Jump to content

Daisyworld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Daisy world)

 In progress

Plots from a standard DaisyWorld simulation.[clarification needed][citation needed] Note, these plots are not from, nor do they correspond directly to, any data figure presented in the studies cited herein.[verification needed]

Daisyworld (originally "Daisy World"[1][2]), a term of reference in evolutionary and population ecology, derives from research on aspects of "coupling" between an ecosphere's biota and its planetary environment, in particular via mathematical modeling and computer simulation, research dating to a series of 1982-1983 symposia presentations and primary research reports by James E. Lovelock and colleagues aimed to address the plausibility of the Gaia hypothesis.[3] Also later referred to as a modeling of geosphere–biosphere interactions,[4][non-primary source needed] Lovelock's 1983 reports focused on a hypothetical planet with biota (in the original work, daisies) whose growth fluctuates as the planet's exposure to its sun's rays fluctuate,[3][verification needed] i.e., a pair of daisy varieties, whose differing colours drive a difference in interaction with their environment (in particular, the sun).[1][2] Reference to Daisyworld types of experiments have come to more broadly refer to extensions of that early work, and to further hypothetical systems involving similar and unrelated species.[3][verification needed]

More specifically, given the impossibility of mathematically modeling the interactions of the full array of the biota of Earth with the full array of their environmental inputs,[3] Lovelock introduced the idea of (and mathematical models and simulations approach to) a far simpler ecosystem—a planet at the lowest limit of its biota orbiting a star whose radiant energy was slowly changing—as a means to mimic a fundamental element of the interaction of all of the Earth's biota with the Sun.[citation needed] In the original 1983 works, Daisyworld made a wide variety of simplifying assumptions, and had white and black daisies as its only organisms, which were presented for their abilities to reflect or absorb light, respectively.[citation needed] The original simulation modeled the two daisy populations—which combined to determine the planet's overall reflective power (fraction of incident radiation reflected by its surface)—and Daisyworld's surface temperature, as a function of changes in the hypothetical star's luminosity; in doing so Lovelock demonstrated that the surface temperature of the simple Daisyworld system remained nearly constant over a broad range of solar fluctuations, a result of shifts in the popularions of the two plant varieties.[citation needed]

Synopsis, 1983 simulation

[edit]

Wood and colleagues, in a 2008 review citing the two 1983 Lovelock primary research papers on Daisyworld (still Daisy World or the same in lower case, at that point),[1][2][5] describe it as being formulated in response to early criticism of Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, specifically, being a model "invented to demonstrate that planetary self-regulation can emerge automatically from physically realistic feedback between life and its environment, without any need for foresight or planning on the part of the organisms",[3]

Given the impossibility of fully representing the "coupling" of the whole of the Earth's biota and its environment, the hypothetical model

is an imaginary grey world orbiting, at a similar distance to the Earth, a star like our Sun that gets brighter with time. The environment... is reduced to one variable, temperature, and the biota consist of two types of life, black and white daisies, which share the same optimum temperature for growth and limits to growth. The soil of Daisyworld is sufficiently well watered and laden with nutrients for temperature alone to determine the growth rate of the daisies. The planet has a negligible atmospheric greenhouse, so its surface temperature is simply determined by... [the hypothetical star's] luminosity and its [the planet's] overall albedo [reflective power, the fraction of incident radiation reflected by the surface], which is, in turn, influenced by the coverage of the two daisy types.[3]

This hypothetical construction produces, in its mathematical modeling, a nonlinear system "with interesting self-regulating properties".[3]

Purpose and impact

[edit]
A short video about the DaisyWorld model and its implications for real world earth science.[citation needed]

The purpose of the model is to demonstrate that feedback mechanisms can evolve from the actions or activities of self-interested[clarification needed] organisms, rather than through classic group selection mechanisms.[citation needed] Daisyworld examines the energy budget of a planet populated by two different types of plants, black daisies and white daisies. The colour of the daisies influences the albedo of the planet such that black daisies absorb light and warm the planet, while white daisies reflect light and cool the planet. Competition between the daisies (based on temperature-effects on growth rates) leads to a balance of populations that tends to favour a planetary temperature close to the optimum for daisy growth.

Lovelock sought to demonstrate the stability of Daisyworld by making its sun evolve along the main sequence, taking it from low to high solar constant. This perturbation of Daisyworld's receipt of solar radiation caused the balance of daisies to gradually shift from black to white but the planetary temperature was always regulated back to this optimum (except at the extreme ends of solar evolution). This situation is very different from the corresponding abiotic world, where temperature is unregulated and rises linearly with solar output.

Criticism

[edit]

Daisyworld was designed to refute the idea that there was something inherently mystical about the Gaia hypothesis that Earth's surface displays homeostatic and homeorhetic properties similar to those of a living organism;[citation needed] specifically, thermoregulation was addressed.

Wood and colleagues noted in 2008 that a key element in the hypothetical construct of Daisyworld was that the species of focus,

"the daisies alter the same environmental variable (temperature) in the same direction at the local level and the global level. Hence what is selected for at the individual level is directly linked to its global effects. This makes the original model a special case (and it is one that is not particularly prevalent in the real world). Evolutionary biologists often criticize the original model for this reason."[3]

The Gaia hypothesis has otherwise attracted a substantial amount of criticism from scientists, e.g., Richard Dawkins, who argued that planet-level thermoregulation was impossible without planetary natural selection, which might involve evidence of dead planets that did not thermoregulate.[6][page needed] W. Ford Doolittle rejected the notion of planetary regulation because it seemed to require a "secret consensus" among organisms, thus some sort of inexplicable purpose on a planetary scale.[7][8] Others countered the criticism that some "secret consensus" would be required for planetary regulation, suggesting that thermoregulation of a planet beneficial to the two species arises naturally.[9][non-primary source needed][verification needed]

Later criticism of Daisyworld centers on the fact that although it is often used as an analogy for Earth, the original simulation leaves out many important details of the true Earth system.[citation needed] For example, the hypothetical system requires an ad-hoc death rate (γ) to sustain homeostasis, and does not take into account the difference between species-level phenomena and individual level phenomena.[citation needed] Detractors of the simulation believed inclusion of these details would cause the system to become unstable, making it a false analogy.[citation needed] These criticisms were countered by Timothy Lenton and James Lovelock in 2001, who argued that including further factors can improve climate regulation on later versons of Daisyworld.[10][non-primary source needed]

Subsequent research

[edit]

Later versions of Daisyworld, identifying the research area as "tutorial modelling of geosphere–biosphere interactions", introduced a range of grey daisies, as well as populations of grazers and predators, and found that these further increased the stability of the homeostasis.[10][4][non-primary source needed]

More recently, other research, modeling real biochemical cycles of Earth, and using various types of organisms (e.g. photosynthesisers, decomposers, herbivores and primary and secondary carnivores) also argues to have produced Daisyworld-like regulation and stability, in support of ideas related to planetary biological diversity.[citation needed] This enables nutrient recycling within a regulatory framework derived by natural selection amongst species, where one being's harmful waste becomes low energy food for members of another guild.[citation needed] For instance, research on the Redfield ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus suggests that local biotic processes might regulate global systems.[11][non-primary source needed]

Later extension of the Daisyworld simulations which included rabbits, foxes and other species, led to the proposal that the larger the number of species,[12] the greater thermoregulartory improvement for the entire planet, results suggesting that such a hypothetical system was robust and stable even when perturbed.[13][page needed] Daisyworld simulations where environments were stable gradually became less diverse over time; in contrast gentle perturbations led to bursts of species richness, lending support to the idea that biodiversity is valuable.[13][page needed]

This finding was supported by a 1994 primary research report on species composition, dynamics, and diversity in successional and native grasslands in Minnesota by David Tilman and John A. Downing, which concluded that "primary productivity in more diverse plant communities is more resistant to, and recovers more fully from, a major drought". They go on to add that their "results support the diversity stability hypothesis but not the alternative hypothesis that most species are functionally redundant".[14][non-primary source needed][15][verification needed]

Relevance to Earth

[edit]

Because Daisyworld is so simplistic, having for example, no atmosphere, no animals, only one species of plant life, and only the most basic population growth and death models, it should not be directly compared to Earth. This was stated very clearly by the original authors. Even so, it provided a number of useful predictions of how Earth's biosphere may respond to, for example, human interference. Later adaptations of Daisyworld (discussed below), which added many layers of complexity, still showed the same basic trends of the original model.

One prediction of the simulation is that the biosphere works to regulate the climate, making it habitable over a wide range of solar luminosity. Many examples of these regulatory systems have been found on Earth.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
  • Andrew J. Wood; G. J. Ackland; J. G. Dyke; H. T. P. Williams; T. M. Lenton (January 5, 2008). "Daisyworld: A review". Reviews of Geophysics. 48 (RG1001): RG1001. Bibcode:2008RvGeo..46.1001W. doi:10.1029/2006RG000217. One review providing a 25-year retrospective of the original and subsequent related research.
  • Lovelock, J.E. (1983a). "Gaia as Seen Through the Atmosphere". In Westbroek, P. & Jong, E. W. d. (ed.). Biomineralization and Biological Metal Accumulation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel. pp. 15–25. ISBN 9789400979468. Retrieved July 24, 2024. Papers Presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Biomineralization, Renesse, The Netherlands, June 2–5, 1982{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link). This work was cited as one of the two original 1983 publications by Lovelock, of the Daisyworld construct, by Wood et al (2008), op. cit.
  • Watson, A.J.; J.E. Lovelock (1983). "Biological Homeostasis of the Global Environment: The Parable of Daisyworld". Tellus B. 35 (4): 286–9. Bibcode:1983TellB..35..284W. doi:10.3402/tellusb.v35i4.14616. Retrieved July 24, 2024.. This is not the first report of Daisyworld, rather, it is a followup study designed to test a specific additional question. As described carefully by Wood et al., op. cit., "Watson and Lovelock [1983] reversed the sign of interaction between daisy color and planetary temperature by assuming that convection generated over the warm spots of the black daisy clumps generates white clouds above them. In this case the black daisies are still locally warmer than the white daisies, but both daisy types now cool the planet. Hence the black daisies always have a selective advantage over their white compatriots, which they drive to extinction. Yet planetary temperature is still regulated, albeit on the cold side of the optimum for growth.
  • Lovelock, J.E. & Watson, A.J. (1982). "The Regulation of Carbon Dioxide and Climate. Gaia or Geochemistry?". Planet. Space Sci. 30 (8): 193–202. Bibcode:1982P&SS...30..795L. doi:10.1016/0032-0633(82)90112-X. Paper presented at the IAMAP / ICPAE Symposium "Origin and Evolution of Planetary Atmospheres", 17-18 August 1981, Hamburg, West Germany. This is a review of the Gaia hypothesis which postulates a condition of planetary homeostasis affecting chemical composition and climate. Some criticisms are answered and a new model is introduced for the long term regulation of the mean surface temperature through the biological control of CO2 partial pressure.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) See also this author-presented web source of the full article.
  • Mossman, Kate & Lovelock, James (July 31, 2019). "James Lovelock at 100: "My Life Has Been One Mass of Visions"" (interview). NewStatesman.com. London, England: New Statesman Limited. Retrieved July 24, 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) An interview presenting the history of several topics relevant to this article, from Lovelock's perspective (with respectful reference made to W.F. Doolittle's objections).

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Lovelock, J.E. (1983a). "Gaia as Seen Through the Atmosphere". In Westbroek, P. & Jong, E. W. d. (ed.). Biomineralization and Biological Metal Accumulation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel. pp. 15–25. ISBN 9789400979468. Retrieved July 24, 2024. Papers Presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Biomineralization, Renesse, The Netherlands, June 2–5, 1982{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link). This work was cited as one of the two original 1983 publications by Lovelock, of the Daisyworld construct, by Wood et al (2008), op. cit.
  2. ^ a b c Lovelock, J.E. (1983b). "Daisy World—A Cybernetic Proof of the Gaia Hypothesis". CoEvolution Quarterly (Summer): 66–72. Retrieved July 24, 2024. This work was cited as one of the two original 1983 publications by Lovelock, of the Daisyworld construct, by Wood et al (2008), op. cit.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h Andrew J. Wood; G. J. Ackland; J. G. Dyke; H. T. P. Williams; T. M. Lenton (January 5, 2008). "Daisyworld: A Review". Reviews of Geophysics. 48 (RG1001): RG1001. Bibcode:2008RvGeo..46.1001W. doi:10.1029/2006RG000217.
  4. ^ a b von Bloh, W.; Block, A.; Parade, M.; Schellnhuber, H. J. (April 15, 1999). "Tutorial Modelling of Geosphere–Biosphere Interactions: The Effect of Percolation-Type Habitat Fragmentation" (PDF). Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications. 266 (1): 186–196. Bibcode:1999PhyA..266..186V. doi:10.1016/S0378-4371(98)00590-1. ISSN 0378-4371.[non-primary source needed]
  5. ^ Note regarding syntax: The original Lovelock papers from 1983 present the name for their hypothetical system as "daisy world", and when it appears conjoined, as "daisyworld" (all lower case, apart from its appearances at the beginning of sentences). By the time of the review presented by Wood and colleagues in 2008, the style appears to have consistently been to present the system name conjoined and in title case. Apart from the presentation of early quotes, all appearances in this article follow the more recent Wood convention. See Lovelock (1983a) and (1983b), and Wood et al. (2008), op. cit.
  6. ^ Dawkins, R (1982). The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286088-7.[full citation needed]
  7. ^ Doolittle, W.F. (Spring 1981). "Is Nature Really Motherly?". The CoEvolution Quarterly: 58–63.
  8. ^ Incidentally, neither of these Neo-Darwinians made a close examination of the wide-ranging evidence presented in Lovelock's books that was suggestive of planetary regulation, dismissing the theory based on what they saw as its incompatibility with the latest views on the processes by which evolution works.[according to whom?][citation needed]
  9. ^ Sagan, D. & Whiteside, J.H. (2004). "Gradient-Reduction Theory: Thermodynamics and the Purpose of Life". In Stephen H. Schneider; James R. Miller; Eileen Crist; Penelope J. Boston (eds.). Scientists Debate Gaia: The Next Century. MIT Press. pp. 173–186. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262194983.003.0017. ISBN 978-0-262-19498-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[non-primary source needed]
  10. ^ a b Lenton, T. M.& Lovelock, J.E. (2001). "Daisyworld Revisited: Quantifying Biological Effects on Planetary Self-Regulation". Tellus Series B. 53 (3): 288–305. Bibcode:2001TellB..53..288L. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0889.2001.01191.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[non-primary source needed]
  11. ^ Downing, Keith & Zvirinsky, Peter (October 1, 1999). "The Simulated Evolution of Biochemical Guilds: Reconciling Gaia Theory and Natural Selection". Artificial Life. 5 (4): 291–318. doi:10.1162/106454699568791. PMID 10829084. Retrieved July 24, 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[non-primary source needed]
  12. ^ There are two sets of views about the role played by biodiversity in the stability of ecosystems in Gaia theory. In one school of thought labelled the "species redundancy" hypothesis, proposed by Australian ecologist Brian Walker, most species are seen as having little contribution overall in the stability, comparable to the passengers in an aeroplane who play little role in its successful flight. The hypothesis suggests that only a few key species are necessary for a healthy ecosystem. The "rivet-popper" hypothesis put forth by Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife Anne H. Ehrlich compares each species forming part of an ecosystem with a rivet on the aeroplane (represented by the ecosystem). The progressive loss of species mirrors the progressive loss of rivets from the plane, weakening it till it is no longer sustainable and crashes. See Leakey & Lewin (1996), op. cit.
  13. ^ a b James Lovelock (2000) [1988]. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth (2nd, rev. ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 213–216. ISBN 978-0-19-286217-4.
  14. ^ Tilman, David & Downing, John A. (1994). "Biodiversity and Stability in grasslands" (PDF). Nature. 367 (6461): 363–365. Bibcode:1994Natur.367..363T. doi:10.1038/367363a0. S2CID 4324145. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 27, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[non-primary source needed]
  15. ^ Leakey, Richard E. & Lewin, Roger (1996). The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind. New York, NT: Penguin Random House-Knopf Doubleday. pp. 137–142. ISBN 9780385468091. Retrieved July 24, 2024.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Note, the cited pages are not available via this link.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daisyworld&oldid=1245775063"