22.01.2014 Views

PE EIE[R-Rg RESEARCH ON - HJ Andrews Experimental Forest

PE EIE[R-Rg RESEARCH ON - HJ Andrews Experimental Forest

PE EIE[R-Rg RESEARCH ON - HJ Andrews Experimental Forest

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

successful .<br />

Thus we can see modeling as the impositio n<br />

of structure on existing knowledge . As such ,<br />

it is a joint activity between those familia r<br />

with forms and structures and those familiar<br />

with a body of knowledge . In time, the structure<br />

imposed becomes integrated into th e<br />

scientific paradigm of the object, providin g<br />

new insight and a base for extending concepts<br />

. In this view, modeling is an integra l<br />

part of the theoretical advance of a subject<br />

science, not an external, nor peripheral ,<br />

activity engaged in by mathematicians o r<br />

other specialists .<br />

Now I don 't think that I am the only on e<br />

with this view, but there are sufficiently man y<br />

opposing views among modelers and sufficiently<br />

many misconceptions among subjec t<br />

specialists that verbalization of this perspective<br />

is essential in an introduction of th e<br />

present topic . I view our efforts to develop a<br />

total ecosystem model as a contribution to<br />

the scientific paradigm of ecosystems . Ou r<br />

primary activity as modelers is the conceptualization<br />

of theoretical ecosystem structure s<br />

and behavior. The present paper deals wit h<br />

the structural aspects of a developing family<br />

of models for the forest ecosystem at a date<br />

late in 1971, and with the strategy we have<br />

adopted to pursue our objectives .<br />

Approaches to System<br />

Theory and Definition<br />

Klir (1969, 1972) discusses in some detail a<br />

variety of definition forms and approaches t o<br />

developing a general theory of systems . This<br />

seems a productive direction and the following<br />

section is my own interpretation and<br />

elaboration of these passages in Klir . There<br />

may be inadvertent deviations from Klir 's<br />

intent .<br />

The State Variable (or State Space) approach<br />

seems to describe the model structur e<br />

currently most popular in several fields, including<br />

ecology . The essence of this approac h<br />

is that the system is defined as a set of variables,<br />

the state variables, and a set of variable s<br />

representing the environment, in a particular<br />

temporal resolution . A popular version de -<br />

fines compartments, with the state variable s<br />

describing the contents of the compartments .<br />

The definition is completed by specificatio n<br />

of algorithms for change of the state variables<br />

in time .<br />

Klir has proposed a general systems theory<br />

which, although not distinct from the stat e<br />

variable approach, has certain features whic h<br />

apply nicely to study of ecosystems . Specifically,<br />

he identifies five ways in which a<br />

system may be defined :<br />

1. By the set of external quantities and th e<br />

resolution level<br />

2. By the given activit y<br />

3. By the permanent behavio r<br />

4. By the Universe-Coupling structure<br />

5. By the State-Transition structure<br />

The models of the system follow definitio n<br />

forms 3, 4 and 5 . Definition form 1 is used in<br />

the planning stages of a modeling or data<br />

collection activity, and a collection of data i s<br />

a realization of definition form 2. It follows<br />

that definition form 1 is implied by form 2<br />

and by forms 3, 4, and 5. When applied to th e<br />

same system, the forms must be mutually<br />

consistent . In the Coniferous Biome, we hav e<br />

adopted a particular combination of the thre e<br />

model forms for our model of the forest ecosystem.<br />

We view each system (or subsystem )<br />

as modeled at two levels :<br />

1. Holistically, according to its Behavior (o r<br />

State-Transition structure) .<br />

2. Mechanistically, according to its Universe-Coupling<br />

structure .<br />

That is, we view Klir ' s Behavior and S-T<br />

structure as useful forms for characterizing<br />

the holistic behavior of a system "as a n<br />

object," and consider that such holistic characterization<br />

is necessary for each define d<br />

system or subsystem . Further, we consider<br />

that in most cases we will also wish to model<br />

the system according to the U-C Structure ,<br />

that is, as a collection of subsystems, eac h<br />

modeled according to its Behavior and with<br />

the collection coupled in a manner appropriate<br />

to the behavioral forms used .<br />

Some further elaboration of these term s<br />

seems necessary, but a formal definition (as i n<br />

Klir 1969 and Orchard 1972) is inappropriate .<br />

An attempt to informally define some of th e<br />

38

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!