Natural history & ecology as alternative stable states
The alternative stable states concept in ecology posits that disruptions
of ecological processes can alter the structure of communities and
ecosystems, shifting them to a novel alternative state (Beisner et al.
2003). The relationship between natural history and ecology can be
understood through extending this concept to the history of the field
itself. Each has its own basin of attraction, with their internal
feedback regulations promoting their stability as prestigious relevant
disciplines at the socio-academic levels. In the case of natural
history, discoveries and propositions of innovative hypotheses
stimulated debate and curiosity, while influencing new naturalists
motivated to understand nature. However, developments on computational
and mathematical applications in the twentieth century promoted a desire
on early ecologists to propose theories to solidify the field, causing
the fuss capable of changing the course of natural history to an
alternative stable state as modern ecology.
Ecology started to transform in the mid-twentieth century from a purely
descriptive science to a quantitative field. Early ecologists with an
above average mathematical affinity, aimed to propose models that
represented fundamental aspects of nature in a predictable mathematical
fashion. However, the breakthroughs did not come out of nowhere, and
influential figures, like G.E. Hutchinson, R.H. McArthur, J.
Roughgarden, J. Lubchenco, R. Levins, E.C. Pielou, E.O. Wilson, and
others, had strong natural history backgrounds. A genuine, and somewhat
passionate, interest for their systems of study allowed them to propose
significant hypotheses and theoretical advances. However, ecology was
subjected to an educational paradigm shift. The modern era transitioned
from organism-oriented to become a question-oriented field (Greene
2005), where researchers first asked and then searched for ideal
systems, with no strings attached.
Nonetheless this paradigm shift undermined the natural history state of
mind of biology. Natural history-oriented researchers were referred to
as old-fashioned and out of touch with the cutting-edge; ”naturalist” as
an adjective became pejorative, meaning lack of hypothesis-testing
(Futuyma 1998). Accordingly, in the last 50 years the number of offered
courses in organism biology, taxonomy, and field biology at colleges and
universities declined by approximately 50%, and the number of textbook
pages dedicated to whole-organism biology by 30% (Tewksbury et al.
2014). However, we should recognize that science and society benefit
from a detailed knowledge of organisms in their environment (i.e.,
natural history). As the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated, the improvement
of human health and prophylaxis depends on understanding the interface
between people, organisms, and eco-evolutionary dynamics (Banerjee et
al. 2021; Roche et al. 2020). More than 70% of emerging infectious
diseases are associated with animals, consequently affecting humans as
part of their life cycles (WHO 2015). Therefore, strategies developed to
control disease outbreaks rely on knowledge about the distribution,
behavior, and physiology of final and intermediate hosts, and of the
pathogens themselves, helping to reduce infection, spread, and deaths.
And the acquisition of this knowledge is the essence of natural history.