1 Samuel M. Scheiner and Michael R. Willig, eds. 1. A General ...

carbon cycle, one is likely to be familiar with most theories and concepts listed in Figure 2.2.
Furthermore, theory is often seen as an agent for dissemination of ideas among subdisciplines.
Ecologists working on streams, soils, or other habitats reach to general theories for inspiration
and guidance to questions and problems and adopt the concepts and definitions associate with
such theories. For example, Lake et al. (2007) explicitly call for linking ecological theory with
stream restoration. Similarly, Barot et al. (2007) identify the need for soil ecologists to make
greater use of evolutionary theory and modeling in order to shift emphasis of soil ecology from
particularities of empirical observations to generality that they associate with ecological theories.
Ecologists often think of theory as mathematical models
A strong debate developed in the 1950s and 1960s among the proponents of theory in ecology
based on the response of organisms to resources and habitat conditions (Andrewartha and Birch
1954) and those who saw the need for inclusion of evolutionary and community processes (Lack
1954, Orians 1962). Battles for the conceptual vision of ecology, for its domain, main
assumptions about the subject matter, and the structure of theory are important. Many research
programs were undoubtedly influenced by arguments arising in the course of such debates,
whether a specific debate was about the inclusion of evolutionary processes, energetic, or non-
equilibrium perspective. However, books devoted to theoretical ecology (e.g., Case 2000,
Roughgarden 1998, Yodzis 1989) make no mention of this or similar conceptual debates. These
texts present theory as collections of mathematical models. Although such models are powerful
and illuminating theoretical constructs, their very dominance of the theoretical landscape of
ecology may have unintended consequences because it may detract from or undervalue the
significance of the efforts to reorganize the conceptual framework of ecology. Fortunately, the
project initiated by Scheiner and Willig may mitigate this potential negative effect.
Indeed, there were earlier attempts to refine this framework. Schoener (1985) attempted
to accommodate the diversity of models and perspectives by calling for ‘pluralistic ecology’.
Restricting his scope to community ecology, Schoener believed that the best approach was to
develop separate mathematical models using six primitive (e.g., body size, motility), six
environmental (e.g., spatial fragmentation, severity of physical factors) and six derived (e.g.,
relative importance of competition and predation) axes to classify collections of species into
different community types. Different types of communities would then be approached as
38
38