BROOKER, Rob W.; CALLAWAY, Ragan M.; CAVIERES, Lohengrin A.; KIKVIDZE, Zaal; LORTIE, Christopher J.; MICHALET, Richard; PUGNAIRE, Francisco I.; VALIENTE‐BANUET, Alfonso; WHITHAM, Thomas G.

doi:10.1086/648058

Métadonnées

Afficher la notice complète

Licence d’utilisation du document

BROOKER, Rob W.
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

CALLAWAY, Ragan M.
School of Biological Sciences [Univ California San Diego] [UC San Diego]

CAVIERES, Lohengrin A.
Universidad de Concepción = University of Concepción [Chile] [UdeC]

Langue

Article de revue

Ce document a été publié dans

The American Naturalist. 2009, vol. 174, n° 6, p. 919–927

University of Chicago Press

Résumé en anglais

Ricklefs’s recent call to investigate ecological processes at large scales helps focus ecologists’ attention on an undoubtedly important topic. However, we believe that some of his accompanying arguments for the primacy of such work and, in particular, for the need to “disintegrate” the local community concept are flawed. We revisit Ricklefs’s main tenets and demonstrate that research on local communities is a vital part of understanding processes and diversity across a range of spatial and temporal scales. The integration of research across spatial scales expands our horizons and understanding of ecology and evolution, and this should not be unnecessarily constrained to one extreme or the other.< Réduire

Mots clés

ECOLOGIE

BIOGÉOGRAPHIE

INTERACTION BIOTIQUE

INTERACTION POSITIVE

Mots clés en anglais

BIODIVERSITY

BIOGEOGRAPHY

COMMUNITY ECOLOGY

SCALE

BIOTIC INTERACTIONS