...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Trends in Ecology & Evolution >Back to the fundamentals: a reply to Barot et al.
【24h】

Back to the fundamentals: a reply to Barot et al.

机译：回到基本原理：对Barot等人的答复。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

We appreciate that Barot and coworkers [1] recognize that our proposed model [2] advocates the end of the linear model of research. We indeed highlighted the importance of feedback mechanisms and multi-level integration in this model to illustrate the interdependency of the different types of research. However, Barot and colleagues appear to go a step further and essentially argue that the distinction between fundamental and applied ecology has little justification. They propose that ecological sciences should become an unpolarized discipline that uses fundamental knowledge of ecology and social sciences to tackle environmental issues. They further argue that future ecological research should contain some applied component to be accepted in current political and societal contexts. Whereas we accept and argued in our article that applied ecology should have a firm foundation in basic ecology, their argument contradicts our view that ecologists should strive to keep fundamental ecology distinct, and prevent it from becoming gradually assimilated with applied ecology.
机译：我们赞赏Barot及其同事[1]认识到我们提出的模型[2]提倡线性研究的终结。我们确实强调了此模型中反馈机制和多级集成的重要性，以说明不同类型研究的相互依赖性。但是，巴洛特（Barot）和他的同事似乎走得更远，从根本上说，基本生态学与应用生态学之间的区别几乎没有道理。他们提出，生态科学应该成为一门无两极的学科，利用生态学和社会科学的基础知识来解决环境问题。他们进一步认为，未来的生态研究应包含一些在当前政治和社会环境中应接受的应用成分。尽管我们在文章中接受并提出论点，认为应用生态学应在基础生态学中具有牢固的基础，但他们的论点与我们的观点相矛盾，即生态学家应努力保持基础生态学与众不同，并防止其与应用生态学逐渐融合。

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