Research Interests

After 2 semesters of studying and reading at the start of my PhD, my research interests are largely unchanged, though perhaps more focused, rephrased, or put into context. I am broadly interested in Biodiversity research: patterns of diversity, mechanisms that maintain diversity, and most especially the consequences of biodiversity or loss thereof. What is biodiversity good for? What are the links between ecosystem structure and function.
Ecological literature has had heated debate over two phenomena that are essentially patterns, with causal connections difficult to test empirically. The first is productivity - biodiversity relationships, with productivity on the X-axis, and species richness on the Y-axis, which seems to seek an environmental determinant of the number of species a particular habitat can support. The second, which continues to be relevant in the context of rapid biodiversity loss in many ecosystems, is the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function, which is often measured as species richness vs. productivity. A kind of bidirectional causality is certainly possible, especially given the number of species that modify their environments. A theoretical bridge was built between commonly observed patterns in both directions, in a recent multi-authored Science paper.
My interest lies primarily in the latter of the two relationships. The lazy part of me if optimistic about the many, generally positive relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem function. The cynic in me repeats the universal science caveat “it's more complex than that in reality”. Ecological systems are complex, and each species, even individual, does not simply act like a passive cog in a machine, contributing additively to the greater whole. Each component interacts, often multiplicitavely, with other components, leading to complex temporal dynamics, and adds noise to simple relationships between the number of species in an area, and measures of ecosystem function.
Not all species contribute equally to a particular function, and each species contributes differently to each measure of ecosystem function. However, interactions between species can lead to indirect links between a species and function, which can also be conditional on the composition of the interaction network. Welcome to complex systems.
There are ways to simplify the question for research purposes. Measures of ecosystem function that are largely independent of species composition, or are universal to all species, helps to minimize the effects of composition. Popular measures along this line include community biomass, ecosystem respiration, and perhaps fluxes of common nutrients such as Carbon, or even nitrogen, though the latter might be dependent on a small portion of the community, despite being necessary for all life.
The complexity doesn't end there, however. Communities of species do not exist in a neutral medium: ultimately, all life must cope with the environment external to the individual (cells, bodies, colonies, etc.). And we all know the environment on Earth is not constant. Not only do interactions between species affect the rates of biological processes, but so do changes in the environment. This is more than just climate change or global warming, but includes roughly cyclical patterns, such as diurnal or seasonal cycles, in addition to large-scale climatic events such as El nino. Climate change actually implies a change in some of these patterns. All these complex relationships means that climate change can have a huge impact on ecosystems at continental scales, as seen in evidence from the last ice-age. It also makes it very difficult to predict what those effects will be. Assuming we can accurately predict the effects of increasing greenhouse gases and increasing mean global temperature, many species seem to respond to changing climates ideosyncratically. Yet again, species interact and those interactions can affect how species will respond to changing environments: avoid stronger competitors despite missing otherwise favourable environments, or following prey species in harsher environments, switching to new resources that arrive in an existing habitat or that are found in new ones. Much of the results could be chaotic and unpredictable.
So I have to ask if it's even worth the effort of trying. I seems daunting at times, but I'm honestly interested in the larger issues of understanding the role of unstable environmental change in ecosystems in general. The impending Climate Change issue is a convenient way of focusing on one kind of environmental change, and a way to convince society to pay me for research I'm interested in doing anyway. The precautionary approach also suggests that we won't know if we can make accurate predictions unless we try, and monitor effectively, so we can hopefully learn from the experience. The pessimistic perspective says that this will ultimately result in only the documentation of intense biodiversity loss. And what's the point of understanding the role of biodiversity after most of it is gone forever? Well, evolution doesn't stop. And diversity tends to beget diversity. Even if we are at the brink of a mass extinction event, I am confident that Life will continue and species diversity will continue to grow (whether or not humans are included as survivors). I prefer to remain cautiously hopeful than surrender to helplessness.
Ultimately, ecology can teach us that we humans cannot survive without other forms of life: we need them to eat, help us digest food, produce oxygen to breath, etc. All life consumes energy and excretes high-entropy waste, in order to maintain a state of low internal entropy. Energy must come from somewhere (it can't be created or destroyed), and large amounts of waste are really an ecological opportunity waiting to be exploited. Give evolution enough diversity to work with, and it's only a matter of time. And time is a resource that appears never to be in short supply.