ABSTRACT
The development of ecosystem research is not consistent with the usual hypothesis tests that drive most reductionist approaches to environmental science. Even as the definition of what constitutes ecosystem-level research is continuously debated by theoretical ecologists, the purpose of such analyses (i.e., development of a factual basis that is useful for system management) remains clear. Because ecosystem research is often used to answer questions that are not necessarily asked at the beginning of the program, such research must remain open-ended. This precludes the usual pattern of hypothesis development that underlies reductionist approaches to funding and publication. It follows that most so-called interdisciplinary projects remain in the domain of patch-quilt ecological efforts whereby individual projects by subdiscipline remain the primary focus. The ecosystem, as such, is thereby defined by post hoc accumulation of information that is often taken in a disparate manner with no real application to the system as a whole. That the overall goals of holistic research are thus not well defined is used to rationalize the lack of application of research results. Accordingly, the usual methodology for ecosystem research, both in terms of data collection and analysis, remains illusory when attempting to answer system-level questions. This blind adherence to time-worn and misplaced reductionist approaches has contributed to the widespread deterioration of coastal systems in the United States in recent times.
