Abstract
AUSTIN1, in commenting on my communication2, has provided an example of the problems which arise in justifying a non-quantitative approach to a subject such as ecology. Austin attaches significance to an imprecision of definition in my examination of the relationships among functional properties of Californian grasslands, and concludes “more adequate definitions are necessary before McNaughton's suggestions … can profitably be examined”. A critical examination of this proposition shows it to be erroneous. A summary of the data required by such an examination is included (Table 1).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Austin, M. P., Nature, 217, 1163 (1968).
McNaughton, S. J., Nature, 216, 168 (1967).
Margalef, R., Mem. Real Acad. Ciencias y Artes de Barcelona, 32, 373 (1957); Hairston, N., Ecology, 40, 404 (1959).
McIntosh, R. P., Ecology, 48, 392 (1967).
Whittaker, R. H., Science, 147, 250 (1965).
MacArthur, R. H., and MacArthur, J. W., Ecology, 42, 594 (1961).
Margalef, R., Amer. Naturalist, 97, 357 (1963).
Hutchinson, G. E., Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol., 22, 415 (1957).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McNAUGHTON, S. Definition and Quantitation in Ecology. Nature 219, 180–181 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1038/219180b0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/219180b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.