Criticisms of The Concept
The concept of vacant niche is not accepted by all. The reason given is that a niche is a property of a species; therefore a niche does not exist if no species is present. In other words, the term is thought to be “illogical”. However, some authors who have contributed most to the formulation of the modern niche concept (Hutchinson, Elton) apparently saw no difficulties in using the term. If a niche is defined as the interrelationship of a species with all the biotic and abiotic factors affecting it, there is no reason not to admit the possibility of additional potential interrelationships. So, it seems logical to refer to vacant niches. (see also ecological niche.)
Furthermore, it seems that authors most critical of the concept "vacant niche" really are critical of the view that niche space is largely empty and can easily absorb additional species. They instead adhere to the view that communities are usually in equilibrium (or at least close to it), resulting in a continual strong competition for resources. But many recent studies, some empirical, some theoretical, have provided support for the alternate view that nonequilibrium conditions are widespread (see above and the recent review in Rohde 2005b).
In the German literature, an alternate term for vacant niches has found some acceptance. It is that of “freie ökologische Lizens” (free ecological license) (Sudhaus und Rehfeld 1992). It has been argued that this conceptualization has a disadvantage in that it does not convey immediately and easily what is meant, furthermore the concept does not correspond exactly to the term vacant niche. The usefulness of a term should be assessed on the basis of its understandability and on its capacity to promote future research. The term vacant niche appears to fulfill these requirements.
Read more about this topic: Vacant Niche
Famous quotes containing the words criticisms of the, criticisms of, criticisms and/or concept:
“I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot enquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments ... but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness.”
—Sigmund Freud (1856–1939)
“I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot enquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments ... but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness.”
—Sigmund Freud (1856–1939)
“I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot enquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments ... but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness.”
—Sigmund Freud (1856–1939)
“The heritage of the American Revolution is forgotten, and the American government, for better and for worse, has entered into the heritage of Europe as though it were its patrimony—unaware, alas, of the fact that Europe’s declining power was preceded and accompanied by political bankruptcy, the bankruptcy of the nation-state and its concept of sovereignty.”
—Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)