathematically. So they know the history, but they know it in a 'warts and all' way and they don't revere it. For both of them, I suspect teaching the history of the field is very much a way to try to keep today's students from repeating the mistakes of the past.<br /><br />Peter A. is probably the bigger contrarian, though--much of his work is dedicated to attacking widely-held intuitions, especially those derived from MacArthur's work. Even I think that contrarianism isn't always manifested in the best way (some of his work puts too much emphasis on unnecessary complications; I don't believe in introducing complexity just for complexity's sake or just because "it might change the answer"). But I think his body of work deserves huge respect and much of it is essential reading for every community ecologist. In my filing cabinets of reprints (yes, I'm old enough to have several of these), there are more Peter Abrams papers than papers by anyone else.Jeremy Foxhttp://oikosjournal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-55856322761555932382012-02-14T18:36:25.410-05:002012-02-14T18:36:25.410-05:00It's interesting you say that about Morin'...It's interesting you say that about Morin's course. I feel the same way about the grad course in community ecology I took with Peter Abrams here at U of T: reading classic literature helped me think much more clearly about why community ecology is where (and what) it is today.Caroline Tuckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09319215430054509345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-13389257332341103852012-02-14T18:18:15.582-05:002012-02-14T18:18:15.582-05:00Whoops, meant to include this post in my previous ...Whoops, meant to include this post in my previous comment:<br /><br />http://oikosjournal.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/drilling-down-vs-scaling-up/<br /><br />As for why modern phylogenetic and functional approaches aren't recognized as suffering from the same problems as old approaches, one natural hypothesis is that most of the people using these shiny new quantitative tools are largely unfamiliar with the older literature. <br /><br />So what's worse: repeating an old mistake because you're not aware of recent refutations? Or repeating an old mistake because you're totally unaware of the old literature?<br /><br />One of the may great things about being a Morin lab alum is that I had to take Peter's grad course in community ecology, which demands that you both read and think critically about a lot of old stuff (and recent stuff too, of course). Thereby preventing you from making both sorts of mistakes: those borne of undue reverence of the older literature and those born of ignorance of the older literature.Jeremy Foxhttp://oikosjournal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-3840215295640330672012-02-14T14:06:19.809-05:002012-02-14T14:06:19.809-05:00Hi Jeremy - it's true that arguments about nul...Hi Jeremy - it's true that arguments about null models have been going on for a really long time (e.g. Strong et al. 1984, etc), and seem to surface and disappear periodically. What's interesting to me is that modern approaches to assembly (phylogenetic and functional diversity) are prone to the same fallacies we recognized in species-assembly studies, and yet seem to have avoided the same level of scrutiny in terms of null models. You're right, it's probably a good time for the null model issue to come to the forefront again.Caroline Tuckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09319215430054509345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-33713434675315643522012-02-14T12:39:54.862-05:002012-02-14T12:39:54.862-05:00So, the Narcissus Effect (Colwell & Winkler 19...So, the Narcissus Effect (Colwell & Winkler 1984, IIRC) is rediscovered yet again...<br /><br />Time to refight the null model wars!<br /><br />http://oikosjournal.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/why-ecologists-should-refight-the-null-model-wars/<br /><br />http://oikosjournal.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/cool-new-oikos-papers/Jeremy Foxhttp://oikosjournal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com