The instability of field experiments: building an experimental research tradition on the rocky seashores (1950-1985)
The instability of field experiments: building an experimental research tradition on the rocky seashores (1950-1985)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s40656-018-0209-y
复制
发表时间：
2018-09-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
El-Hani, Charbel N.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grodwohl, Jean-Baptiste;Porto, Franco;El-Hani, Charbel N.
在许多实验科学中，例如粒子物理学或分子生物学，建立事实的适当场所是实验室。然而，在群体生物学科学中，实验室通常被认为不能很好地模拟自然界中发生的情况。现场获得的结果通常更有说服力。这就带来了特殊的问题：在环境条件变化超出实验者控制范围的现场获得稳定、可重复的结果比在实验室要困难得多。我们在这里研究这个问题如何影响社区生态学中一个有影响力的实验研究传统，即岩石海岸生态学的研究。 20 世纪 60 年代，一些北美生态学家，最著名的是约瑟夫·康奈尔 (Joseph Connell)、罗伯特·潘恩 (Robert Paine) 和保罗·代顿 (Paul Dayton)，将岩石海岸作为实地实验的模型研究系统。他们的实验看似简单：他们清除了生活在海边的物种，并描述了由此对当地生态造成的影响。这些实验对群落生态学产生了深远的影响。他们为有关种间竞争理论、物种丰富度和食物网生态的因素的推测发展提供了证据。它们还刺激了新概念的发展。特别是，潘恩提出了捕食假说，该假说指出捕食者的存在可以促进物种丰富度，然后引入了关键物种概念，根据该概念，某些物种对生态系统产生了不成比例的影响。更广泛地说，这些实验支持了有利于现场实验的方法论趋势。似乎只有现场受控扰动才能提供一种可靠的方法来深入了解生态群落的结构。然而，随着实验的继续和在不同地点的重复，出现了不同的结果。我们在这里分析潮间带研究人员如何应对环境条件的变化并试图稳定他们的结果。在此过程中，他们不仅重新考虑了早期的结论，还重新考虑了现场实验的排他性地位。扩展这个案例研究，我们讨论了实验室和现场实验之间的一些显着差异。
In many experimental sciences, like particle physics or molecular biology, the proper place for establishing facts is the laboratory. In the sciences of population biology, however, the laboratory is often seen as a poor approximation of what occurs in nature. Results obtained in the field are usually more convincing. This raises special problems: it is much more difficult to obtain stable, repeatable results in the field, where environmental conditions vary out of the experimenter's control, than in the laboratory. We examine here how this problem affected an influential experimental research tradition in community ecology, the study of the ecology of the rocky seashores. In the 1960s, a handful of North-American ecologists, most notably Joseph Connell, Robert Paine and Paul Dayton, made the rocky seashores a model study system for experimenting in the field. Their experiments were deceptively simple: they removed species living on the seashore and described the resulting effects on the local ecology. These experiments exerted a deep influence on community ecology. They provided evidence for speculative developments concerning the theory of interspecific competition, the factors responsible for species richness and the ecology of food webs. They also stimulated novel conceptual developments. In particular, Paine developed the predation hypothesis, which states that the presence of predators can favour species richness, before introducing the keystone species concept, according to which some species exert disproportionate effects on ecological systems. More broadly, these experiments gave support to a methodological trend in favour of field experimentation. Only controlled perturbations in the field, it seemed, provided a reliable method to get insights into the structure of ecological communities. However, as experiments were continued in time and repeated in different sites, divergent results appeared. We analyse here how intertidal researchers coped with the variability of environmental conditions and tried to stabilize their results. In the process, they reconsidered not only their early conclusions, but also the exclusive status given to field experiments. Expanding on this case study, we discuss some significant differences between laboratory and field experiments.