We may not be able to make you love reading, but archaeology of knowledge will lead you to love reading starting from now. Book is the window to open the new world. The world that you want is in the better stage and level. World will always guide you to even the prestige stage of the life. You know, this is some of how reading will give you the kindness. In this case, more books you read more knowledge you know, but it can mean also the bore is full.

The archaeology of knowledge

There is growing recognition that classifying terrestrial plant species on the basis of their function (into 'functional types') rather than their higher taxonomic identity, is a promising way forward for tackling important ecological questions at the scale of ecosystems, landscapes or biomes. These questions include those on vegetation responses to and vegetation effects on, environmental changes (e.g. changes in climate, atmospheric chemistry, land use or other disturbances). There is also growing consensus about a shortlist of plant traits that should underlie such functional plant classifications, because they have strong predictive power of important ecosystem responses to environmental change and/or they themselves have strong impacts on ecosystem processes. The most favoured traits are those that are also relatively easy and inexpensive to measure for large numbers of plant species. Large international research efforts, promoted by the IGBP–GCTE Programme, are underway to screen predominant plant species in various ecosystems and biomes worldwide for such traits. This paper provides an international methodological protocol aimed at standardising this research effort, based on consensus among a broad group of scientists in this field. It features a practical handbook with step-by-step recipes, with relatively brief information about the ecological context, for 28 functional traits recognised as critical for tackling large-scale ecological questions.

/pdf/a-handbook-of-protocols-for-standardised-and-easy-2uo4112zhh.pdf

A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide

An important aim of plant ecology is to identify leading dimensions of ecological variation among species and to understand the basis for them. Dimensions that can readily be measured would be especially useful, because they might offer a path towards improved worldwide synthesis across the thousands of field experiments and ecophysiological studies that use just a few species each. Four dimensions are reviewed here. The leaf mass per area-leaf lifespan (LMA-LL) dimension expresses slow turnover of plant parts (at high LMA and long LL), long nutrient residence times, and slow response to favorable growth conditions. The seed mass-seed output (SM-SO) dimension is an important predictor of dispersal to establishment opportunities (seed output) and of establishment success in the face of hazards (seed mass). The LMA-LL and SM-SO dimensions are each underpinned by a single, comprehensible tradeoff, and their consequences are fairly well understood. The leaf size-twig size (LS-TS) spectrum has obvious consequences for the texture of canopies, but the costs and benefits of large versus small leaf and twig size are poorly understood. The height dimension has universally been seen as ecologically important and included in ecological strategy schemes. Nevertheless, height includes several tradeoffs and adaptive elements, which ideally should be treated separately. Each of these four dimensions varies at the scales of climate zones and of site types within landscapes. This variation can be interpreted as adaptation to the physical environment. Each dimension also varies widely among coexisting species. Most likely this within-site variation arises because the ecological opportunities for each species depend strongly on which other species are present, in other words, because the set of species at a site is a stable mixture of strategies.

/pdf/plant-ecological-strategies-some-leading-dimensions-of-xkw2sqjd4d.pdf

Plant Ecological Strategies: Some Leading Dimensions of Variation Between Species

Publisher Summary The study of leaf anatomy and of the mechanisms of the opening and closing of stomatal guard cells leads one to suppose that the stomata constitute the main or even the sole regulating system in leaf transpiration. Meteorologists have developed a wide variety of formulae for estimating evaporation from vegetation that are based entirely on weather variables and take no account at all of the species composition or stomatal properties of the transpiring vegetation. These “potential evaporation” formulae are widely and, to a large degree, successfully used for estimating evaporation from vegetation that is not water-stressed. Transpiration depends on stomatal conductance, net radiation receipt and upon air saturation deficit, temperature, and wind speed. Saturation deficit and wind speed vary through leaf boundary layers, through canopies, and through the atmosphere above the canopies. The sensitivity of saturation deficit to changes in stomatal conductance depends on where the saturation deficit is measured. If all of the stomata on a single leaf change aperture in unison, there may be a substantial change in saturation deficit measured at the leaf surface but a negligible change in saturation deficit measured a centimetre or two away, outside the leaf boundary layer.

Stomatal Control of Transpiration: Scaling Up from Leaf to Region

Contents

 Summary

I Introduction
II Variability of N : P ratios in response to nutrient  supply
III Critical N : P ratios as indicators of nutrient  limitation
IV Interspecific variation in N : P ratios
V Vegetation properties in relation to N : P ratios
VI Implications of N : P ratios for human impacts  on ecosystems
VII Conclusions

 Acknowledgements


 References



Summary
Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) availability limit plant growth in most terrestrial ecosystems. This review examines how variation in the relative availability of N and P, as reflected by N : P ratios of plant biomass, influences vegetation composition and functioning. Plastic responses of plants to N and P supply cause up to 50-fold variation in biomass N : P ratios, associated with differences in root allocation, nutrient uptake, biomass turnover and reproductive output. Optimal N : P ratios – those of plants whose growth is equally limited by N and P – depend on species, growth rate, plant age and plant parts. At vegetation level, N : P ratios 20 often (not always) correspond to N- and P-limited biomass production, as shown by short-term fertilization experiments; however long-term effects of fertilization or effects on individual species can be different. N : P ratios are on average higher in graminoids than in forbs, and in stress-tolerant species compared with ruderals; they correlate negatively with the maximal relative growth rates of species and with their N-indicator values. At vegetation level, N : P ratios often correlate negatively with biomass production; high N : P ratios promote graminoids and stress tolerators relative to other species, whereas relationships with species richness are not consistent. N : P ratios are influenced by global change, increased atmospheric N deposition, and conservation managment.

https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01192.x

N : P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance

A mechanism of evolution that ensures adaptive changes without the obligatory role of natural selection is described. According to this mechanism, the first event is a plastic adaptive change (change of phenotype), followed by stochastic genetic change which makes the transformation irreversible. This mechanism is similar to the organic selection mechanism as proposed by Baldwin, Lloyd Morgan and Osborn in the 1890s and later developed by Waddington, but considerably updated according to contemporary knowledge to demonstrate its independence from natural selection. Conversely, in the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the first event is random genetic change, followed by a new phenotype and natural selection or differential reproduction of genotypes. Due to the role of semiosis in the decisive first step of the mechanism described here (the ontogenic adaptation, or rearrangement of gene expression patterns and profile), it could be called a semiotic mechanism of evolution. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2014, 112, 287–294.

Adaptive evolution without natural selection

This essay – a collection of contributions from 10 scholars working in the field of biosemiotics and the humanities – considers nature in culture. It frames this by asking the question ‘Why does biosemiotics need the humanities?’. Each author writes from the background of their own disciplinary perspective in order to throw light upon their interdisciplinary engagement with biosemiotics. We start with Donald Favareau, whose originary disciplinary home is ethnomethodology and linguistics, and then move on to Paul Cobley’s contribution on general semiotics and Kalevi Kull’s on biosemiotics. This is followed by Cobley (again) with Frederick Stjernfelt who contribute on biosemiotics and learning, then Gerald Ostdiek from philosophy, and Morten Tonnessen focusing upon ethics in particular. Myrdene Anderson writes from anthropology, while Timo Maran and Louise Westling provide a view from literary study. The essay closes with Wendy Wheeler reflecting on the movement of biosemiotics as a challenge, often via the ecological humanities, to the kind of so-called ‘postmodern’ thinking that has dominated humanities critical thought in the universities for the past 40 years. Virtually all the matters gestured to in outline above are discussed in much more satisfying detail in the topics which follow.

How Can the Study of the Humanities Inform the Study of Biosemiotics

We develop here a semiotic model of evolution. We point out the role of confusion and choice as a condition for semiosis, which is a precondition for semiotic learning and semiotic adaptation. Semiosis itself as interpretation and decision-making between options requires phenomenal present. The body structure of the organism is largely a product of former semiosis. The organism's body together with the structure of the ecosystem serves also as a scaffolding for the sign processes that carry on the ontogenetic cycle and the organisms' behaviour, providing the experience-based chan- nels for decision making in the indeterminate situations of choice. The stability and persistence of ontogenesis and behaviour are based on the plasticity, or the multiviality of organic dynamics. The same plasticity or multivial dynamics is providing the material for further potential evolution. Evolution has occurred when some change becomes irreversible via its stabilization, and it usually means a modification of existing constraints, or scaffoldings. Some examples of these processes are described in the article.

Evolution, Choice, and Scaffolding: Semiosis is Changing Its Own Building

This paper examines the biosemiotic approach to the study of life processes by fashioning a series of questions that any worthwhile semiotic study of life should ask. These questions can be understood simultaneously as: (1) questions that distinguish a semiotic biology from a non-semiotic (i.e., reductionist–physicalist) one; (2) questions that any student in biosemiotics should ask when doing a case study; and (3) still currently unanswered questions of biosemiotics. In addition, some examples of previously undertaken biosemiotic case studies are examined so as to suggest a broad picture of how such a biosemiotic approach to biology might be done.

Biosemiotic Questions

L'A. examine les conceptions de Y. Lotman sur les relations entre la semiotique et la biologie et montre qu'il a formule un certain nombre de questions importantes et propose de nouveaux concepts (semiosphere, sphere de comportement, relation entre symetrie et asymetrie, dialogue et independance des individus, hypotheses pour la creation de nouveaux textes, etc.) qui forment une bonne base, voire meme un cadre approprie, pour l'analyse future des problemes biosemiotiques

/pdf/towards-biosemiotics-with-yuri-lotman-3dj6pn6xts.pdf

Kalevi Kull

Papers

Adaptive evolution without natural selection

How Can the Study of the Humanities Inform the Study of Biosemiotics

Evolution, Choice, and Scaffolding: Semiosis is Changing Its Own Building

Biosemiotic Questions

Towards biosemiotics with Yuri Lotman