Chris offers:
> CP here: Read Allen TFH and Starr TB 1982 Hierarchy: perspectives for
> ecological community.  A hell of a lot of processes in the landscape have
> hierarchies that operate over different scales of space and time.
Nutrient
> cycling, plant recruitment, plant and animal reproduction, hydrology,
> geology, etc..  Hierarchies could be said to be manifested in any complex
> systems - cosmological, social, economic, biotic, meteorological, etc.

John:

By definition thus a process would be said to be hierarchical in nature if
several assumptions were met. One of these would be 'limitation'. Thus if a
process was at the top of the heirarchy, then there would be other processes
which would be 'limited' by the highest level of  hierarchical organization.
By definition a hierarchy is an arrangement denoting some order in terms of
that which limits.

If something is said to be hierarchical in nature, then it is said to be a
limit to something else. But this perspective is only valid for organisms,
not for geophysical processes. At the regional level of organization thus a
rainforest can limit insolation, but this limit is only a limit when cast in
terms of a 'in relation' to a desert at the same latitude. So the idea of a
limit in a non-living process is entirely cast in terms of region, but this
has nothing to do with the ecosystem concept, except superficially.

The second assumption relates to the feature of the ecosystem only when cast
in terms of relation, but this means that this attribute of hierarchies is
non-sensical in a discussion of ecosystems. Certainly there pollen records
indicate that western larch once occupied a larger area in the Pacific
Northwest, and that western read cedar only began to occupy the Interior
[eastern Cascades] within the last 3000 years. What was the limiting factor
to the occupancy of western red cedar? Well it is dispersal after the last
glaciation 12,000 years ago. This fact cannot be construed as being equal to
a 'hierarchy' or limiting factor. The autecology of the cedar did not change
over the last 12,000 years ago, only the location of the ice, and the
preferred habitat of the Thuya plicata....so the ecosystem did not change.
If th organisms do not change, then there is no rule that says that the
ecosystem has changed. That would be silly ...the ecosystem of the Pacific
North west has only shifted in location as it does all the time...some times
more quickly than others.

Now by definition the word heirarchy means in fact 'sacred-principle' and
there is no definition of the term 'hierarchy' in any dictionaries denoting
anything sacred in principle in reference to ecosystems. But also by
definition the term cosmos means order. Thus there is some ruling principle
in the kosmos that engenders order. If so then this principle must be
creative since nothing in nature is completely static.

Now in terms of the order of planetary ecology therefore there are 'limits'
to all processes, whether these processes be derived from the geosphere or
chemosphere or atmosphere or biosphere. Nothing in the order of living
systems is 'unlimited'.

There is one hierarchy in nature and that is food. Those animals and plants
that are primary producers are not at the top of the food chain, but rather
are 'primary' producers. All heterotrophs therefore derive their nutrients
from the primary producers which tend to be 'photosynthetic.'

For awhile a tertiary consumer for instance a felid could be limiting to the
snowshoe hare, a herbivore, but the herbivore is ultimately limited by
herbaceous material. During drought conditions, therefore, the hare would be
limited by herbs. This attribute of complex ecosystems, climatic induced
change is not a static feature, but rather a cyclic feature. As most of us
know the hare limits the lynx. There are other organisms that limit the hare
as well such as a virus that causes high populations of hares to die off
about every 7 years.

If the hydrological cycle was at the highest level of hierarhcy, principle
limit to all 'below', then the sun would be limited by the rainfall, and by
other atmospheric processes. However the sun is not limited by the rain, nor
any other planetary process except in a regional way. For instance much of
the rainfall and precipitation in the Amazon River drainage is 'recycled' as
a result of orographic cooling in the Andes, and convection. Approximately
50% of the precipitation is recycled from evapotranspiration.

Thus in this example it is obvious to see that for the Amazon the influence
of the microclimate of cloud forests and rainforests is limiting to the net
solar radiation since much of the day time insolation in the area is
reflected back to space via a higher than average albedo associated with
cumulus clouds in the afternoon, and also in the cloud forests of the
eastern Andes.

If we were to examine the Saharan desert we would observe a different
arrangement of limiting processes. The limit for this region would of course
be precipitation. However the limit here is observed as being a limit only
in relation to more moist regions of the world such as the Congo. There is a
lot of life in the Saharan desert, but this life is not limited by the lack
of moisture, but rather the lack of shade. This arid ecosystem is full of
scorpions, and small rodents. They are each dependent on the others, but it
is the scorpion that is limited by the small insectivorous rodent,
primarily. The rate of insolation is not a direct limit to the organisms
that live in the Saharan, but heat is.

I don't see any evidence in undisturbed ecosystems that have existed for
millions of years of any other hierarchies than that of 'food chains' or
'trophic levels'. The geosphere is relatively static, atmosphere is
relatively static, and so is the hydrosphere. The salt content of the oceans
has remained relatively static for millions of years, though there has been
a weaking of the salt content due to glaciations creating a land block in
the Meditterean Sea which results in ocean water evaporating and the salt
depositing on the bottom of dry previously water covered sea bottoms.

If there are any hierarchies in non-living processes, then what are they? I
see interconnectedness, and chemical/physical activity that is not ruled by
'cells' nor by any living processes or organisms.

I agree with Ted Mosquin, the notion of 'wholism' suggests that ultimately
there is no limiting factor in isolation of any other limiting factors. The
idea of a limiting factor is sensible only at the most basic objective level
of the cell. This is the thesis that Whitehead suggests as a rule. The basic
object in a living system is the 'cell'...

The only organism that can create new elements is man. But man has learned
to harness the energy of the atom. This is fact alone means that if there is
a hierarchy in nature, then obviously no new elements would have been formed
if man had not starved long ago on some island like Easter Island.

I agree with Ted as well that the whole is imperceptible, that the synthesis
is like a 'synholon' which means that the whole is a 'synthesis of wholes'
and in fact despite the existence of food hierarchies [trophic levels] there
are no hierarchies in the physical universe. The sun will one day go dark,
life on earth may cease, but this is only relevant if 'temporality' was the
ruling limit in the universe.


chao

John