Xref: utzoo sci.math:12048 sci.bio:3453
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!elmo
From: elmo@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Cabot)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Mathematical ecology
Message-ID: <8976@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 17 Aug 90 04:28:12 GMT
References: <1482@ntmtv.UUCP> <6750.26ca85bc@vax1.tcd.ie>
Reply-To: elmo@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Cabot)
Organization: University of Rochester
Lines: 56

In article <1482@ntmtv.UUCP> it was Gregory A. Behm writes:
>I'd like to get some general information about the field of mathematical
>ecology.  Would someone please share with me what they know about this
>field?  Some of the questions I have are:

I am intrigued by your question.  Mathematical ecology was "big" in
ecology in the seventies.  Those were transitional days in the field
of ecology. At that time people interested in applying mathematical
approaches to ecological problems were gradually replacing older
ecologists who studied phenomena in a rather more qualitative fashion.
Nowadays, almost all biologists calling themselves ecologists are
very mathematically oriented and the older style of study is usually
referred to as natural history.

The early roots of what was considered "mathematical ecology" were
vegetation analyis (ie floristics)- particulary the "Zurich-Montpellier" 
school and marine benthic community ecology. When eco-system analysis
became big in the late sixties that too became included in mathematical
ecology.  Certainly as the field of population dynamics devloped, it
too, was considered to fall under the aegis of mathematical ecology,
as was the area of computer simulations.


But then, there are other ecological areas that are very mathematical
these days too. Particulary behavioral and evolutionary ecology.
These fields have more of a theoretical than a data analysis approach.
I have been out of ecological research for a about seven years now,
so I don't know if the people who consider themselves evolutionary
ecologists think of themselves as "mathematical ecologists" or not.
I am not saying this because the evolutionary/behavior types like
to think of themselves as being in the most unique and important sub-
discipline of biology.  Rather I am trying to stress that the
term mathematical ecology has really lost its  functional utility
because all ecology is mathematical.

However, if you are interested in two books on the subject that
were considered of biblical importance back when mathematical
ecology was the hotest new rage I direct you to your nearest
university library which will almost certainly contain (or can
get) E.C. Pielou's Mathematical Ecology and Poole's Quantitative
Ecology (could have the title wrong here).   

The reason why I am so intrigued by your posting is that the
question is a little off beat. I can't help but wonder if you stumbled
across the term in the recent literature or ... ?
Furthermore, I wondered why you didn't check the library to begin with.
(That's a bic-lighter sized flame for you :-)

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Eric Cabot                             |  elmo@{uhura | db1}.cc.rochester.edu
      "insert your face here"          |  elmo@urodbv.bitnet
-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Eric Cabot                             |  elmo@{uhura | db1}.cc.rochester.edu
      "insert your face here"          |  elmo@urodbv.bitnet
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=