Loading field map
Ecosystem science is the study of the flows of energy and materials through communities of organisms and their physical environment, and of the biological, chemical, and physical processes that control those flows. Its central object, the ecosystem, is a deliberately abstract unit: any area of nature that includes living organisms and nonliving substances, interacting to produce an exchange of materials between the living and nonliving parts. An ecosystem can be a pond, a square meter of grassland, a watershed, or the entire biosphere; what makes it an ecosystem is not its size but the presence of coupled biological and physical processes that cycle matter and pass energy along.
The field's defining questions concern quantities and rates. How much energy enters a system through photosynthesis, and what fraction of it is eventually respired, consumed, or stored? How do nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus move among soils, waters, plants, and animals, and what controls the speed and direction of those movements? How do these flows respond to disturbance, to changes in species composition, or to human modification of the landscape? Because these questions require measuring both biological activity and physical transport, ecosystem science has always been an interdisciplinary enterprise, drawing on ecology, hydrology, soil science, atmospheric chemistry, and biogeochemistry.
The ecosystem concept emerged in the early twentieth century from two converging lines of thought. British ecologist Arthur Tansley proposed the term "ecosystem" in 1935 as a corrective to the then-popular idea that plant communities were "organisms" that developed toward a fixed climax state. Tansley argued that the organismic view was misleading: the physical environment was not merely a stage on which the community played, but an active participant in a system that included both the biotic community and its abiotic surroundings. The ecosystem, he wrote, included "not only the organism-complex, but also the whole complex of physical factors forming what we call the environment."
Tansley's formulation drew on earlier work. In the late nineteenth century, American limnologist Stephen Forbes had described a lake as a "microcosm" in which all the organisms were bound together in a struggle for existence that nonetheless produced a stable, self-contained system. Around the same time, European botanists studying vegetation had developed the idea of the "biocoenosis" (the living community) and its "biotope" (the physical habitat), recognizing that the two could not be understood apart. But these earlier ideas lacked the explicit emphasis on energy and material flows that would define ecosystem science.
The decisive conceptual step came in the 1940s, when Raymond Lindeman, a young American ecologist working on a small Minnesota lake, published a paper in 1942 that treated the lake's food web as a series of energy transfers. Lindeman quantified the energy captured by producers, the fraction passed to herbivores, and the fraction passed to predators, and he introduced the idea of "trophic levels"—producers, primary consumers, secondary consumers—as a way to organize these transfers. He also emphasized that a substantial portion of energy was lost at each transfer as heat through respiration, so that the number of trophic levels a system could support was limited by this inefficiency. Lindeman's paper, though initially controversial, became the founding document of ecosystem energetics.
Ecosystem science took shape as a distinct research program in the decades after Lindeman, driven by two related developments: the rise of systems thinking and the need to address practical environmental problems.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the American ecologist Eugene Odum systematized the ecosystem approach in a series of influential textbooks. Odum emphasized that ecosystems could be studied as "machines" that process energy and materials, and he promoted the use of energy flow diagrams, box-and-arrow models, and whole-system budgets. His work, along with that of his brother Howard Odum, helped establish the study of ecosystem energetics as a central concern. Howard Odum went further, attempting to analyze entire ecosystems in terms of energy quality and to apply energy analysis to human economic systems—an extension that remained controversial and never became mainstream.
The most ambitious expression of this systems approach was the International Biological Program (IBP), a large-scale international research effort that ran from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. The IBP aimed to study the "biological basis of productivity and human welfare" by measuring energy and nutrient flows in a range of ecosystems, from grasslands to forests to tundra. The program was criticized for its enormous cost, its sometimes unwieldy data-collection efforts, and its failure to produce the grand predictive models some had hoped for. But it trained a generation of ecosystem scientists, standardized methods for measuring primary productivity and nutrient cycling, and produced baseline data that remain valuable. The IBP also revealed how difficult it was to scale up from small plot measurements to whole-ecosystem budgets—a problem that continues to shape the field.
A second major strand of ecosystem science grew out of biogeochemistry, the study of chemical element cycles at scales from local to global. In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers such as Gene Likens and F. Herbert Bormann established the small watershed approach at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire. By measuring precipitation inputs and stream outputs from a forested watershed, they could construct a complete budget for elements like calcium, nitrogen, and sulfur, and they could detect changes in those budgets caused by experimental disturbance. The Hubbard Brook studies demonstrated that clear-cutting a forest dramatically increased nutrient losses in stream water, providing a scientific basis for debates about forest management. This watershed approach became a model for ecosystem research worldwide because it provided a natural boundary across which inputs and outputs could be measured.
The same period saw the emergence of ecosystem ecology as a distinct subdiscipline within ecology, with its own journals, textbooks, and professional societies. Ecosystem scientists increasingly distinguished themselves from population and community ecologists by their focus on processes rather than species, on fluxes rather than abundances, and on the whole system rather than its component populations. This distinction was never absolute—many researchers worked across these boundaries—but it shaped the field's identity.
Ecosystem science is not organized around a single paradigm but around several complementary approaches that address different aspects of the ecosystem concept. These approaches coexist and often combine, though they emphasize different questions and use different methods.
The energy-flow approach, descended from Lindeman, treats ecosystems as systems for capturing, transforming, and dissipating energy. Its central measure is primary productivity: the rate at which plants and other autotrophs convert sunlight into chemical energy. Gross primary productivity is the total energy captured; net primary productivity subtracts the energy the plants themselves respire, leaving the energy available to consumers. Researchers measure productivity in a variety of ways, from harvesting and weighing plant material to measuring carbon dioxide exchange above a canopy to estimating chlorophyll content from satellites.
The energy-flow approach asks how efficiently energy is transferred between trophic levels, how much energy is stored in biomass versus respired, and how these patterns vary across ecosystem types. It has produced the concept of trophic efficiency—typically only about 10 percent of energy is passed from one trophic level to the next—and the related understanding that food chains are limited in length by energy losses. This approach has been criticized for treating organisms as interchangeable energy transformers and for neglecting the ways that species identity and behavior shape energy flow. But it remains fundamental because energy is the ultimate constraint on all ecosystem activity.
The nutrient-cycling approach focuses on the movement of chemical elements—especially carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and water—through ecosystems. Its central concept is the nutrient budget: the balance between inputs (from precipitation, weathering, and biological fixation), outputs (to streams, groundwater, and the atmosphere), and internal cycling (uptake by organisms, release by decomposition, storage in soils and biomass).
Biogeochemists study the transformations that elements undergo as they move through ecosystems. Nitrogen, for example, exists in many forms—organic nitrogen in living and dead tissue, ammonium and nitrate in soil solution, nitrogen gas in the atmosphere—and the conversions among these forms are carried out by specific groups of microorganisms. Understanding these transformations is essential because they control how much nitrogen is available to plants, how much is lost to streams or the atmosphere, and how ecosystems respond to nitrogen pollution.
The nutrient-cycling approach has been particularly important for addressing environmental problems. Acid rain research in the 1970s and 1980s depended on tracing the movement of sulfur and nitrogen through watersheds. Eutrophication—the over-enrichment of lakes and coastal waters with nutrients—is understood through nutrient budgets. And the contemporary study of the global carbon cycle, including the question of where anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes, is fundamentally a biogeochemical problem.
Systems ecology attempts to understand ecosystems as integrated wholes using mathematical models and, increasingly, computational simulation. Its practitioners build models that represent the major pools (biomass, soil organic matter, atmospheric carbon) and fluxes (photosynthesis, respiration, decomposition) of an ecosystem, then use the models to explore how the system responds to changes in inputs, climate, or disturbance.
This approach has deep roots in the engineering and systems theory of the mid-twentieth century, and it was central to the IBP's ambitions. Early systems models were often limited by computing power and by the difficulty of parameterizing complex models with sparse data. But the approach has become increasingly powerful with the development of remote sensing, eddy-covariance flux towers that measure carbon dioxide and water exchange continuously above ecosystems, and the computational capacity to run global vegetation models.
Systems ecology is not a rival to the energy-flow or nutrient-cycling approaches; rather, it is a way of integrating them. A typical ecosystem model includes both energy and nutrient dynamics, and it is used to project how the system will behave under future conditions. The approach has become the dominant framework for studying ecosystem responses to climate change, because models are the only way to explore scenarios that cannot be experimentally imposed at large scales.
A fourth approach uses natural variation across space as a kind of experiment. By studying ecosystems along environmental gradients—from wet to dry, from cold to warm, from low to high nutrient availability—researchers can infer how ecosystems respond to the factors that vary along those gradients. This approach was central to the development of the "ecosystem concept" in the sense of a classification: the idea that different ecosystem types (tropical rainforest, temperate deciduous forest, grassland, desert, tundra) represent different solutions to the problem of processing energy and nutrients under different environmental constraints.
The comparative approach has been particularly important for understanding how ecosystem processes are constrained by climate and soils. It underlies the finding that net primary productivity increases with temperature and precipitation up to a point, and that nutrient availability strongly limits productivity in many ecosystems. It also provides the empirical basis for predicting how ecosystems will respond to climate change: if we understand how ecosystems function under different climatic conditions, we can project how a given ecosystem might change as its climate shifts.
A more recent emphasis, growing since the 1980s, treats ecosystems not as systems near equilibrium but as systems shaped by disturbance. Fire, windstorms, insect outbreaks, floods, and human land use are not external disruptions of an otherwise stable system but integral features of ecosystem dynamics. This approach asks how ecosystems recover from disturbance, what factors determine their resilience (the capacity to return to a previous state) or their transformation into a different state, and how disturbance regimes interact with climate and land use.
This perspective has important implications for management. If ecosystems are always recovering from disturbance, then there is no single "natural" state to preserve, and management must instead aim to maintain the processes that allow ecosystems to persist and adapt. The disturbance approach also connects ecosystem science to the study of ecosystem services—the benefits humans derive from ecosystems—because disturbance can either enhance or degrade those services.
These approaches are not competing schools in the sense of mutually exclusive paradigms. They are better understood as complementary lenses, each of which reveals a different aspect of ecosystem structure and function. A complete understanding of an ecosystem requires knowing how much energy flows through it (energy approach), how nutrients cycle within it (biogeochemical approach), how these processes are coupled and how they respond to change (systems approach), how they vary across environmental gradients (comparative approach), and how they are affected by and recover from disturbance (disturbance approach).
In practice, most ecosystem scientists combine these approaches. A study of a forest's response to nitrogen deposition might measure nutrient inputs and outputs (biogeochemistry), track changes in productivity (energy flow), use models to project future responses (systems ecology), compare the forest to others along a nitrogen-deposition gradient (comparative approach), and consider how nitrogen enrichment affects the forest's resilience to other stresses (disturbance approach). The field's strength lies in this integration.
Ecosystem science today is shaped by several large-scale concerns. The most prominent is global environmental change. Ecosystem scientists are central to understanding the global carbon cycle, including the role of terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems as sinks for anthropogenic carbon dioxide. They study how climate change alters ecosystem productivity, species composition, and nutrient cycling, and they use models to project future changes. The concept of the "global ecosystem" or "Earth system" has extended the ecosystem concept to the entire planet, connecting ecosystem science to Earth system science and to the study of planetary boundaries—the limits within which human activity must remain to avoid destabilizing the Earth system.
A second major concern is the relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. The concept of ecosystem services—the benefits that ecosystems provide to people, such as clean water, pollination, flood regulation, and carbon storage—has become a framework for connecting ecosystem science to policy and management. Ecosystem scientists increasingly work with economists, social scientists, and decision-makers to quantify these services and to understand the trade-offs involved in different land-use and management choices.
A third concern is the role of biodiversity in ecosystem function. A substantial body of research, much of it from controlled experiments, has shown that ecosystems with more species tend to have higher and more stable productivity, more complete nutrient use, and greater resistance to invasion. This research connects ecosystem science to community ecology and has important implications for conservation: protecting biodiversity is not just about preserving species for their own sake but about maintaining the functioning of ecosystems on which people depend.
Finally, ecosystem science has become increasingly global in scope. The field's early development was dominated by researchers in North America and Europe, and much of its foundational theory was developed in temperate ecosystems. Over recent decades, research in tropical, boreal, arid, and polar ecosystems has expanded the empirical base and has sometimes challenged generalizations derived from temperate systems. International research networks, satellite remote sensing, and global databases have made it possible to study ecosystems at scales that were unimaginable to the field's founders.
Ecosystem science remains a young and evolving field. Its central insight—that life and environment are inseparable parts of a single system—has become a commonplace of environmental thought, but the scientific work of measuring, modeling, and understanding those systems is far from complete. The field's future lies in integrating its multiple approaches to address the unprecedented changes now occurring in ecosystems worldwide.