Toward Conceptual Cohesiveness: a Historical Analysis of the Theory and Utility of Ecological Boundaries and Transition Zones
Ecological transition zones are increasingly recognized as systems that play a critical role in controlling or modifying flows of organisms, materials, and energy across landscapes. Many concepts describing transitional areas have been proposed over the years, such as the prevalent and durable ecoto...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecosystems (New York) 2007-04, Vol.10 (3), p.462-476 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 476 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 462 |
container_title | Ecosystems (New York) |
container_volume | 10 |
creator | Yarrow, Matthew M Marín, Víctor H |
description | Ecological transition zones are increasingly recognized as systems that play a critical role in controlling or modifying flows of organisms, materials, and energy across landscapes. Many concepts describing transitional areas have been proposed over the years, such as the prevalent and durable ecotone concept. Confusion among ecologists and land managers about transition zone concepts and the isolation of studies that use only one transition concept can hinder unified progress in understanding these key systems. Currently, a movement toward conceptual synthesis under the umbrella concept of 'ecological boundary' is underway. Here we examine the history and theoretical baggage of the ecotone, riparian zone, and several other concepts. Subsequently, we present a conceptual cluster analysis, which facilitates a better understanding of the similarities and differences between boundary and transition concepts. We emphasize the hierarchical nature of these concepts: higher-level synthetic concepts can be used in the development of theory, whereas lower-level concepts allow more specificity and the formulation of operational definitions. Finally, we look briefly at the utility and future use of boundary and transition zone concepts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10021-007-9036-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20577298</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27823692</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27823692</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-af86447211d4dcb55467a50f8e033ee5c0917ddd1893cd6e0deda5b3fe839f693</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkUtv1DAUhSNEJUrLD2CBiJBgl3L9imN27ahQpEpdMLNhY7l-dDxK48E3Ac2C_44zqUBiYx_pfPfIPreqXhO4IADyI5aTkqbIRgFrG_WsOiWciQZaqp4fNW1Ux-FF9RJxB0BEx_lp9Xudfpns6lUarN-Pk-mL3HqMP_3gET_Vpr6JOKYcbbEuB9MfMGKdQj1ufb3e-pQPtRlcvRljH8fD7Fzb1KeH48BVmgZncvR4hNbZDBjHmIb6eyr559VJMD36V0_3WbX5fL1e3TS3d1--ri5vG8ukGhsTupZzSQlx3Nl7IXgrjYDQeWDMe2FBEemcI51i1rUenHdG3LPgO6ZCq9hZ9WHJ3ef0Y_I46seI1ve9GXyaUFMQUlLVFfDdf-AuTbn8GrVkDARXnBWILJDNCTH7oPc5Ppp80AT0vA29bEPPct6Gnl_w_inYYCkmlCJsxH-DCiQwIQv3ZuF2c-l_fSo7ylpFi_928YNJ2jzkkrH5RoEwgA6AEWB_AB_FnfY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733054943</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Toward Conceptual Cohesiveness: a Historical Analysis of the Theory and Utility of Ecological Boundaries and Transition Zones</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Yarrow, Matthew M ; Marín, Víctor H</creator><creatorcontrib>Yarrow, Matthew M ; Marín, Víctor H</creatorcontrib><description>Ecological transition zones are increasingly recognized as systems that play a critical role in controlling or modifying flows of organisms, materials, and energy across landscapes. Many concepts describing transitional areas have been proposed over the years, such as the prevalent and durable ecotone concept. Confusion among ecologists and land managers about transition zone concepts and the isolation of studies that use only one transition concept can hinder unified progress in understanding these key systems. Currently, a movement toward conceptual synthesis under the umbrella concept of 'ecological boundary' is underway. Here we examine the history and theoretical baggage of the ecotone, riparian zone, and several other concepts. Subsequently, we present a conceptual cluster analysis, which facilitates a better understanding of the similarities and differences between boundary and transition concepts. We emphasize the hierarchical nature of these concepts: higher-level synthetic concepts can be used in the development of theory, whereas lower-level concepts allow more specificity and the formulation of operational definitions. Finally, we look briefly at the utility and future use of boundary and transition zone concepts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-9840</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0629</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10021-007-9036-9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: New York : Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cluster analysis ; conceptual cluster ; ecological boundary ; ecological theory ; Ecological zones ; Ecology ; Ecosystems ; ecotone ; Ecotones ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Land management ; Landscape ecology ; Landscapes ; Riparian areas ; Riparian ecology ; riparian zone ; Synecology ; transdisciplinarity ; Transition zone ; Transition zones</subject><ispartof>Ecosystems (New York), 2007-04, Vol.10 (3), p.462-476</ispartof><rights>2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-af86447211d4dcb55467a50f8e033ee5c0917ddd1893cd6e0deda5b3fe839f693</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-af86447211d4dcb55467a50f8e033ee5c0917ddd1893cd6e0deda5b3fe839f693</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27823692$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27823692$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=19070357$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yarrow, Matthew M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marín, Víctor H</creatorcontrib><title>Toward Conceptual Cohesiveness: a Historical Analysis of the Theory and Utility of Ecological Boundaries and Transition Zones</title><title>Ecosystems (New York)</title><description>Ecological transition zones are increasingly recognized as systems that play a critical role in controlling or modifying flows of organisms, materials, and energy across landscapes. Many concepts describing transitional areas have been proposed over the years, such as the prevalent and durable ecotone concept. Confusion among ecologists and land managers about transition zone concepts and the isolation of studies that use only one transition concept can hinder unified progress in understanding these key systems. Currently, a movement toward conceptual synthesis under the umbrella concept of 'ecological boundary' is underway. Here we examine the history and theoretical baggage of the ecotone, riparian zone, and several other concepts. Subsequently, we present a conceptual cluster analysis, which facilitates a better understanding of the similarities and differences between boundary and transition concepts. We emphasize the hierarchical nature of these concepts: higher-level synthetic concepts can be used in the development of theory, whereas lower-level concepts allow more specificity and the formulation of operational definitions. Finally, we look briefly at the utility and future use of boundary and transition zone concepts.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cluster analysis</subject><subject>conceptual cluster</subject><subject>ecological boundary</subject><subject>ecological theory</subject><subject>Ecological zones</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>ecotone</subject><subject>Ecotones</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Land management</subject><subject>Landscape ecology</subject><subject>Landscapes</subject><subject>Riparian areas</subject><subject>Riparian ecology</subject><subject>riparian zone</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><subject>transdisciplinarity</subject><subject>Transition zone</subject><subject>Transition zones</subject><issn>1432-9840</issn><issn>1435-0629</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkUtv1DAUhSNEJUrLD2CBiJBgl3L9imN27ahQpEpdMLNhY7l-dDxK48E3Ac2C_44zqUBiYx_pfPfIPreqXhO4IADyI5aTkqbIRgFrG_WsOiWciQZaqp4fNW1Ux-FF9RJxB0BEx_lp9Xudfpns6lUarN-Pk-mL3HqMP_3gET_Vpr6JOKYcbbEuB9MfMGKdQj1ufb3e-pQPtRlcvRljH8fD7Fzb1KeH48BVmgZncvR4hNbZDBjHmIb6eyr559VJMD36V0_3WbX5fL1e3TS3d1--ri5vG8ukGhsTupZzSQlx3Nl7IXgrjYDQeWDMe2FBEemcI51i1rUenHdG3LPgO6ZCq9hZ9WHJ3ef0Y_I46seI1ve9GXyaUFMQUlLVFfDdf-AuTbn8GrVkDARXnBWILJDNCTH7oPc5Ppp80AT0vA29bEPPct6Gnl_w_inYYCkmlCJsxH-DCiQwIQv3ZuF2c-l_fSo7ylpFi_928YNJ2jzkkrH5RoEwgA6AEWB_AB_FnfY</recordid><startdate>20070401</startdate><enddate>20070401</enddate><creator>Yarrow, Matthew M</creator><creator>Marín, Víctor H</creator><general>New York : Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Science+Business Media</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070401</creationdate><title>Toward Conceptual Cohesiveness: a Historical Analysis of the Theory and Utility of Ecological Boundaries and Transition Zones</title><author>Yarrow, Matthew M ; Marín, Víctor H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-af86447211d4dcb55467a50f8e033ee5c0917ddd1893cd6e0deda5b3fe839f693</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cluster analysis</topic><topic>conceptual cluster</topic><topic>ecological boundary</topic><topic>ecological theory</topic><topic>Ecological zones</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>ecotone</topic><topic>Ecotones</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Land management</topic><topic>Landscape ecology</topic><topic>Landscapes</topic><topic>Riparian areas</topic><topic>Riparian ecology</topic><topic>riparian zone</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><topic>transdisciplinarity</topic><topic>Transition zone</topic><topic>Transition zones</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yarrow, Matthew M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marín, Víctor H</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Ecosystems (New York)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yarrow, Matthew M</au><au>Marín, Víctor H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Toward Conceptual Cohesiveness: a Historical Analysis of the Theory and Utility of Ecological Boundaries and Transition Zones</atitle><jtitle>Ecosystems (New York)</jtitle><date>2007-04-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>462</spage><epage>476</epage><pages>462-476</pages><issn>1432-9840</issn><eissn>1435-0629</eissn><abstract>Ecological transition zones are increasingly recognized as systems that play a critical role in controlling or modifying flows of organisms, materials, and energy across landscapes. Many concepts describing transitional areas have been proposed over the years, such as the prevalent and durable ecotone concept. Confusion among ecologists and land managers about transition zone concepts and the isolation of studies that use only one transition concept can hinder unified progress in understanding these key systems. Currently, a movement toward conceptual synthesis under the umbrella concept of 'ecological boundary' is underway. Here we examine the history and theoretical baggage of the ecotone, riparian zone, and several other concepts. Subsequently, we present a conceptual cluster analysis, which facilitates a better understanding of the similarities and differences between boundary and transition concepts. We emphasize the hierarchical nature of these concepts: higher-level synthetic concepts can be used in the development of theory, whereas lower-level concepts allow more specificity and the formulation of operational definitions. Finally, we look briefly at the utility and future use of boundary and transition zone concepts.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>New York : Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s10021-007-9036-9</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1432-9840 |
ispartof | Ecosystems (New York), 2007-04, Vol.10 (3), p.462-476 |
issn | 1432-9840 1435-0629 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20577298 |
source | SpringerNature Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | Animal and plant ecology Animal, plant and microbial ecology Biological and medical sciences Cluster analysis conceptual cluster ecological boundary ecological theory Ecological zones Ecology Ecosystems ecotone Ecotones Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects Land management Landscape ecology Landscapes Riparian areas Riparian ecology riparian zone Synecology transdisciplinarity Transition zone Transition zones |
title | Toward Conceptual Cohesiveness: a Historical Analysis of the Theory and Utility of Ecological Boundaries and Transition Zones |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T15%3A49%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Toward%20Conceptual%20Cohesiveness:%20a%20Historical%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Theory%20and%20Utility%20of%20Ecological%20Boundaries%20and%20Transition%20Zones&rft.jtitle=Ecosystems%20(New%20York)&rft.au=Yarrow,%20Matthew%20M&rft.date=2007-04-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=462&rft.epage=476&rft.pages=462-476&rft.issn=1432-9840&rft.eissn=1435-0629&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10021-007-9036-9&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27823692%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733054943&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27823692&rfr_iscdi=true |