首页> 外文期刊>Oikos: A Journal of Ecology >'Nullius in Bergmann' or the pluralistic approach to ecogeographical rules: a reply to Watt et al. (2010)
【24h】

'Nullius in Bergmann' or the pluralistic approach to ecogeographical rules: a reply to Watt et al. (2010)

机译:“ Bergmann中的Nullius”或生态地理规则的多元方法:对Watt等人的答复。 (2010年)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Bergmann's rule is one of the best known empirical generalizations in biogeography and remains a topic of much interest and debate. Watt et al. claimed in 2010 that the only definition for the rule should be the one devised by Bergmann in the 19th-century. Based on direct translations from the original German manuscript, they concluded that tests of the rule should be restricted to interspecific studies of body size variation in endotherms. Furthermore, they suggested that Bergmann's heat conservation mechanism is an integral part of the rule and, hence, a simple falsificationist test of this mechanism might be enough to validate the rule. Here I advocate on a pluralistic approach to study ecogeographical rules, in general, and Bergmann's rule in particular. Our perceptions on the status and validity of laws and rules depend on the narrowness of the epistemological scope we adopt. Laws can have exceptions, do not necessarily have to be explanatory and may not be predictive. Also, we should differentiate between correlative and causal laws. Bergmann's rule is a correlative law, not a causal law, as Watt et al. implicitly assumed. It is a broad generalization with no inherent mechanism, and subject to the scrutiny of empirical investigation. Because of the ecological and evolutionary contingencies there will hardly be any law in ecology that is universally true. We have to consider each of these contingencies and study Bergmann's rule in a diversity of systems, organisms and levels of biological organization to gain further insight into the processes underlying the geographic variation in body size. On the basis of the empirical evidence to date, we cannot entirely dismiss a thermoregulatory mechanism to explain body size clines in both ectotherms and endotherms and support a food availability mechanism instead, as Watt et al. suggested. Even so, a unifying explanation for Bergmann's rule still remains elusive.
机译:伯格曼法则是生物地理学中最著名的经验概括之一,仍然是一个引起人们极大兴趣和争论的话题。瓦特等。在2010年声称,该规则的唯一定义应该是19世纪Bergmann提出的定义。基于原始德国手稿的直接翻译,他们得出结论,该规则的测试应限于吸热体大小变化的种间研究。此外,他们认为,伯格曼的保温机制是该规则不可分割的一部分,因此,对该机制进行简单的伪证检验可能足以验证该规则。在这里,我主张采用多元化的方法来研究一般的生态地理规则,尤其是伯格曼规则。我们对法律和规则的地位和有效性的认识取决于我们采用的认识论范围的狭窄。法律可以有例外,不一定是解释性的,也不一定是预测性的。另外,我们应该区分相关定律和因果定律。正如Watt等人所述,Bergmann规则是一个相关定律,而不是因果定律。隐含地假设。它是一个广义的概括,没有内在的机制,并且受到实证研究的审查。由于生态和进化的偶然性,生态学中几乎没有任何法律是普遍适用的。我们必须考虑所有这些偶然性,并在各种系统,生物体和生物组织水平中研究伯格曼法则,以进一步洞察人体尺寸地理变异的过程。根据迄今为止的经验证据,我们不能完全忽略温度调节机制来解释等温线和吸热线中的体形大小,而是支持食物的获取机制,如Watt等人。建议。即使这样,对于伯格曼法则的统一解释仍然难以捉摸。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号