Encyclopedia of Ecology

Some years ago doubts were expressed in this journal about the wisdom of devoting a text to ‘plant ecology’ (Moore, 2007), on the basis that one should not separate plants from the other biotic factors – e.g. animals – that constitute ecology. There should be no such qualms concerning the present treatise (it is too ambitious a project to call it a book), the Encyclopedia of Ecology (hereafter, EofE), which ‘provides an authoritative and comprehensive coverage of the complete field of ecology, from general to applied’ (Elsevier, 2009). Spanning five volumes, scrutinised by a team of 15 Editors, containing >530 articles (‘entries’) from >710 contributors, weighing >1300 grams, costing over €2000, and occupying >4100 pages; by any measure the EofE is ‘big’. But size is not everything; how authoritative is it, how comprehensive in coverage, and does it cover the complete field of ecology?

The 17 subject areas covered (and number of entries thereunder) – but curiously, the EofE only acknowledges 13 on page xxxi – are: General Ecology (87); Ecological Models (49); Global Ecology (49); Ecotoxicology (48); Ecological Engineering (42); Ecosystems (41); Population Dynamics (37); Ecological Indicators (35); Ecological Processes (34); System Ecology (24); Behavioral Ecology (21) (US English is used in the text); Ecological Informatics (21); Evolutionary Ecology (20); Human Ecology (18); Chemical Ecology (7); Ecological Stoichiometry (6); and Philosophy of Ecology (3). Accordingly, the list of subjects appears to cover well the range of sub-disciplines in that multi-faceted discipline, ‘ecology’. Helpfully, the extensive list of Contents, Preface, and Guide to EofE are repeated at the front of each of the five volumes, and its alphabetic coverage is as follows: Vol. 1 A–C; 2, D–F; 3, G–O; 4, P–S; 5, T–X (no Y or Z, but does include Appendices, Names and addresses of Contributors – sadly, no e-mail addresses – and an Index – which, at approx. 260 three-columned pages of small font is bigger than some ecology textbooks!).

Each entry has a useful listing of cross-references to other entries in the EofE and a list of Further Reading. Entries vary considerably in length from a single page (Chaos) to >22 pages for Ecotoxicological Models, with substantial entries also for Microbial Models (21 pp.), Habitat Selection (21 pp.) and Deserts (19 pp.). The topics addressed are extremely wide-ranging and include Astrobiology (almost the most optimistic entry?), Environmental and Biological Impact of Nuclear Wars (maybe the most pessimistic entry), Noosphere (or Noösphere depending on which article you read), Mariculture Waste Management (but no entry for mariculture per se), Ecological Feminism, Fundamental Laws of Ecology, Computer Languages, Phenomenon of Life, History of Life, and Eukaryotes, Origins of (although the last three sit uncomfortably in this collection).

Using an electronic version of the EofE, I searched the text for various terms to get an idea of coverage of topics. The results – in terms of search words/phrases and numbers of ‘hits’ – were quite revealing. Mainstays of ecology such as the fuelling of ecosystems by primary production, flows of energy and cycles of nutrients seem satisfyingly well served: e.g. photosynthesis (507), food webs (340), cycle(s) (2171), flow (1613) and energy (3599). More topical matters also get a very good airing: e.g. risk (1130), risk assessment (305), assessment (1102), impact (1046), ecotoxicology (479) and pollution (750). Likewise, more applied and current issues – e.g. biodiversity (751), conservation (670), management (1870) and restoration (510) – do well. As you would expect for a 21st century publication, major concerns allied to climate change receive much coverage: e.g. methane (216), ozone (295), climate change (>400), climate (1495), carbon dioxide/CO₂ (>1180), carbon (1872), temperature (1934), anthropogenic (404) and human (1938). Curiously, though, some topics you would expect to be high on the list – e.g. El Niño (5), southern oscillation (0), ENSO (26), desertification (32), sea level rise (47), sea level change (4), sea level (169) and salinisation (0) – have disappointingly few hits. And carbon footprint – with only a single hit – seems quite astonishing! The whole genetic engineering debate and its potential to affect ecology seems curiously to be largely overlooked: e.g. GM (0), genetic engineering (17), genetic modification (1) and GMO (1), as are those very human concerns of ecotourism (7) and tourism (15). In contrast, the more philosophical, scientific, conceptual aspects of the subject are well catered for: e.g. model (5165), prediction (286), theory (1178) and hypothesis (476). And finally, and rather gratifyingly, the terms ecology and ecological showed, respectively, 4732 and 7016 ‘hits’.

I have a major pedagogic concern regarding referencing, though. For the vast majority of EofE's entries there is no citation of references within the text – this seems so consistent between articles that it looks like an editorial decision: why? At best, some articles provide references for information included in some of the tables (e.g. Biomass, p.451; Coastal Zone Management, p. 643), but many do not even provide that! This must lead readers – especially those with responsibility for training the next generation of ecologists – to question the scientific good practice of the project. Are we to accept EofE's entries as the final arbiters on a particular subject? In that regard, are they much better than entries in Wikipedia, which we rightly caution our students about? Indeed, EofE tells us – quite unapologetically – that those lists of Further Reading ‘do not represent a complete listing of all the material consulted by the authors in preparing the article’ (p. xxxiv)! Similarly, whilst the Appendices contain several tables of ecologically relevant data (e.g. the atomic composition of the four spheres) no references are cited for any of them. Where have the data come from? How can we assess the veracity or reliability of the information provided?

Another failing is that entries do not have abstracts. This frustration is exacerbated by the fact that you can browse abstracts of the EofE's entries on ScienceDirect (2009). Why are there no abstracts in the hard copy version of EofE? They clearly exist, and their inclusion would have helped considerably in deciding if a particular entry was worth the investment of time and effort in reading it; e.g. in realising that the Coastal and Estuarine Environment entry is all about indices, and the Commensalisms article is concerned only with microbial examples.

EofE appeared generally free from errors, but a noticeable deficiency is the number of ‘broken’ web links. For example, http://www.greatduckisland.net/ on p. 3820 appears not to be anything to do with ‘habitat monitoring on great duck island’. URLs associated with both Yang (2003) and Hoskins (2006), also on p. 3820, did not work, neither did the link for ILEC (2005) on p. 1689. For a multi-authored, multi-national enterprise, the standard of English is very high and seems fine throughout and typographical errors were pleasingly few.

Specifically for plant biologists, EofE contains much of general – but ecological! – botanical interest, e.g. entries on: Botanical Gardens; Life Forms; Phytoremediation; Plant Competition; Plant Defense Strategies; Plant Ecology; Plant Growth Models; Plant Physiology; Rhizosphere Ecology; Tree Growth; and Weed Control Models. Disappointingly (and surprisingly), the Phytosociology entry mentions neither Clements nor Gleeson; Rodwell's (1991–2000) seminal British National Vegetation Classification (NVC) series isn't mentioned either. Encouragingly, searching for plant(s) was rewarded with 6507 hits. And, in case you were wondering, there is no entry for photosynthesis; instead you have to look for autotrophs! On balance, then, even the most sceptical of botanists ought to be satisfied. However, since EofE has a fairly broad, almost entry-level ecological education aspiration (Elsevier, 2009), if you want more in-depth considerations of many plant aspects of ecology (and probably animal aspects, too) you will still need to refer to specialist texts such as Larcher (2003), Schultze et al. (2005) or even Plant Ecology (Moore, 2007).

As an ecology text it is tempting to compare EofE with standard textbooks such as Begon et al. (2005); however, EofE is not a textbook and such a comparison is inappropriate. Instead, the most relevant competition is probably John Wiley & Sons' Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS), which has approx. 400 articles under its ecology collection (out of a total of > 4000 in its 26-volume hard copy version). Whilst space does not permit a comparison of every article, it is instructive to examine a few in detail (Table 1). Compared with ELS, EofE's entries are generally longer (therefore more substantial?), with more suggestions for further reading, and sometimes abundantly illustrated. In contrast, ELS's articles have abstracts. In none are references integrated into the text, nor do they include Acknowledgments, but the readership is similar for all four items. Whilst we are informed that all of ELS's articles have been ‘peer-reviewed to ensure a balanced representation of the literature’ (ELS, 2009), I couldn't find this information for EofE. On balance, I feel that EofE is probably better than ELS's ecology coverage.

Table 1.

A comparison of EofE's History of Ecology and Philosophy of Ecology entries with ELS's items of the same names

	EofE		ELS
Comparator	History of Ecology	Philosophy of Ecology	History of Ecology	Philosophy of Ecology
Author	Egerton	deLaplante	Jax	Taylor
Pages	15	6	6	3
Further reading	60	15	9	14
Illustrations	34	No	No	No
Abstract	No	No	Yes	Yes
Cross-references	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Readership	RPS*	RPS*	Introductory**	Introductory**

* ‘Researchers, professionals and students seeking an authoritative source of information about a particular aspect of general and applied ecology’ (Elsevier, 2009).

** ‘written primarily for undergraduate and non-specialists requiring the basic concepts of a particular subject’ (ELS, 2009).

So, is EofE authoritative? It certainly has a lot of authors, but the pedagogic issues identified let it down markedly in regard to this claim. Is it comprehensive? Probably, within the subject areas it covers. Does it cover the whole field of ecology? I doubt it. However, since EofE is set at a rather general level, for more details, specialist ecological texts will still be needed.

Undoubtedly, EofE is a major landmark in ecology publishing, but would-be readers will have to make up their own minds about its value to them. A major question they will have to answer is whether it is worth its very hefty price-tag. As noted above, an electronic version is available, through either a one-off purchase or an annual subscription, and includes enhanced features for searching and browsing, and internal cross-referencing and dynamic linking to journal articles and abstract databases; however, prices are based on the size and nature of the purchasing institution, so contact with Elsevier's sales department would be needed in order to make the cost comparison.