Titlebook: Concepts of Ecosystem Ecology; A Comparative View Lawrence R. Pomeroy,James J. Alberts Conference proceedings 1988 Springer-Verlag New York

anaerobic

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-64988-2on ecology. There are scientists devoted to championing the cause of one or the other of these approaches, and there are those who, baffled by the complexity of ecosystems, wonder whether it is sensible to continue that line of work when the general principles seem so elusive. My position is that ec

發(fā)生

Locally Convex Spaces. Fundamentals,ion, we see several themes running through the book. Some of these are bits of classical ecological theory or dogma that persist, although we can perceive changes in their acceptance, use, and interpretation. Where we see general agreement, these serve as indicators of the state of ecosystem studies

無(wú)聊的人

Polydipsia

The Past, Present, and Future of Ecological Energetics,some suggestions for future work. To accomplish this, I have organized this chapter into three sections. First, I discuss historical developments, focusing on the earliest beginnings of ecological energetics in the 18th and 19th centuries, the pioneering work of Lindeman, and the expansion of energe

松果

得體

ALLEY

rheumatology

evince

Agroecosystems Processes,oil science, climatology, chemistry, economics, engineering, and many others. Indeed, agricultural problems have been crucibles for theoretical developments in many of these disciplines. The science of ecology is no exception, having benefited from and contributed to agricultural theory and practice

Kidnap

Ocean Basin Ecosystems,zation. In a review of the concept, Evans (1956) discusses M?bius’s (1877) use of ., Forbes’s (1887) use of microcosm, Markus’s (1926) use of ., Friederich’s (1927) use of holocoen, and Thienemann’s (1939) use of .; but Evans prefers Tansley’s (1935) use of . to describe the basic unit of ecology. E