Wikipedia:Peer review/Ecology/archive1

Ecology

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it was nominated for FA status in Sept. 20, 2011 and was knocked down right away. The reviewers left a list of concerns and all of those have since been addressed. Ecology is a very difficult subject matter to contend with, so I feel as though we are fighting an uphill battle. FA's on singe sports player biographies tend to list 200 references, ecology has over 2000 years of work to summarize spanning hundreds of thousands of articles, hundreds of textbooks, and you get the idea. After taking a long break from the article I managed to draw in several scientists with an interest in ecology to join in and assist in putting the article into shape. All the citations have been checked, a sentence-by-sentence copyedit has been completed, images have been checked, and after several years working on this I cannot think of where else to go with this. The history section has grown, shrunk, been chopped, grown, shrunk, and grown again. Every time it gets cut back it seems too incomplete - even with the main history of ecology page, it is difficult to summarize the history - evolution faces this same problem. The history section likely needs the most attention. A diverse peer-review from people with science and non-science background would be helpful, so the non-science background reviewer could flag concepts or parts that are too difficult to understand to a wider audience. Ecology is such an important topic matter that it would be wonderful for the public outreach on the subject matter to get this article up to a FA status. Comparatively, there are few natural science articles making it to the FA status so this is a worthwhile project that needs all the help we can find.

Thanks, Thompsma (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

First of all, my heart goes out to you and your cohorts for even attempting to work on an article of this magnitude. This is exactly the type of article that Wikipedia needs to perfect in order for it to transcend from "place where people learn factoids" to "greatest compendium of knowledge ever created". I would consider it an honor to assist in any way I can. I'm going to review the body of the article first, then worry about the lead later.

• Some of the language used in the beginning of the History section seems rather odd and non-science-y. This passage in particular strikes me as being very weird: "However, they viewed life in terms of static ideals with each species fitting into an essential mold of creation. Varieties were seen as aberrations of an ideal type." It sounds like it is summarizing the ramblings of Hitler after he had smoked marijuana. What is a "static ideal"? What is an "essential mold of creation"? Poetic, certainly, but not informative in the slightest.

Y Changed the text. This was my fault through a recent edit. If you read the classic Greek and then translate it does sound exactly the way you describe it. The idea is that they saw all species conforming to an ideal type (see idealism and Theory of Forms) coming from special creation. So any new species was recast from the same mold. It was static in the sense that it was unchanging. I reworded the text - see if it reads any better.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• History would also benefit from more wikilinks. Natural history? Natural selection? Ecological niche? Biogeography? Food chain? Microscopist? We cannot reasonably assume that all readers will know what such terms mean.

Many of those have already been wikilinked in other parts of the article. One of the past criticisms was to remove all double wikilinks.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Deciding whether or not to link a term multiple times in an article is somewhat subjective. However, if you're only going to link something once, wouldn't it make the most sense to link it upon its first usage? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Nutritious for the sandpiper and beneficial oral hygiene for the crocodile." Not a complete sentence, a fragment.

YFixed.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "[They] made extensive observations on plant and animal migrations, biogeography, physiology, and on their habits" Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, I think "on their habits" should be replaced by "behavior" for conciseness and consistency of tone.

YFixed - the classical term was habits and I was trying to stick with the theme of the historical wording, but behaviour is more modern.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Hippocrates is also credited with reference to ecological topics in its earliest developments." I have literally no idea what this means.

YDeleted - already noted his involvement in earlier sentence. Must have been late night brain fart.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• One broader problem that I'm seeing with History is that it doesn't really give the reader a clear idea of how these early studies differed from biology. What questions were these ancient geniuses attempting to answer?

The early studies didn't differ from biology, because biology wasn't invented until the mid 19th century until after Lamarck coined the term. There was no ecology. It was a time of metaphysics among philosophers. They were trying to understand the world around them, to classify the world according to a guided plan. So I do not know if I can really help with this much, perhaps a sentence summarizing what I have just said might help?Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Ecological concepts such as food chains, population regulation, and productivity did not develop until the 1700s, through the published works of microscopist Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723) and botanist Richard Bradley (1688?–1732)." The first clause discusses what didn't happen, and the second clause discusses how it did happen. I suggest removing the "not" to make this less confusing: "Ecological concepts such as food chains, population regulation, and productivity were first developed in the 1700s, through the published works of microscopist Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723) and botanist Richard Bradley (1688?–1732)."

Y - Nice suggestion! Changed.Thompsma (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Biogeographer Alexander von Humbolt (1769–1859) was ... among the first to recognize ecological gradients." What's that? A link or brief explanation would be helpful.

Y - I made changes - a brief explanation, but someone should check to see if the changes I made help to explain what is meant without getting too complex.Thompsma (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• "In Newtonian fashion, he brought a scientific exactitude for measurement into natural history and even alluded to a modern ecological law on species to area relationships." So he alluded to something that happened in the future...? Was he a time-traveling wizard? Also, I'm pretty sure there should be hyphens in "species-to-area relationships".

No he was not a time-traveling wizard, but alluded:" Suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at." I kinda see where you are going with this. I'll play with the words.Thompsma (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Y - changed to: "In Newtonian fashion, he brought a scientific exactitude for measurement into natural history and even alluded to concepts that are the foundation of a modern ecological law on species-to-area relationships."Thompsma (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've noticed that some of the names presented in Early beginnings are followed by their respective lifespans, but some are not. These should be made consistent, and I think that the lifespans are helpful.
• I'm not seeing anything in Early beginnings about non-Western studies. Did China happen?

If this sort of feedback is helpful, leave a note here or on my talk page, and I will gladly continue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: I will be doing quite a bit of real-life scurrying about for the next couple of weeks. My comments during that time will be sporadic. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

Lead

• You plunge straight into a lead which is heavy going and introduces many concepts without much explanation.
• "Ecosystems are sustained by biodiversity, which is the varieties of life and processes, including lineages of genes, species, and other ecosystems, that integrate through their interactions into complex and regenerative spatial arrangements." - This is quite difficult for someone wondering what Ecology is all about.
• The first paragraph has a sentence ending with "ecosystems" and the next sentence starts with the same word.

I've started a discussion on the article talk page with proposed changes to the lead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving on to "Integrative levels, scope, and scale of organization"

• "Some ecological principles, however, do exhibit collective properties where the sum of the components explain the properties of the whole, such as birth rates of a population being equal to the sum of individual births over a designated time frame." -Isn't this a statement of the obvious?

My interpretation of this is that when you understand a system well enough, you no longer have to appeal to emergence or holism, and it is possible to give a full account of that system in reductionistic terms. I would wait for Thompsma to answer this one though, since he's probably the one who wrote it. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "To structure the study of ecology into a conceptually manageable framework, the biological world is organized into a nested hierarchy of organization, ranging in scale from genes, to cells, to tissues, to organs, to organisms, to species, and up to the level of the biosphere." - I don't think "organize" should be used twice in the same sentence.

Y I eliminated the second occurrence of the word and linked "nested hierarchy" to Biological classification. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• " Preventing species extinctions is one way to preserve biodiversity, but populations, their genetic diversity, and ecological processes such as migration are threatened on global scales and are disappearing rapidly as well." - Any sentence that I need to read 3 times to fully understand is too complex.

What do you think of "Preventing species extinctions is one way to preserve biodiversity, but factors such as genetic diversity and migration routes are equally important and are threatened on global scales."? Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "...consultant firms, governments and industry." - Oxford comma needed?

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Alternatively, patterns differ significantly from the random model and require further explanation" - Is this quite what you mean or does it need the word "aberrant"?

Y I think it is intended ("significantly" implies statistical significance, as compared to the random model which is the null hypothesis), but I cut down that discussion so the statement is no longer present. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "A dynamic metapopulation structure evolves from year to year, where some patches are sinks in dry years and become sources when conditions are more favorable." - I think you are mostly using "English" English.:

Could you explain more what you mean? Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"favorable" is spelt like that in the US but in Britain it is "favourable". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Y I understand now. Thanks, and fixed! :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "A more recent addition to ecosystem ecology are the technoecosystems of the Anthropocene." - even with 2 wikilinks, I think this could do with some explanation.

I changed it to, "A more recent addition to ecosystem ecology are technoecosystems, which are affected by or primarily the result of human activity." (I think the Anthropocene reference may not be necessary here, and it's mentioned elsewhere in the article.) Is that better? Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "While food webs often give an incomplete measure of ecosystems, they are nonetheless a valuable tool in understanding community ecosystems." - 2 ecosystems in one sentence.

Y Reworded. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Each trophic level contains unrelated species that grouped together because they share common ecological functions." - Needs a verb.

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "This has lead some ecologists to "reiterate that the notion that species clearly aggregate into discrete, homogeneous trophic levels is fiction."" - Shouldn't this be "led"?

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "A keystone species is a species that is disproportionately connected to more species in the food-web." - Do you really mean "more species"?

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really very well qualified to comment on this article which goes way beyond my knowledge and understanding of the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That kind of feedback is just as important, and I hope you can find time to make more comments as well. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I second that. It might actually be more useful so that the information is more generally accessible.Thompsma (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I will review further later today. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Continuing my comments

Ecological complexity

• "Complexity in ecology is of at least six distinct types: spatial, temporal, structural, process, behavioral, and geometric." "New properties emerge because the components interact, not because the basic nature of the components is changed." - There are quite a few quotations like this in this article. I was told that such statements should not be quoted in this way but should be rewritten and suitably attributed.
• "An example of metaphysical holism is identified in the trend of increased exterior thickness in shells of different species" - I think this could be more clearly expressed.

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Relation to evolution

• The word "elaborate" appears three times in the last paragraph of "Behavioural ecology".

• "Groups that are predominantly altruists beat groups that are predominantly selfish." - I think "altruistic" would be better.

Y Done (and also reworded a bit). Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was surprised at your subsections "Social ecology", which concerns social behaviour, and "Coevolution" because I would not have myself included them in an article called "Ecology". I'm probably wrong here.

I'm going to agree with your last part. Social ecology is quite important - several journals devoted to this really. It is part of ecology proper. It could go as a sub-section to behavioural ecology. It is a topic covered in several of my ecology textbooks. Coevolution is a topic that is also covered in ecology textbooks and I can find numerous hits for this in the main ecology journal. Great works on the other parts though.Thompsma (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The rise of molecular technologies and influx of research questions into this new ecological field resulted in the publication Molecular Ecology in 1992." I think this needs rephrasing.
• "Newer technologies opened a wave of genetic analysis into organisms once difficult to study from an ecological or evolutionary standpoint, such as bacteria, fungi and nematodes. Molecular ecology engendered a new research paradigm for investigating ecological questions considered otherwise intractable." - Don't these two sentences say much the same thing?
• "Molecular investigations revealed previously obscured details in the tiny intricacies of nature and improved resolution into probing questions about behavioural and biogeographical ecology" - I would have used "of" rather than "into".

A few more points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Human ecology

• "... other disciplines were interested in human relations to natural systems centuries prior, especially in the late 19th century." - I think this sounds a bit odd.
• "Ecosystems produce, regulate, maintain, and supply services of critical necessity and beneficial to human health (cognitive and physiological), economies, and they even provide an information or reference function as a living library giving opportunities for science and cognitive development in children engaged in the complexity of the natural world." - This sentence is too long and complex.

Relation to the environment

• "The laws of thermodynamics, for example, applies to ecology by means of its physical state." - Singular and plural mixed up here.

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "In this way, the environmental and ecological relations are studied through reference to conceptually manageable and isolated material parts that are accounted for." - Prepositions are usually kept away the end of sentences from!

Y Removed "that are accounted for." Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago. As the Earth cooled and a crust and oceans formed, the atmosphere transformed from being dominated by hydrogen to one composed mostly of methane and ammonia." - I would have thought both these sentences would be better in the passive tense and the second one could have "it" rather than repeating the subject.

Y Done. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Anoxygenic photosynthesis converting hydrogen sulfide into other sulfur compounds or water (for example 2H2S + CO2 + hv → CH2O + H2O + 2S), as occurs in deep sea hydrothermal vents today, reduced hydrogen concentrations and increased atmospheric methane." - This sentence is too long and complex and the subject is too far away from the verb.

Reworded to "Anoxygenic photosynthesis reduced hydrogen concentrations and increased atmospheric methane, by converting hydrogen sulfide into water or other sulfur compounds (for example, 2H₂S + CO₂ + hv → CH₂O + H₂O + 2S)" (removing "as occurs in hydrothermal vents today"). Is this better?

• "... but photosynthetic processes started 0.3 to 1 billion years prior.- Why not use earlier or before rather than the more stilted prior?

Y Done. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Autotrophs—responsible for primary production—assimilate light energy that becomes metabolically stored as potential energy in the form of biochemical enthalpic bonds. - I think "which" should replace "that".

Y Done. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "For example, wind running over the surface of a lake creates turbulence, mixing the water column and influencing the environmental profile to create thermally layered zones, affecting how fish, algae, and other parts of the aquatic ecology are structured." - I would replace aquatic ecology" with some other term.

Y Replaced with "aquatic ecosystem." Sunrise (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "... global trade winds. Wind power and the turbulent forces it creates ..." - best not to have the word "wind" twice in such proximity.
• "Approximately 350 million years ago (at the end of the Devonian period), the amount of photosynthesis ..." - Maybe the "accumulated products of photosynthesis".

Y Reworded. Sunrise (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Fire is a significant ecological parameter that raises many issues pertaining to its control and suppression in management." - I'm not keen on having the "in management" at the end of the sentence.

Y Removed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Charles Cooper brought attention to the issue of forest fires in relation to the ecology of forest fire suppression and management in the 1960s." - I think this sentence could be clarified.
• "The decomposition of dead organic matter, such as leaves falling on the forest floor, turns into soils containing minerals and nutrients that feed into plant production. " - This sentence is awkwardly phrased.

Y Changed to "The decomposition of dead organic matter (for example, leaves fallen on the forest floor), results in soils containing minerals and nutrients that feed into plant production." Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• " an ecological process called bioturbation. Bioturbation aerates soils and stimulates heterotrophic ..." - Two adjacent "bioturbation"s.

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• " Soil microorganisms are influenced by and feed back into the trophic dynamics of the exposed solar surface ecology." - I don't think you mean the surface of the sun.

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "For example, through the early-mid Eocene volcanic outgassing, the oxidation of methane stored in wetlands, and seafloor gases increased atmospheric CO2 (carbon dioxide) concentrations to levels as high as 3500 ppm" - If you start mentioning CO2 concentrations in this way I think you should give a current figure for comparison.
• "In the Oligocene, from 25 to 32 million years ago, there was another significant restructuring of the global carbon cycle as grasses evolved C4 photosynthesis and expanded their ranges." - This sentence implies that grasses were non-photosynthetic before that date.

Reworded. The issue should hopefully be addressed now. Sunrise (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reached the end! Heavy going but more interesting in the later part (to me). Good luck with it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RJH: It's a generally good article, although there is quite a bit of heavy reading in places that might make it less engaging than it could be. Here's a few observations and nit-picks:

• "...where varieties are viewed as the real phenomena of interest and having a role...": should "and having a" be "because of their"? Otherwise the wording seems awkward and somewhat ambiguous.
• "...to Herodotus (died c. 425 BC). Herodotus described...": wouldn't "He" serve instead of repeating "Herodotus"?

Technically a pronoun and its antecedent should be of the same part of speech, e.g. since "He" would be the subject of the second sentence, "Herodotus" would have to be the subject of the previous sentence. I replaced it with "who" though. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "...developed through contributions from other nations...": other than what nations?
• "The historic emphasis and poetic naturalist writings for protection was on wild places, from notable ecologists in the history of conservation biology, such as Aldo Leopold and Arthur Tansley, were far removed from urban centres where the concentration of pollution and environmental degradation is located.": this sentence seems rather confusing.
• "More recently...": is WP:DATED.

Y Replaced with "since then." Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "...respect to local site variables...": aphids are variables?

I think I've fixed this. I'll let Thompsma decide whether I've introduced any inaccuracy. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "...are threatened on global scales": This is something of a vague, dangling implication. Is it needed here? If so, perhaps it should be clarified?
• The jargon term "positive fitness" should probably be clarified.
• "Other researchers have recently categorized other biomes...": This is both vague and dated. Other researchers than whom? How recently?
• "In cases when the use of null hypotheses is not appropriate": What is the null hypothesis in this instance?

Y That the data was produced by random processes (referenced earlier in the section). I have reworded it though, in favor of a broader statement ("In cases where basic models are insufficient..."). Sunrise (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...go extinct locally and recolonize": you could perhaps clarify right away that this is a reference to migration, rather than leaving the meaning unclear for several sentences.
• "...sites that only receive migrants and will go extinct...": the site goes extinct, or the individuals?

Y Fixed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "...or (more recently) stable...": dated.

Y Deleted. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• For the equation in the "Population ecology" section, I wonder if some readers might not find the dual use of dN to be confusing. I changed the derivative to use the operatorname() function, but perhaps there is a better solution?
• "Complexity is easily understood as a large computational effort needed to piece together numerous interacting parts exceeding the iterative memory capacity of the human mind.": Is the word 'easily' intended to be ironic here? Some readers may not find this to be 'easily' understood.

Y Removed the word. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "multiple shifting steady-states" is oxymoronic. Is this intended to convey quasistable states?
• "The International Long Term...": needs a transition statement; how is this connected to the text before and after?

Y Clarified. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "All organisms are motile to some extent. Even plants express complex behaviour, including memory and communication.": The relation between these two sentences is not immediately clear. The fourth sentence even distinguishes between the two.

Replaced the first sentence with "All organisms can exhibit behaviours," since that's the point it was trying to make. Sunrise (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The displays are driven by sexual selection as an advertisement of quality of traits among male suitors": There are some sources that indicate it is the female that advertises in a polyandrous species.

Y Removed "male." Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "The Journal of Biogeography was established in 1974" seems an unnecessary distraction. That could perhaps be tied into the context a little better.
• "Biogeography has a long history...": how long?
• "Ecology is an employed science of restoration, repairing disturbed sites through human intervention, in natural resource management, and in environmental impact assessments": this sentence needs a little work. In particular, "repairing disturbed sites through human intervention" is a definition of restoration, but is listed as an application of ecology.
• "...that this 21st century...": this? Is this intended to exclude the 21st century BC? Or does it mean this was written in the 21st century and hasn't been updated?

Y Changed to "the." Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "...and constraining while...": tense mismatch.

I simplified the sentence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "...external and internal environments, however...": internal environments were not mentioned earlier, so why the 'however'? It is also unclear what is being referred to here. Internal as meaning inside a human-built structure? Or inside an organism?
• "...dialectical approach to ecology": Wait, wasn't this covered earlier as "Holism"?
• "The biology of life operates within a certain range of temperatures." I assume this is terrestrial life? Otherwise it seems an overly broad assertion.
• In the 'Radiation: heat, temperature and light' section, my understanding is that the majority of the planet's biomass is subterranean. Hence their energy would not come directly from sunlight. You might want to tie this in somehow.
• Shouldn't precipitation be covered somewhere in the 'Physical environments' section?
• References:
  • "Sober, E..", "University Pub. Comp..", "Carson, R..", "Gerstenhaber, M..", "Dingle, H..", "Allen, C. et al..", "W. B. Sunders, Co..", "Lively, C. M..", "Harris, J. A..", "Hughes, A. R..", "Wright, J..", "Bryant, P. J..", "Farabee, M. J..": extra period. (This is one reason why I like to use {{citation}}.)
  • Is "D. L., Hardesty" correct? It looks backwards.
  • For "Niche dynamics in space and time", can't you change the bare URL to a title link?
  • "Brinson, M. M.; Lugo, A. E.; Brown, S" is missing a period.
  • "Novikoff, AB": should use periods for consistency
  • "Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study Front Page": seems like an incomplete citation.
  • "Morgan Ernest": inconsistent author format
• The external links list may be overly long. In particular, I'm not clear that we need a link to each of the national societies. Please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID.

Okay I'm done. I hope these observations are useful and good luck with the article! Regards, RJH (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)