Thermodynamic Stability of Ecosystems
by K.
Michaelian
This paper suggests that stable ecosystems are particular cases of
thermodynamic stationary states. These
states are the natural consequence of the evolution of a thermodynamic system
under constant external
constraints. Prigogine's irreversible thermodynamic
theory, applicable under certain conditions to
ecosystems, leads to the result that the inherent stability of a complex
ecosystem is the direct result of
the stability characteristics of the thermodynamic stationary state. The second
law of thermodynamics,
along with a result concerning the negative definiteness of the time change in
the internal entropy production,
dictate the evolution of the community interaction matrix towards
securing stability as the system evolves.
Stasis, in Gould's and Eldredge's theory of
punctuated equilibrium, is analagous to the
thermodynamic
stationary state, and the punctuation of stasis is related to non-equilibrium
phase transitions through a
thermodynamic critical point.
This article has had an interesting history on its route to
publication. It was first published on the Los Alamos Archives in 2000. An
astute writer for the science magazine New Scientist found it interesting and
asked me if he could do a story on my paper. Of course I agreed, but while we
were negociating on how the story would be told, he
was apparently receiving less than flattering remarks on my article from well
know ecologists. Remarks he received (as he informed me later) went along the
lines "I never learned anything from this type of treatment and therefore
I strongly reject the paper". This was too much for anybody, and the witer called it
off.
At about the same time, I sent the article to Nature. The editor
of Nature first refused to consider it, arguing that it was not of interest to
a general readership. After a letter of objection the editor changed their mind
and sent it to review. However it was sent to two ecologists who just couldn't
make any sense out of it. It was rejected on the grounds that I had used the
word "dynamic equilibrium" to describe the thermodynamic stationary
state. This was a result of my using the nomenclature of Mazur. The referees
responded that "ecosystems were far out of equilibrium" and thus the
paper had to be rejected. I next sent the paper to the journal Science. The
editor there rejected it out of hand without sending it for review. I suspect
that the editors of Nature and Science talk a lot to each other.
Tired of the response of ecologists, I decided to send the paper for
review in a physical journal, the Physical Review Letters. The referee there
suggested that the paper could be interesting but that it was more appropriate
for the journal Physcial Review E in a more extended
version. Seeing the wisdom in the referees advice, I
sent it to Physcial Review E. There the editor sent
it for 4 independent reviews. Two of the referees really liked it while two
seemed to hate it. The editor then decided to send it to a "Senior" referee for a final decision. The "Senior" referee, it appears, did not understand my
article so he rather flippantly copied the review
of one of the two previous referees who hated it (including his demonstration
of a terrible lack of knowledge of rudimentary thermodynamics out of
equilibrium). Needless to say, the editor rejected the paper.
Next I tried the journal Europhysics Letters. The
2 referees both seem to have been at a complete loss as to what my article was
about but managed rather well manipulating the details to convince the editor
that it should not be published "at least in its present form".
Ok, by this time I was rather discouraged. I had no problem in
understanding the criticisms being leveled at the paper, and I new that,
up until this point, there did not exist a criticism which I felt would be
worthy of rejecting the paper. I came to the sad conclusion
that there were very few scientists out there who understand
thermodynamics out of equilibrium. And worse, it seemed that most scientists
would not admit this and declare themselves
unqualified to judge the paper. This happened not only in the international
journals, but also locally, with requests for grants to do an experiment to
test some of the predictions of the theory. See D. R. Forsdyke for an insightful
review of the politics of Peer Review.
Well, a little sad I was, and also fustrated,
but the paper was getting better all the time (even non-constructive criticisms
are useful to an author). Also, I was continually inspired by the remark
attributed to Atkin "Don't worry about somebody
stealing your great ideas. If they are really that good, you will have to shove
them down their throats".
I went back on the crusade, this time I sent the paper to the Journal
of Theoretical Biology. This time my luck changed. The editor sent my paper to 6 independent referees! (Maybe its a case of "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence"?) Fortunately, there were some referees who were
expert and sincere in their knowledge of thermodynamics out of equilibrium (and
also in their knowledge of ecosystems) and I received 3 rounds of basically
constructive criticisms which helped produce the final result and lead to the acceptance of the article one year after
submission (and 5 years since the basic idea was formed).
This article was then finally accepted for publication in the Journal of
Theoretical Biology on
[As a
curious footnote, two weeks after this paper was accepted, I was asked by the
editors of the journal Physical Review Letters to
be the deciding referee (among two others which dissagreed)
on a paper submitted to their journal concerning ecosystem stability. ]
Click here for a reprint download of this article in .pdf format article.pdf
Click here if you are interested in reading the Journal of Theoretical
Biology reviewers comments and my responses;
1st round reviewers comments
My response to first round
2nd round of reviewers comments
My response to 2nd round
3rd round of reviewers comments
Didn't require response, just made me happy (read it to get motivation for
reading the paper).