Yes Chris, my human interlocutor, climax ecosystems are complex, and as my
former professor, Fred Bunnel, said, if you think Rocket Sciences are - well
complex - then you need to study ecosystems to get a notion of real
complexity. I represent a phenomenon of the atmosphere. I have one elemental
definition. Right now I am hovering over the sub-boreal region of the North,
hence my email address borealis. 

Clouds have one 'essential definition' which is that they consist of water
vapour, a gas, consisting of dihydrogen oxide. Clouds are simply one phase
of that molecule H20. Clouds essentially consist of the molecule in one
phase (gaseous). The hence owe their existence to cooling and heating which
causes them to form volumes of small condensed vapour particles visible to
the naked eye. They are regions of condensed water vapour (reflecting much
light) yet too small to have any weight greater than the atmosphere they are
in...so they do not sink. 

Clouds provide moisture to the earth, and no terrestrial ecosystems can
exist without clouds for long. In the Americas there are regions where
atmospheric moisture is deposited on terrestrial ecosystems where there are
no clouds but these are rare. On the west coast of South America there are
ecosystems which receive moisture directly from the damp sea air due to
condensation of the atmosphere on plants and soils. 

I owe my existence to solar heating and planetary cooling. 

The idea that there were natural wildlands in the UK is valid. The finding
recently - if I may conjecture - is that some species such as the spruce are
said to have arrived rather recently to Britain after the retreat of the
last Ice Age there. This means that this species is in fact an invader, a
species with few dependent species such as insects and epiphytes. If we were
to compare the species of Betula, Quercus and Salix in Britain in an old
growth forest, we would find up to 300 species of associated insect species
in these deciduous  trees and shrubs. On the other hand the Picea species
(spruces) would have an order of magnitude fewer species of dependent insect
and epiphyte species. In addition there are far fewer dependent passerine
birds in the old spruce forests than there are in the more older resident
deciduous species. 

The early arrivals are stationary to the area of inhabitation longer thus
become substrate for more and more associated dependent species. One may
refer to this synecological phenomenon as 'co-evolution'. In the tropical
rainforests of Africa for instance there has been no major disturbance like
the Ice Ages for about 60-90 million years, therefore there are vastly more
species, and interactions. In Costa Rica alone there are about 850 bird
species, which is about identical to the entire population of birds in
Canada. (3.5 million hectares compared to 950 million hectares or so).  

So the argument that ecosystems evolve (temporally) to higher levels of
complexity, stability, and diversity (but not abundance) is partly true.
There are exceptions though. In the boreal forests it is  true that there
are vastly more species of fungi than in the tropics due to the detritral
based nature of boreal forests. On the other hand the function of insects in
the tropics which are also detrital based provides a similar function of the
fungi (mycorhizzal species) in the boreal forests. There are vastly more
insects in the millions of years old forests of the tropics than in the
boreali forests. 

Another argument that may in fact support the idea of evolving complexity &
diversity is that most of the continents that share similar genera today are
the ones that were connected most recently (Gondwana). The podocarpacae
family is common to the South  Pacific (Australia and South America) but not
common anywhere else (Nothofagus spp. are found in South America, New
Zealand). The first flowering plants evolved in Southern Gwondwana and
Northern Laurasia, therefore it is too be expected that the diversity of
flowering plants reaches the greatest levels here and descendent continents. 

The attendent idea that increasing complexity of ecosystems ensures greater
integrity and resilience to the forces of environmental disruption is also
supported in the tropical rainforests. Tropical soils are often very old and
highly oxidized and have been subject to eluviation over millions of years.
The opportunities for inputs of nutrients is thus very low except where
there are fluvial processes, volcanic deposition, and loess (wind deposited)
. Therefore the tropical forest ecology has adapted to conserve trace soil
nutrients that are limiting. The evolution of flora that are commensual
ensures that many species confer some macroclimatic advantages since high
evapotranspirative surface areas such as is found in the Amazonia result in
recycling of moisture and it is estimated that up to 50 % of the annual
rainfall is due to the flora evapotranspiring soil and atmospheric moisture.
Therefore the hypothesis of the autopoeitic nature of a synecology
(interdependent system) is supportable. To remove half of the phreatric
surface area of the Amazon would result in a reduction of moisture that
would cause the collapse of the rainforest in most of the area - it could be
predicted - since by definition a tropical rainforest can only exist where
there is more than 200 inches of rainfall per year with no less than 12
inches in any given month. When atmospheric inputs fall below this level the
rainforest in the tropics will dissappear due to a combination of events
including frequent catastrophic wildfires (eg. over the last decade in
Amazonia to say the least associated primarily with anthropogenic induced
climatic changes, forest clearing, burning),  failure to regenerate
sensitive species, herbivory, etc.  

Anyway stability and change are relative terms. Where there is relative
stability (no ice ages, volcanism, not autogenic succession), there is
demonstrated a greater complexity, intricacy) tending toward an idea of
absolute (mere) stability. Even the example regarding mychorrhizal species
in the boreal forests supports this idea since the boreal forests shift
during and after glaciations thus conserving species on large continents.
The stability of mycorrhizae and spruce pine forests is 'merely' or
absolutely inseperable.  Spruce was once common in the southern Appalachians
down to sea level for instance in the Carolinas, but now it has receded to
the highest elevations only in the southern regions of its occurence.
Forests move when climates change slowly, but not when climates change too
quickly. 

"In the southern hemisphere, a unique Southern Gwondwana angiosperm flora
evolved, including mainly evergreen trees (such as the southern beech
Nothofagus), and various shrubs and herbs, which lived alongside the
existing podocarp conifers and ferns. The total flora was very like that of
New Zealand today, and covered the southern parts of South America plus
Antarctica, Australia and New Zealand, but it is not known from southern
Africa, by then seperated from the rest of Gondwana by a wide stretch of
ocean." (Biogeography: an ecological and evolutionary approach. Barry Cox &
Peter Moore. 5th edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1993)

To sum up then complexity leads to stability. Even a 'mere' primate may
appreciate this conceptual cloud of 'unknowing'. Singularities thus are
found in 'closed ecosystems' like the brewery where only one species of
yeast is cultured, but that is another topic after the sauna, sweat house,
or whatever cultural expression denotes a micro-cloud. 

Soft Fluffy Cloud





"In Arizona I remember soft fluffy clouds catching colors reflected
everywhere. Long narrow clouds trailing off into the horizons."



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%