Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Strong Criticism (strong + criticism)
Selected AbstractsAdjusting Bone Mass for Differences in Projected Bone Area and Other Confounding Variables: An Allometric Perspective,JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH, Issue 4 2002Alan M. Nevill B.Sc., Ph.D. Abstract The traditional method of assessing bone mineral density (BMD; given by bone mineral content [BMC] divided by projected bone area [Ap], BMD = BMC/Ap) has come under strong criticism by various authors. Their criticism being that the projected bone "area" (Ap) will systematically underestimate the skeletal bone "volume" of taller subjects. To reduce the confounding effects of bone size, an alternative ratio has been proposed called bone mineral apparent density [BMAD = BMC/(Ap)3/2]. However, bone size is not the only confounding variable associated with BMC. Others include age, sex, body size, and maturation. To assess the dimensional relationship between BMC and projected bone area, independent of other confounding variables, we proposed and fitted a proportional allometric model to the BMC data of the L2-L4 vertebrae from a previously published study. The projected bone area exponents were greater than unity for both boys (1.43) and girls (1.02), but only the boy's fitted exponent was not different from that predicted by geometric similarity (1.5). Based on these exponents, it is not clear whether bone mass acquisition increases in proportion to the projected bone area (Ap) or an estimate of projected bone volume (Ap)3/2. However, by adopting the proposed methods, the analysis will automatically adjust BMC for differences in projected bone size and other confounding variables for the particular population being studied. Hence, the necessity to speculate as to the theoretical value of the exponent of Ap, although interesting, becomes redundant. [source] The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil developmentJOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2010Lawrence R. Walker Summary 1.,Chronosequences and associated space-for-time substitutions are an important and often necessary tool for studying temporal dynamics of plant communities and soil development across multiple time-scales. However, they are often used inappropriately, leading to false conclusions about ecological patterns and processes, which has prompted recent strong criticism of the approach. Here, we evaluate when chronosequences may or may not be appropriate for studying community and ecosystem development. 2.,Chronosequences are appropriate to study plant succession at decadal to millennial time-scales when there is evidence that sites of different ages are following the same trajectory. They can also be reliably used to study aspects of soil development that occur between temporally linked sites over time-scales of centuries to millennia, sometimes independently of their application to shorter-term plant and soil biological communities. 3.,Some characteristics of changing plant and soil biological communities (e.g. species richness, plant cover, vegetation structure, soil organic matter accumulation) are more likely to be related in a predictable and temporally linear manner than are other characteristics (e.g. species composition and abundance) and are therefore more reliably studied using a chronosequence approach. 4.,Chronosequences are most appropriate for studying communities that are following convergent successional trajectories and have low biodiversity, rapid species turnover and low frequency and severity of disturbance. Chronosequences are least suitable for studying successional trajectories that are divergent, species-rich, highly disturbed or arrested in time because then there are often major difficulties in determining temporal linkages between stages. 5.,Synthesis. We conclude that, when successional trajectories exceed the life span of investigators and the experimental and observational studies that they perform, temporal change can be successfully explored through the judicious use of chronosequences. [source] A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue?BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS, Issue 1 2002HAROLD N. BRYANT ABSTRACT The proposal to implement a phylogenetic nomenclatural system (governed by the PhyloCode), in which taxon names are defined by explicit reference to common descent, has met with strong criticism from some proponents of phylogenetic taxonomy (taxonomy based on the principle of common descent in which only clades and species are recognized). We examine these criticisms and find that some of the perceived problems with phylogenetic nomenclature are based on misconceptions, some are equally true of the current rank-based nomenclatural system, and some will be eliminated by implementation of the PhyloCode. Most of the criticisms are related to an overriding concern that, because the meanings of names are associated with phylogenetic pattern which is subject to change, the adoption of phylogenetic nomenclature will lead to increased instability in the content of taxa. This concern is associated with the fact that, despite the widespread adoption of the view that taxa are historical entities that are conceptualized based on ancestry, many taxonomists also conceptualize taxa based on their content. As a result, critics of phylogenetic nomenclature have argued that taxonomists should be free to emend the content of taxa without constraints imposed by nomenclatural decisions. However, in phylogenetic nomenclature the contents of taxa are determined, not by the taxonomist, but by the combination of the phylogenetic definition of the name and a phylogenetic hypothesis. Because the contents of taxa, once their names are defined, can no longer be freely modified by taxonomists, phylogenetic nomenclature is perceived as limiting taxonomic freedom. We argue that the form of taxonomic freedom inherent to phylogenetic nomenclature is appropriate to phylogenetic taxonomy, in which taxa are considered historical entities that are discovered through phylogenetic analysis and are not human constructs. [source] PERSPECTIVE: SEVEN REASONS (NOT) TO NEGLECT NICHE CONSTRUCTIONEVOLUTION, Issue 9 2006Kevin N. Laland Abstract ,The niche-construction perspective within evolutionary biology places emphasis on the changes that organisms bring about in their selective environments. Advocates of this viewpoint argue that there is both accuracy and utility in treating niche construction as an evolutionary process in its own right, rather than merely as a product of evolution. Here we discuss and assess seven putative weaknesses of the niche-construction perspective. Niche construction has been neglected or rejected on the grounds that (1) it is not prevalent, (2) its study is not tractable, (3) it is not a process, (4) it is caused by natural selection, (5) it does not change our understanding of evolution in any fundamental way, (6) it does not bring about adaptation, and (7) it is not a single phenomenon. In each case, we critically evaluate the theoretical standing of these arguments and consider the empirical evidence that can be brought to bear on the debate. We conclude that none of these are strong criticisms of the niche-construction perspective and maintain that there are compelling reasons for treating niche construction as a major evolutionary process. [source] | ||||||||||