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
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