Biotic regulation: regulators versus extraregulators

[ap.vanduijn]

Dear Anastassia, dear all,

I had some thoughts based on the suggestion by Anastassia that the dissatisfaction with our living conditions outside the “paradise niche” determined the vector of technological development and Mats Almgren pointing out the similarity between human plus gut microbiome and ecological community (tree plus bacteria and fungi). This made me think about the similarities and differences between terrestrial homoiothermic animals (in particular humans) and terrestrial immotile ecological communities from a biotic regulation perspective. Homoiothermic animals hold their internal environment constant in spite of changes in their external environment, while immotile ecological communities regulate sustain the internal milieu of the live layer and their local (external) environment. Despite the fact that these are just thoughts that are still developing, I would appreciate it if you can comment which parts make sense and more importantly which do not and help me to further my understanding of what’s going on.

Like Mats Almgren pointed out, an important similarity is that like immotile ecological communities locomotive homoiothermic animals consist of a host plus microbiome. Therefore it seems we might just as easily refer to such an animal as a locomotive ecological community or to an immotile ecological community as a single organism named after the host (e.g. a Pinus sylvestris). However, while animals carry their microbiome within their natural envelope thus making it portable, trees are instead surrounded by their microbiome without a natural envelope separating host plus microbiome from the local environment. If trees were locomotive (and I know G&M have clearly explained why they are not) it would be impossible for them to transport their microbiome and thus equally impossible for the no longer tightly correlated ecological community to regulate its local environment. However, it is this limitation (if you can call it one) that provides an immotile ecological community with the opportunity to regulate its local environment.

An important difference that seems relevant in this context is that while immotile ecological communities are “capable of balanced use of environmental stores and fluxes of matter and energy” this is not the case for locomotive ecological communities. Even under natural unperturbed conditions the latter require a continuous influx of organic matter from outside the locomotive ecological community (i.e. an external source) and thus as G&M explain they need to be locomotive.

Based on the BRE concept I would summarize that the aim of the genetic program of biotic regulation in the case of immotile ecological communities (i.e. immotile autotroph plus immotile heterotrophs and small animals) is to sustain the internal milieu of the live layer. By doing so the immotile ecological community regulates its local environment. Since an immotile ecological community does not have a natural envelope that protects and separates it from its external environment it is able to regulate its local environment and for the changes to have an impact beyond the local environment, namely the regional and even the global environment. For example the effect of regulating atmospheric moisture also impacts the regional environment and the effect of regulating CO2 levels in its local environment also impacts the CO2 level in the global environment.

Besides I would summarize that the aim of the genetic program of biotic regulation in the case of locomotive ecological communities (e.g. locomotive animal (host) plus immotile heterotrophs and parasites) is similar to that of immotile ecological communities namely to sustain the internal milieu of the live layer (i.e. the organic reservoir = everything within the natural envelope). By doing so the locomotive ecological community regulates its internal environment. Since unlike an immotile ecological community an organism has a natural envelope that protects and separates it from its external environment I assume that under normal conditions the effect of regulating its internal environment neither significantly adds to nor significantly subtracts from the biotic regulation of the regional and global environment. Due to perturbation of immotile ecological communities it can, however, interfere with the regulation of the local environment.

For both immotile and locomotive ecological communities the maximum competitiveness corresponds to a combination of an optimal phenotype with an optimal environment (G&M, 2000; p.58). Immotile ecological communities that are part of the same population engage in competitive interaction. It is in their best interest to engage in competitive interaction for the purpose of stabilizing selection in order to prevent genetic decay. However, at the same time all immotile ecological communities depend on each other for the biotic regulation of the environment at all levels (local, regional and global). I take away that under natural unperturbed conditions, the immotile ecological communities with the least decay individuals will be able to fine-tune their local environment to the most optimal local state. This enables them to be maximum competitive. Under normal unperturbed conditions the state of the local environment is the result of the joint BRE and subsequent fine-tuning by the immotile ecological community that occupies the local environment. Through engaging in competitive interaction the joint immotile ecological communities increasingly create what in commerce is referred to as a level playing field. A level playing field is a situation in which everyone has a fair and equal chance of succeeding. While the competition for free space/available energy fluxes remains intense, I understand that biogens are to a large extend jointly homogenized and atmospheric/soil moisture/temperature are to a large extend jointly regulated (and toxic biogens are jointly moved into inactive unregulated reservoirs?).

Now to focus particularly on humans, when humans moved out of the “paradise niche” the number of environmental stressors increased. Living outside the productive niche and deprived of a favorable climate put more stress on the human ability to regulate their internal environment. While migrating out of the “paradise niche” (together with their microbiome) our ancestors found it increasingly hard work to regulate their internal environment. The resulting change in diet and the subsequent change in the diversity and/or structure of the human microbiome may have even aggravated this (there seems to be a hereditary component to the diversity and structure of the human microbiome and I wonder how that fits in). This caused an increase in negative emotions. The migrants/outcasts (were these decay individuals?) identified the regulation of their external environment as the preferred solution to increase their positive emotions. This is what determined the vector of technological development. At this stage humans became extraregulators of their external environment in addition to already being niche constructors (i.e. disturbers) and regulators of their internal environment. Humans are not the only species that extraregulates, however, we are a very conspicuous example.

Questions:

If the tight correlation between different organisms that are part of an immotile ecological community is perturbed the ability of the ecological community to regulate its local environment (i.e. its behavior) degrades. Likewise a change in the human microbiome will impact human behavior. If the human microbiome is perturbed beyond a specific point a person may no longer be viable as an organism. I assume this is not different for a tree and this is what happens if we alter its microbiome by for example using pesticides, herbicides or fungisides? Or by planting a tree in an area where the soil microbiome consists of different species or where it has a different structure compared to the tree’s home range? This brings me back to a question I sent ealier (see below).

Question:

“Only those species that are able to perform necessary work on the regulation of the environment have a chance to persist in the biosphere and enter a certain community” (Gorshkov et al, 2000 p. 9).

“The community is an internally correlated system, much more complex than any individual from any species entering it. The structure of the community is determined by and combined from the gene pools of populations of a strictly prescribed combination of species entering that community. That structure cannot be changed, nor the principles along which the community functions, without a cardinal restructuring of all the genomes” (Gorshkov, 1994 p. 159).

The first quote seems to (at least theoretically) leave some space for new species entering the community and modifying the structure. However, the second quote implies that there is only one structure. From the second quote I understand that if, after perturbation of the community, we wait for a complete recovery to take place the structure will be exactly the same every time (assuming a constant state of the environment)? Can a new (e.g. immotile/mobile non-native species) enter a certain community and increase its competitive interaction vis-à-vis other ecological communities and thus persist or are the ingredients (i.e. biodiversity) always the same and does only the recipe (i.e. community structure) vary based on changes in the environment?

[Anastassia Makarieva]

Dear Arie,

The full quote from Gorshkov 1995, p. 159 (see here https://www.bioticregulation.ru/pubs/book95/chapter4a.pdf ) is as follows:

The community is an internally correlated system, much more complex than any individual from any species entering it. The structure of the community is
determined by and combined from the gene pools of populations of a strictly prescribed combination of species entering that community. That structure cannot

be changed, nor the principles along which the community functions, without a cardinal restructuring of all the genomes of all the species in it, and that may only happen in the course of long evolution.

A list of books is here https://www.bioticregulation.ru/pubs/pubs5.php

Evolution does occur. In every lineage, approximately each several million years there appears a new species. This means that these species do not apparently disturb the community structure or they even make it a more efficient regulator. This process can occur without any environmental change, e.g. in the direction of an ever increasing efficiency of biotic regulation -- e.g. minimization of environmental fluctuations and/or the ecosystem recovery time. But once the community becomes a more efficient regulator, it can also change its environment. So environmental change can accompany evolution of biotic regulation.

In my view, your comparisons of motile and immotile ecological communities are very apt.

Regarding were these decay individuals?, -- yes, they were indeed. The founders of modern civilization, our ancestors, were unfit. See here an interesting paper of our colleague Dr. Valery Gavrilov about dispersal and competitive capacity in birds http://rjee.ru/en/rjee-5-3-2020-5/

While the competition for free space/available energy fluxes remains intense, I understand that biogens are to a large extend jointly homogenized and atmospheric/soil moisture/temperature are to a large extend jointly regulated (and toxic biogens are jointly moved into inactive unregulated reservoirs?).

They are jointly moved if and only if every local community benefits appreciably (even if slightly) from doing so.

what happens if we alter its microbiome by for example using pesticides, herbicides or fungisides? Or by planting a tree in an area where the soil microbiome consists of different species or where it has a different structure compared to the tree’s home range?

Such a system will be incapable of biotic regulation. It will be unstable and either degrade or will be colonized by species from normal ecological community (succession).

Best wishes,

Anastassia

понедельник, 9 ноября 2020 г. в 11:37:09 UTC+3, ap.vanduijn:

[Arie Pieter van Duijn]

Dear Anastassia,

Thank you for you comments and explanation.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 20:17, Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Arie,

The full quote from Gorshkov 1995, p. 159 (see here https://www.bioticregulation.ru/pubs/book95/chapter4a.pdf ) is as follows:

The community is an internally correlated system, much more complex than any individual from any species entering it. The structure of the community is
determined by and combined from the gene pools of populations of a strictly prescribed combination of species entering that community. That structure cannot
be changed, nor the principles along which the community functions, without a cardinal restructuring of all the genomes of all the species in it, and that may only happen in the course of long evolution.

A list of books is here https://www.bioticregulation.ru/pubs/pubs5.php

Evolution does occur. In every lineage, approximately each several million years there appears a new species. This means that these species do not apparently disturb the community structure or they even make it a more efficient regulator. This process can occur without any environmental change, e.g. in the direction of an ever increasing efficiency of biotic regulation -- e.g. minimization of environmental fluctuations and/or the ecosystem recovery time. But once the community becomes a more efficient regulator, it can also change its environment. So environmental change can accompany evolution of biotic regulation.

I will try to clarify what I meant as I did not mean to ask if evolution occurs or not.

Assuming a population of normal communities that are in competitive interaction under natural conditions. Furthermore, assuming one or more communities are perturbed and the perturbation is subsequently completely removed and a complete recovery is allowed to take place. Will the community (assuming identical environmental conditions) always return to its exact pre-perturbed state (i.e. species composition as well as relative abundance)?

Assuming a population of normal communities that are in competitive interaction under natural conditions. Furthermore, assuming one or more communities are perturbed and the perturbation is subsequently completely removed and a complete recovery is allowed to take place. Will the community (assuming altered environmental conditions) return to its exact pre-perturbed state with regards to species composition, but never with regards to relative abundance?

Assuming a population of normal communities that are in competitive interaction under natural conditions. Is it possible that an immotile/locomotive non-native invasive/introduced species enters a normal community and subsequently contributes to increasing its competitive vis-à-vis other normal communities and thus persist in that community? 

In case the answer to the previous question is no, is this only possible in decay communities? If yes, will the immotile/locomotive non-native invasive/introduced species always add to the further degradation of the decay community or are there other possibilities (e.g. contribute to the decay community outcompeting normal communities or contribute to the transformation of the decay community to a normal community)? 

In my view, your comparisons of motile and immotile ecological communities are very apt.

Regarding were these decay individuals?, -- yes, they were indeed. The founders of modern civilization, our ancestors, were unfit. See here an interesting paper of our colleague Dr. Valery Gavrilov about dispersal and competitive capacity in birds http://rjee.ru/en/rjee-5-3-2020-5/

If for a moment and for the sake of argument I assume the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis to be fact, could it also be that these individuals were not decay individuals, but rather normal individuals that instantaneously found themselves in a completely altered environment?

Thank you for pointing out the article or your colleague Dr. Valery Gavrilov. I had not found that particular commentary yet. I have a question that I've been meaning to ask with respect to the territoriality of locomotive animals. From my time studying aquaculture I remember that when certain fish species (Atlantic cod if I remember correctly) are put in a tank (i.e. in relatively close proximity to each other) they start to exhibit territorial behavior and often damage each other. As a fish farmer this is not what you want as it reduces the market value of your product. However, when increasing the density further at a certain relatively high density the fish stop exhibiting territorial behavior. I have often compared this to people living in large cities who seem to ignore each other. Is this disappearing competitive behavior beyond a certain population density a widely occurring genetic program among locomotive animals? If yes, what possible purpose could it serve?

 

While the competition for free space/available energy fluxes remains intense, I understand that biogens are to a large extend jointly homogenized and atmospheric/soil moisture/temperature are to a large extend jointly regulated (and toxic biogens are jointly moved into inactive unregulated reservoirs?).

They are jointly moved if and only if every local community benefits appreciably (even if slightly) from doing so.

That is clear. However, in the case of humans, if a human body fails to free itself of certain toxins a body instead stores them in a place where they can do the least harm namely in our fat. Consequently, following the (possible early) death of the human this could help move toxins into inactive unregulated reservoirs of the Biosphere and thus out of the environment. As the contents of certain toxins (present in car exhaust) in trees standing by the side of a road is higher compared to trees growing in a forest, I could say the same thing for trees (i.e. host plus biome). This removal of an (unregulated?) toxic substances from the local environment is clearly to the benefit of a local community, but it also carries a huge cost, which could be the reduced vitality/viability/lifespan of the organisms that are part of the community and thus the community as a whole? So is it an actual mechanism or am I overcomplicating this and should I simply view this instead as the degradation of the system following which it will eventually be colonized by a normal ecological community (succession) as you mention below?

 

what happens if we alter its microbiome by for example using pesticides, herbicides or fungisides? Or by planting a tree in an area where the soil microbiome consists of different species or where it has a different structure compared to the tree’s home range?

Such a system will be incapable of biotic regulation. It will be unstable and either degrade or will be colonized by species from normal ecological community (succession).

Best wishes,

Anastassia

Best wishes, 

Arie

 

понедельник, 9 ноября 2020 г. в 11:37:09 UTC+3, ap.vanduijn:

Dear Anastassia, dear all,

I had some thoughts based on the suggestion by Anastassia that the dissatisfaction with our living conditions outside the “paradise niche” determined the vector of technological development and Mats Almgren pointing out the similarity between human plus gut microbiome and ecological community (tree plus bacteria and fungi). This made me think about the similarities and differences between terrestrial homoiothermic animals (in particular humans) and terrestrial immotile ecological communities from a biotic regulation perspective. Homoiothermic animals hold their internal environment constant in spite of changes in their external environment, while immotile ecological communities regulate sustain the internal milieu of the live layer and their local (external) environment. Despite the fact that these are just thoughts that are still developing, I would appreciate it if you can comment which parts make sense and more importantly which do not and help me to further my understanding of what’s going on.

Like Mats Almgren pointed out, an important similarity is that like immotile ecological communities locomotive homoiothermic animals consist of a host plus microbiome. Therefore it seems we might just as easily refer to such an animal as a locomotive ecological community or to an immotile ecological community as a single organism named after the host (e.g. a Pinus sylvestris). However, while animals carry their microbiome within their natural envelope thus making it portable, trees are instead surrounded by their microbiome without a natural envelope separating host plus microbiome from the local environment. If trees were locomotive (and I know G&M have clearly explained why they are not) it would be impossible for them to transport their microbiome and thus equally impossible for the no longer tightly correlated ecological community to regulate its local environment. However, it is this limitation (if you can call it one) that provides an immotile ecological community with the opportunity to regulate its local environment.

An important difference that seems relevant in this context is that while immotile ecological communities are “capable of balanced use of environmental stores and fluxes of matter and energy” this is not the case for locomotive ecological communities. Even under natural unperturbed conditions the latter require a continuous influx of organic matter from outside the locomotive ecological community (i.e. an external source) and thus as G&M explain they need to be locomotive.

Based on the BRE concept I would summarize that the aim of the genetic program of biotic regulation in the case of immotile ecological communities (i.e. immotile autotroph plus immotile heterotrophs and small animals) is to sustain the internal milieu of the live layer. By doing so the immotile ecological community regulates its local environment. Since an immotile ecological community does not have a natural envelope that protects and separates it from its external environment it is able to regulate its local environment and for the changes to have an impact beyond the local environment, namely the regional and even the global environment. For example the effect of regulating atmospheric moisture also impacts the regional environment and the effect of regulating CO2 levels in its local environment also impacts the CO2 level in the global environment.

Besides I would summarize that the aim of the genetic program of biotic regulation in the case of locomotive ecological communities (e.g. locomotive animal (host) plus immotile heterotrophs and parasites) is similar to that of immotile ecological communities namely to sustain the internal milieu of the live layer (i.e. the organic reservoir = everything within the natural envelope). By doing so the locomotive ecological community regulates its internal environment. Since unlike an immotile ecological community an organism has a natural envelope that protects and separates it from its external environment I assume that under normal conditions the effect of regulating its internal environment neither significantly adds to nor significantly subtracts from the biotic regulation of the regional and global environment. Due to perturbation of immotile ecological communities it can, however, interfere with the regulation of the local environment.

For both immotile and locomotive ecological communities the maximum competitiveness corresponds to a combination of an optimal phenotype with an optimal environment (G&M, 2000; p.58). Immotile ecological communities that are part of the same population engage in competitive interaction. It is in their best interest to engage in competitive interaction for the purpose of stabilizing selection in order to prevent genetic decay. However, at the same time all immotile ecological communities depend on each other for the biotic regulation of the environment at all levels (local, regional and global). I take away that under natural unperturbed conditions, the immotile ecological communities with the least decay individuals will be able to fine-tune their local environment to the most optimal local state. This enables them to be maximum competitive. Under normal unperturbed conditions the state of the local environment is the result of the joint BRE and subsequent fine-tuning by the immotile ecological community that occupies the local environment. Through engaging in competitive interaction the joint immotile ecological communities increasingly create what in commerce is referred to as a level playing field. A level playing field is a situation in which everyone has a fair and equal chance of succeeding. While the competition for free space/available energy fluxes remains intense, I understand that biogens are to a large extend jointly homogenized and atmospheric/soil moisture/temperature are to a large extend jointly regulated (and toxic biogens are jointly moved into inactive unregulated reservoirs?).

Now to focus particularly on humans, when humans moved out of the “paradise niche” the number of environmental stressors increased. Living outside the productive niche and deprived of a favorable climate put more stress on the human ability to regulate their internal environment. While migrating out of the “paradise niche” (together with their microbiome) our ancestors found it increasingly hard work to regulate their internal environment. The resulting change in diet and the subsequent change in the diversity and/or structure of the human microbiome may have even aggravated this (there seems to be a hereditary component to the diversity and structure of the human microbiome and I wonder how that fits in). This caused an increase in negative emotions. The migrants/outcasts (were these decay individuals?) identified the regulation of their external environment as the preferred solution to increase their positive emotions. This is what determined the vector of technological development. At this stage humans became extraregulators of their external environment in addition to already being niche constructors (i.e. disturbers) and regulators of their internal environment. Humans are not the only species that extraregulates, however, we are a very conspicuous example.

Questions:

If the tight correlation between different organisms that are part of an immotile ecological community is perturbed the ability of the ecological community to regulate its local environment (i.e. its behavior) degrades. Likewise a change in the human microbiome will impact human behavior. If the human microbiome is perturbed beyond a specific point a person may no longer be viable as an organism. I assume this is not different for a tree and this is what happens if we alter its microbiome by for example using pesticides, herbicides or fungisides? Or by planting a tree in an area where the soil microbiome consists of different species or where it has a different structure compared to the tree’s home range? This brings me back to a question I sent ealier (see below).

Question:

“Only those species that are able to perform necessary work on the regulation of the environment have a chance to persist in the biosphere and enter a certain community” (Gorshkov et al, 2000 p. 9).

“The community is an internally correlated system, much more complex than any individual from any species entering it. The structure of the community is determined by and combined from the gene pools of populations of a strictly prescribed combination of species entering that community. That structure cannot be changed, nor the principles along which the community functions, without a cardinal restructuring of all the genomes” (Gorshkov, 1994 p. 159).

The first quote seems to (at least theoretically) leave some space for new species entering the community and modifying the structure. However, the second quote implies that there is only one structure. From the second quote I understand that if, after perturbation of the community, we wait for a complete recovery to take place the structure will be exactly the same every time (assuming a constant state of the environment)? Can a new (e.g. immotile/mobile non-native species) enter a certain community and increase its competitive interaction vis-à-vis other ecological communities and thus persist or are the ingredients (i.e. biodiversity) always the same and does only the recipe (i.e. community structure) vary based on changes in the environment?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biotic Regulation of the Environment" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to biotic-regulat...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/biotic-regulation/a64c3e9b-555c-46b8-ab98-ead4baaf9db4n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Arie Pieter
M +31 (0)6 22 06 69 72
Skype ap_vanduijn

"Ambulator nascitur, non fit" (Thoreau 1854)