Nielsen Søren Nors, Müller Felix
Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section for Bioscience and Engineering, Sustainable Bioresource Technology, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, DK-2450 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Ecosystem Management, Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 75, D-24118 Kiel, Germany.
Entropy (Basel). 2023 Sep 1;25(9):1288. doi: 10.3390/e25091288.
In the last few decades, the number of published papers that include search terms such as thermodynamics, entropy, ecology, and ecosystems has grown rapidly. Recently, background research carried out during the development of a paper on "thermodynamics in ecology" revealed huge variation in the understanding of the meaning and the use of some of the central terms in this field-in particular, entropy. This variation seems to be based primarily on the differing educational and scientific backgrounds of the researchers responsible for contributions to this field. Secondly, some ecological subdisciplines also seem to be better suited and applicable to certain interpretations of the concept than others. The most well-known seems to be the use of the Boltzmann-Gibbs equation in the guise of the Shannon-Weaver/Wiener index when applied to the estimation of biodiversity in ecology. Thirdly, this tendency also revealed that the use of entropy-like functions could be diverted into an area of statistical and distributional analyses as opposed to real thermodynamic approaches, which explicitly aim to describe and account for the energy fluxes and dissipations in the systems. Fourthly, these different ways of usage contribute to an increased confusion in discussions about efficiency and possible telos in nature, whether at the developmental level of the organism, a population, or an entire ecosystem. All the papers, in general, suffer from a lack of clear definitions of the thermodynamic functions used, and we, therefore, recommend that future publications in this area endeavor to achieve a more precise use of language. Only by increasing such efforts it is possible to understand and resolve some of the significant and possibly misleading discussions in this area.
在过去几十年里,包含热力学、熵、生态学和生态系统等检索词的已发表论文数量迅速增长。最近,在一篇关于“生态学中的热力学”的论文撰写过程中进行的背景研究发现,对于该领域一些核心术语的含义和用法,人们的理解存在巨大差异——尤其是熵。这种差异似乎主要源于对该领域做出贡献的研究人员不同的教育和科学背景。其次,一些生态子学科似乎也比其他学科更适合并适用于对该概念的某些解释。最广为人知的似乎是在应用于生态学中生物多样性估计时,以香农 - 韦弗/维纳指数的形式使用玻尔兹曼 - 吉布斯方程。第三,这种趋势还表明,与明确旨在描述和解释系统中能量通量和耗散的真正热力学方法相反,类熵函数的使用可能会转向统计和分布分析领域。第四,这些不同的使用方式加剧了关于自然界中效率和可能的目的论的讨论的混乱,无论是在生物体、种群还是整个生态系统的发展层面。总体而言,所有这些论文都存在对所使用的热力学函数缺乏明确定义的问题,因此,我们建议该领域未来的出版物努力更精确地使用语言。只有通过加大这种努力,才有可能理解和解决该领域一些重要且可能产生误导的讨论。