Talk:Vacant niche

From the following text, I am removing the last sentence:

Furthermore, it seems that authors most critical of the concept "vacant niche" really are critical of the view that niche space is largely empty and can easily absorb additional species. They instead adhere to the view that communities are usually in equilibrium (or at least close to it), resulting in a continual strong competition for resources. This view, indeed, is the basis of Darwinian natural selection.

I think it is an oversimplification to say that communities being in equilibrium is the basis for Darwinian natural selection, because I don't think it's clear in what sense natural selection in non-equilibrium communities would be non-"Darwinian". --Allen 03:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd leave a comment in lieu of the GA review - the lede is very impenetrable - even as a scientist it took me three reads to see what it was getting at. The lede should describe the concept briefly in terms a layman can understand easily, and this might be worth looking at. Thanks, Verisimilus T 09:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I thought that might have been an issue. It is a fairly technical subject though, so it's probably just the leading material that needs work. By the way, don't you mean 'lead'? Richard001 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lead, lede, both are acceptable (see WP:LEDE). Whilst it is reasonably complex it should still be possible to explain the concept in terms a layman can understand, hopefully... I'll have a look at the article myself when I get the chance Verisimilus T 11:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 6th, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This was the biggest problem with the article. I tried to improve the wording a bit, but there's still quite a bit to be done. There is a lot of jargon that makes it a difficult read, especially for those not familiar with ecology. A few instances are:

• 'three Nilghiri Corixinae' in the history section - I have no idea what that means: it should be explained after the quote

• The sentence: "Hutchinson defined the niche as an n-dimensional hyper-volume whose dimensions correspond to resource gradients over which species are distributed in a unimodal fashion." - This is far too technical for anyone who is not a specialist. Terms such as n-dimensional, hyper-volume, and unimdoal must be explained.

• Terms later on like "global adaptive optima", "baupläne", etc. should also be explained.

• The section "Relative frequency of vacant niches in various groups of animals and plants" needs to be made clearer. I can't understand what "SES Values" are, how they are gathered or what they mean and I don't expect most readers would either.

• Lastly, the leader doesn't define what the term means. I realise that it's controversial, but some form of a denifinition must be given. Consider pehraps merging the "Definition" section with the leader (it's a bit short anyway).

2. Factually accurate?: The article seems accurate, but there are some area that are unsourced that should be. Problems with accuracy include:

• the section "Potential causes of vacant niches" has no references.

• improper use of footnotes - They must come after the punctuation that ends what is being referenced, not after the name of the author or work. See Citing sources

• the Harvard references are done incorrectly. A proper example is "Jessica Benjamin has argued that radical politics has been weakened. (Benjamin 1988:9)", whereas this article, for example, uses "Kauffman (p.19) writes: “...many conceivable useful phenotypes do not exist”", or "The ground breaking theoretical investigations of Kauffman (1993) and Wolfram (2002) also suggest the existence of a vast number of vacant niches." - The author with the year and page number comes after the sentence. See Wikipedia:Harvard referencing

• The author of this article seems to be giving his own opinion rather than using references in some cases. For example, "The usefulness of a term should be assessed on the basis of its pregnancy and easy understandability, and on how fertile it is in promoting future research. The term vacant niche alone, appears to fulfill these requirements." If this is not the case, than the improper use of footnotes makes it seem so.

3. Broad in coverage?: Surely broad enough for a Good Article.

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral enough, though watch out for weasal words (I changed a few myself)

5. Article stability? No problems here

6. Images?: One or two more wouldn't hurt, but good enough for now.

It's very close to being a GA and the material is quite interesting. Just make it a little more accesible and make the references more clear by resolving the above issues. If you have any questions, post them here or on my talk page. Good luck! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 11:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

Failed GA as there has been no response to these concerns after 16 days. Mike Christie (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure that either Grinnell (1917) or Elton (1927) left open the possibility of a vacant niche. Grinnell writes (p. 433): "These various circumstances, which emphasize dependence upon cover, and adaptation in physical structure and temperament thereto, go to demonstrate the nature of the ultimate associational niche occupied by the California Thrasher." He identifies a taxon that fills the niche. Elton writes something similar " the 'niche' of an animal means its place in the biotic environment, its relations to food and enemies." Given that both identify an animal as a necessary component of a niche, then without the animal there is no niche. Therefore, there can be no vacant niche. 66.111.125.85 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I should add to the above with what Hutchinson (1959: 150) said: "Early in the history of a community we may suppose many niches will be empty and invasion will proceed easily..." So, clearly Hutchinson did accept the concept of a vacant niche. In fact, even goes so far as to say that a niche exists before there is any organism to fill it. This has interesting ramifications, which I am not sure he thought about: A vertebrate insectivore with powered flight niche existed when the first forms of life appeared at 3.8 Ga, but the niche was not filled until the appearance of pterosaurs around 210 Ma (mid-late Triassic). The problem with this view is that a niche exists because I can think of it. Therefore, I can create all sorts of niches that can never be filled (an insectivorous shark with powered flight in the atmosphere niche). But does creating a hypothetical niche for Earth or an exoplanet make it valid? Probably not, especially if it can be falsified by what we know to be true. In the case of the hypothetical shark with powered flight no shark is known to have lungs, which almost certainly is required for the high oxygen demands of aerial flight. Thus, the hypothesis can be falsified. But still... Hutchinson, G. E. (1959). Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals?. American Naturalist 93:145-159.

66.111.125.85 (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply