126,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
The idea of socioecosystems answers the growing need to understand, in the context of the Anthropocene, how adaptive processes interact, and how that interplay results in the coevolution of living beings. Studying socioecosystems means taking into account the diversity of temporal and physical scales in order to grasp how ecological, social and economic forces are interwoven. Based on these drivers, the complex dynamics that determine the habitability of the Earth emerge. This book analyzes, through concrete cases from regional socioecosystems on several continents, how research action has provided answers to problems related to agriculture, health and the conservation of biodiversity. It demonstrates that these undertakings could not have succeeded without the combined efforts of the communities of living beings and objects, the community of knowledge and the communities of action. These examples are accompanied by a reflection on the conditions that make it possible to bring this research to completion.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 591
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Foreword: The Knowledge Community at the Service of Communities
Preface
1 Agricultural Changes and Population Outbreaks of Grassland Voles
1.1. Introduction
1.2. The European Common Agricultural Policy and its national implementation, voles and their predators…
1.3. Controlling outbreaks and their consequences: from correlations to action
1.4. What methodological lessons can be drawn from this experience?
1.5. Acknowledgments
1.6. References
2 The Pollution of a River: A Sociological Investigation of Knowledge and Expertise
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Different types of knowledge to qualify the situation
2.3. Several groups of scientists investigating the same situation
2.4. Conclusion
2.5. References
3 Farm Environment, Raw Milk and Immunity: A “Field” Study of Tolerance Learning
3.1. Introduction: from farm disease to farm protection, a rural environmental story
3.2. Atopic allergic diseases: multifactorial, multidisciplinary and, paradoxically, not very rural
3.3. The increasing prevalence of atopic allergic diseases in the population of developed countries: an enigma of the second half of the 20th century
3.4. The role of the farm environment in protecting children from atopic allergic diseases
3.5. Setting up the PASTURE cohort in Germany, Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Franche-Comté
3.6. At the crossroads: assessment and avenues still to be explored by the PASTURE cohort
3.7. Acknowledgments
3.8. References
4 Ecology of
Echinococcus multilocularis
Transmission
4.1. Introduction
4.2. The Jura transmission system
4.3. Ecology of Echinococcus multilocularis transmission in China and Kyrgyzstan
4.4. The mountains of southern Gansu and Ningxia
4.5. Alpine meadows from Altai to Pamir
4.6. Conclusion
4.7. Acknowledgment
4.8. References
5 “Indigenous” Views of the Disease and Risks Associated with Alveolar Echinococcosis
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Building scientific cooperation
5.3. Collaborating: working with others
5.4. Indigenous visions of social reality
5.5. Lessons learned allow us to think differently about prevention
5.6. Proximity to a sick person reinforces preventive behavior
5.7. References
6 Conservation of the Black-and-White Snub-nosed Monkey
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Historical context and issues
6.3. Habitat connectivity and population genetics
6.4. In search of lost place names
6.5. Animal tourism: what are the consequences for the black-and-white snub-nosed monkey?
6.6. References
7 Cholera in Africa, from Fatalism to the Hope of Elimination: The Story of the Revolt Against a
Status Quo
7.1. How can we engage in a collective approach to action research in health?
7.2. The first years of the fight against cholera and the disillusionment of humanitarianism
7.3. From unpredictable to predictable cholera
7.4. Toward the elimination of cholera and the discovery of governance issues
7.5. References
Conclusion: Cooperation at Work: Sociology of a Scientific Standpoint
C.1. Methodological aspects
C.2. Legacy
C.3. Doing it together
C.4. Passing on: giving and taking to give back
C.5. Conclusion
C.6. References
List of Authors
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Preface
Figure P.1. Conceptual diagram of a socioecosystem as proposed for the CNRS Work...
Figure P.2. Representations of the social, economic and living spheres. a) As cu...
Figure P.3. Set of causalities and disciplines related to the upstream resoluti...
Figure P.4. Diversity of specialties involved in the work edited by Jean-Antoine...
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1. Water vole tumuli in the commune of Les Combes in February 2012, du...
Figure 1.2. Evolution of permanent grassland in the Doubs department, from Girau...
Figure 1.3. Temporal evolution of water vole outbreaks in the Doubs department, ...
Figure 1.4. Landscape composition and outbreak risk. a) common vole in Côte-d’Or...
Figure 1.5. Effect of landscape structure on common vole population dynamics. Op...
Figure 1.6. Synchrony of decline and low-density phases (rectangles) of small gr...
Figure 1.7. Diet variations of foxes and barn owls. Note the diversification of ...
Figure 1.8. Numerical response of vole predators observed by day and night roads...
Figure 1.9. Variations in the kilometric abundance index (KAI) of red fox, hare,...
Figure 1.10. Changes in the relative abundance of foxes in Doubs department foll...
Figure 1.11. Evolution of bromadiolone use in water vole control. RT, regulatory...
Figure 1.12. Evolution of wildlife mortality with confirmed or suspected death b...
Figure 1.13. The different proposals in the toolkit over the course of a 5-year ...
Figure 1.14. Comparison of an area under an integrated pest management contract ...
Figure 1.15. Typology of common vole population dynamics according to environmen...
Figure 1.16. Cascade of consequences of grassland specialization on water vole p...
Figure 1.17. Grass growth on the Jura plateaus comparing the standard reference ...
Figure 1.18. Discontinuity, dispersion and short-term sources of research fundin...
Figure 1.19. The time of the voles, the farmer and the researcher (infographics ...
Figure 1.20. Professional sectors involved in the research
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. The Loue River at Mouthier-Haute-Pierre (photo J.-P. Grandmont)
Figure 2.2. Second Conférence départementale de la Loue et des rivières comtoise...
Figure 2.3. Trout affected by Saprolegnia. The white filaments and spots corresp...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1. Working hypotheses from cross-sectional epidemiological studies in t...
Figure 3.2. Main steps in the immune response leading to the clinical manifestat...
Figure 3.3. PASTURE cohort study sites. For a color version of this figure, see ...
Figure 3.4. Timeline of the study. The timeline shows the main stages of the stu...
Figure 3.5. Exposure to Poaceae pollen in barns at different stages of cattle fe...
Figure 3.6. Composition of the microbial flora of milk analyzed in the framework...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1. Lifecycle of the Echinococcus multilocularis (infography CHRU Jean M...
Figure 4.2. Age structure of a common vole (Microtus arvalis) population and dis...
Figure 4.3. Distribution of rodent species according to their habitat in the stu...
Figure 4.4. Contamination of fox feces by E. multilocularis as a function of the...
Figure 4.5. Global variables and ecological model of Echinococcus multilocularis...
Figure 4.6. Map of the Asian study areas. The background is a 1 x 1 km resolutio...
Figure 4.7. Species richness of non-flying small mammals in mainland China. Alve...
Figure 4.8. Examples of relationships between human alveolar echinococcosis prev...
Figure 4.9. Typical grassland landscape of the eastern edge of the Tibetan plate...
Figure 4.10. Model for predicting the prevalence of human alveolar echinococcosi...
Figure 4.11. Landscapes in May 2015 in Zhang County. Ploughing on steep slopes, ...
Figure 4.12. Mapping of villages, from Giraudoux et al. (2003). Red circles are ...
Figure 4.13. Distribution of small mammal species by habitat in Min and Zhang co...
Figure 4.14. Age-specific prevalence in the screened populations from 1994 to 19...
Figure 4.15. Scenario of transmission system evolution in Min and Zhang counties...
Figure 4.16. Landscape of cultivated terraces (flax, wheat, rape, potato, etc.) ...
Figure 4.17. a) Larch wooded pasture near Lake Kanas, near Baihaba, Altai. b) Co...
Figure 4.18. Focus of Sary Mogul, Kyrgyzstan: a) Village and foothills of Abu Al...
Figure 4.19. Selected factors affecting the intensity of transmission of Echinoc...
Figure 4.20. Organization of the disciplines contributing to the eco-epidemiolog...
Figure 4.21. Transmission systems and their flagship species, from Giraudoux et ...
Figure 4.22. Typology based on the heterogeneity of E. multilocularis transmissi...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1. Young male black-and-white snub-nosed monkey (photo Li Li)
Figure 6.2. Lichens on which black-and-white snub-nosed monkeys mainly feed (pho...
Figure 6.3. Historical and current distribution of black-and-white snub-nosed mo...
Figure 6.4. Typical biotope of black-and-white snub-nosed monkeys at 3,700 m alt...
Figure 6.5. Using a land-use map adapted to the ecology of the black-and-white s...
Figure 6.6. Location of the 1,482 agricultural parcels located within the corrid...
Figure 6.7. Specimens from the collection of the Muséum national d’histoire natu...
Figure 6.8. Church of Cizhong and vineyard planted by missionaries in the 19th c...
Figure 6.9. Old map from the archives of the Foreign Missions of Paris, drawn up...
Figure 6.10. a) Early engraving (MEP archives, © Institut de recherche France-As...
Figure 6.11. Tourist visits to black-and-white snub-nosed monkey feeding sites i...
Figure 6.12. Location of black-and-white snub-nosed monkey feces collected in th...
Figure 6.13. Simulated temporal evolution of genetic diversity in the black-and-...
Figure 6.14. Cattle (a) and pigs (b) grazing near feeding areas (photos P. Girau...
Figure 6.15. Proportion of fecal samples positive for Entamoeba spp. by species ...
Figure 6.16. Location of fecal samples collected for the different host categori...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1. Map of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the main places me...
Figure 7.2. Temporary cholera treatment center in rural areas (photo D. Bompangu...
Figure 7.3. Fishing camp on an island in Lake Upemba, upper Congo River basin. F...
Figure 7.4. Water collection point in the Bukama area (photo D. Bompangue)
Figure 7.5. Sources of epidemiological data in paper and electronic formats (pho...
Figure 7.6. Weekly reporting of cholera cases in the health zones of the Great L...
Figure 7.7. Time series of weekly cholera cases from 2000 to 2007 in South Kivu....
Figure 7.8. Relationship between the number of cholera cases and fluctuations in...
Figure 7.9. Number of reports and location of cholera outbreaks in the African G...
Figure 7.10. Artisanal miners suffering from cholera in the mining village of Ki...
Figure 7.11. Cholera outbreaks and main events in the five health districts, fro...
Figure 7.12. Spatio-temporal spread of the 2011 epidemic. Map of the Democratic ...
Figure 7.13. Cholera epidemic curve by target health zone and response time. Wee...
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1. Hierarchy of factors correlated with variations in montane water vole...
Table 1.2. Toolkit used in integrated pest management contracts between Fredon a...
Table 1.3. Rethinking advice to better meet needs, from Couval et al. (2013)
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Foreword
Preface
Begin Reading
Conclusion
List of Authors
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
v
iii
iv
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
295
296
297
298
299
300
SCIENCES
Ecosystems and Environment
Field Directors – Françoise Gaill and Dominique Joly
Social Ecosystems, Subject Head – Dominique Joly
Socioecosystems
Indiscipline as a Requirement of the Field
Coordinated by
Patrick Giraudoux
First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2022
The rights of Patrick Giraudoux to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022930810
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78945-052-1
ERC code:
LS8 Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology
LS8_1 Ecosystem and community ecology, macroecology SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space
SH2_6 Sustainability sciences, environment and resources
ForewordThe Knowledge Community at the Service of Communities
Arnaud MACÉ
Logiques de l’agir, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
The book you have in your hands invites us to renew our ways of thinking and acting in the world in which we live; perhaps it will even renew the way you see the unity of this world and the way we can build our future within it. You will begin an adventure, that of scientists who have learned to work together despite the diversity of their disciplines and the heterogeneity of their subjects, and discover that by pooling their concerns in this way, they are teaching us to organize collectively in order to take care of this world and ourselves. If I may be permitted a detour, I would say that the approach reflected in this book revives a very old idea, that knowledge is at the service of the public in a very particular way, in the sense that it is the guarantor of the unity of the world in which we find ourselves, so that the diversity of the needs of a community living in a given location can find its place among things. Yes, the ecologists, biologists, epidemiologists, virologists, physicians, socio-anthropologists and a few others whose common endeavors are outlined in this book are following in the footsteps of the ancient Greek sages. We must therefore try to explain why, and to do so, we must start with Homer, as always.
In Canto XVII of the Odyssey, a Greek language epic that is often dated to around the 8th century BCE, the hero Odysseus, thought to be dead after an absence of 20 years, finally returns home to find his house occupied by a crowd of men seeking to marry his wife Penelope. He enters his home in the garb of a beggar and thus arouses the indignation of one of the suitors, who thinks that a “wretch” should not be brought into one’s home, as opposed to other strangers whom he calls dêmioergoi (this is the pronunciation in Ionian; the Greeks of Attica would say dêmiourgoi, a term in which we recognize the origin of “demiurge” in English). There follows a list of examples of these strangers whom it is in our interest to welcome because they all provide a valuable service: there is the soothsayer – the one who will tell us whether or not the actions we undertake have the favor of the gods, which, for the ancient Greeks, indicated whether or not they would be successful; there is “the physician for evils”, from which he delivers us; there is the “carpenter for wood”, from which houses are made; and finally, there is the “singer inspired by the gods, whose song is enchanting”, thanks to whom one forgets the ills endured and remembers all that it is important to remember1. A demiourgos is literally someone who acts, works and strives (this is the meaning of the suffix ourgos) for the public: something that is dêmios (in classical Greek, we would say dêmosios) is what concerns everyone, the whole community, and not the particular interest of a given individual. There are two aspects to be distinguished here in what I would call “epistemic publicity” (Macé 2013, pp. 16–31): on the one hand, it is know-how, a technique, a skill that allows the physician, the soothsayer, the poet or the carpenter to offer his or her services to an audience (as opposed to the amateur, the “Sunday” carpenter, who would do better to keep his or her talents private); on the other hand, the public to which knowledge is offered is very broad, broader than all other communities, for the physician treats all the sick, rich or poor, children or adults, young or old, citizens or strangers, just as the poet sings for all. The “demiurge” is thus someone with knowledge, or know-how, and also someone who offers a universal service.
This last aspect explains why the scholar is often a stranger, an itinerant, belonging to no one and to everyone, even when he or she settles somewhere. Nevertheless, something new happens when the demiurges settle down together in the same place and put themselves at the service of the same community, the same city or, as the Greeks said and perhaps we would say today, of the same territory and its community of inhabitants. The latter then becomes the recipients of the attention of a multiplicity of men and women who are custodians of know-how. The multiplicity of their objects – from the roofs of houses to shared memories, from the health of bodies to the joy of souls – begins to outline the contours of a set of beneficial things that we might call the common good. In ancient Greece, as new knowledge and disciplines developed, from geometry to economy, botany to astronomy, the contours of this common good became increasingly complex, while disagreements among scholars about how to map it grew. The internal quarrels within the city redoubled the conflict: some brandished the expertise of others against expertise aligned with their interests. It was in this context that “philosophy” was born, which was initially nothing more than a taste for all this knowledge, as its name indicates (“love of knowledge”), driven by the desire to find a way of arranging it so that a harmony would appear within the heterogeneous multiplicity of their objects and give rise to renewed unity for the city.
Let us return to the present work and its demiurges. There are many of them, all of them itinerant by the very strength of their knowledge, even when they stay in one place. This book follows them to the bedside of different groups around the world: the population of Inongo or Bukama, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, plagued by cholera epidemics; the herders of the plains and mountains of the Jura and the farmers of Zhang County, north of the Min Mountains in southern Gansu, all of whom are confronted with alveolar echinococcosis; groups of black-and-white snub-nosed monkeys in Tibet and Yunnan, threatened by habitat destruction owing to deforestation; and fish in the Loue River mysteriously dying by the dozen. In this book, there are even scientists who look at other scientists, watch them work and wonder what conditions lead them to be able to collaborate in the same field. The conclusion will tell you all about how their paths have led them to nourish their “indiscipline”. Not that they deny their disciplines, quite the contrary: it is understood that no scholar will be useful if they do not know the secrets of their art. The carpenter does not become a soothsayer. The indiscipline is elsewhere – it is that which allows these scholars to accept only one rule, that of following all the threads of the problem that confronts the community to which they have come. Chapter 7 on cholera in the Congo is perhaps the most striking example of this. The young doctor becomes an investigator: he understands that there is no chance of stopping the epidemic without going back to its source in the lakeside camps the sick come from, and that this must be done against the advice of the authorities and the hierarchy. The situation reveals the people: a logistician of the camp also enters into indiscipline by organizing a salutary expedition.
Chapter 2 on the pollution of the Loue River clearly shows the extent to which, without such indiscipline, scientists can fail to tie up the threads of a situation. Like the proliferation of voles in Chapter 1, the episodes of fish mortality in the Loue, observed from 2009 onward, elude single-factor solutions: the problem unfolds in multiple dimensions and each requires new scientists capable of following the different paths – of cyanobacteria, toxic molecules and agricultural nutrients, respectively. The sociological investigation patiently identifies all of the obstacles that prevent the experts from each contributing their piece to the puzzle. Rivalries between teams emerge, fueled by the discordance of administrative bodies and clashing interests. The patchwork of the “ordinary” knowledge of those who know the places, the “scientific” knowledge of the experts who come and go between the river and the laboratory, and the “legal” and “administrative” knowledge of the institutions plays on its disharmony; at times, certain actors manage to articulate them – for example, when the figure of the investigator appears under the guise of ecologist/fisherman/volunteer. The region is struggling with itself around its river, and the people and the fish would need the indiscipline of the scientists, the citizens and even the administrators.
We understand that this indiscipline is in fact nourished by a higher respect, that of the multidimensionality of the situation. We could introduce this with a timeless fable, which we could call the fable of the voles. It all begins with voles: in Chapter 1, we are told how a landscape, the mid-altitude meadows of the Jura mountains, is changing under the impact of intensified production of Comté cheese and land consolidation, and that one day, farmers find themselves confronted with “traveling waves” of voles. It is the resilience of the problem, continuing for more than 40 years, that brings a multiplicity of scientists to the meadows: It is already necessary to multiply the approaches to simply make the problem appear, measure its extent; carry out studies to understand why the first approaches using rodenticides fail and cause cascading harmful effects; and open up other avenues capable of explaining the peaks and declines in vole density – land consolidation, felling of hedges, fluctuation in the predator population, the role of various pathogens, stress, etc. It is clear that this is not a matter of interdisciplinarity, but rather of pooling different types of knowledge: the problem has many facets and very specific knowledge must be brought together to address it. Moreover, the conclusion, looking back at the careers of the researchers involved in this book, insists on the fact that their “indiscipline” is because they have sometimes crossed disciplinary boundaries to acquire an additional discipline, even though they had already mastered one. It is a question of hybridization, of adding up the disciplines: of crossing boundaries, not erasing them. Let us look at the story of the voles again. It appears, after testing all the hypotheses, that there is no other effective action than that which is based on the recognition of the multifactorial dimension of the phenomenon; this also implies a renunciation of curative treatments based on a single variable (chemical action) and the adoption of a preventive perspective which translates the multiple approach into a toolbox bringing together all the relevant levers. Multiple problems require multiple actions. However, multiple actions in turn require the creation of communities of actors. No farmer can solve the problem of voles by relying on himself alone; he has no choice but to become a member of a collective that is itself capable of understanding what knowledge can only communicate by also finding a way to collectively outline a problem. This is the moral of the fable of the voles: there are problems that can only be solved when the scholars, on the one hand, and the inhabitants, on the other hand, agree to be brought together by the multidimensionality of a situation. A community of knowledge must be built – all heterogeneous, all based on their own requirements, but brought together by a common task – and this community must make it clear to the inhabitants of a territory that they can only solve their problem by forming collectives capable of taking on forms of action that respond to the complexity of the situation.
One of the central arcs of the book is probably the moment when two different teams from the University of Franche-Comté realized, in the 1980s, that their objects were aligned. On the one hand, the team of ecologists who were studying the proliferation of voles on the Jura plateaus and who, in the midst of their multifactorial investigations, came across the presence of Echinococcus multilocularis, a parasite, in these small animals (Chapter 1); and, on the other hand, the medical team that follows the recrudescence of the disease, alveolar echinococcosis, owing to the presence of this parasite in humans and the mystery of its local appearance in clusters, when the disease is not transmitted from human to human (Chapter 4). Each of these teams had already had to bring together a multiplicity of specialties to investigate such a complex subject, but then this subject took on a scope that led them to join together in an approach that they call “eco-epidemiological” and that truly takes into account the scale of a territory – there is no limit to the number of mathematical, physico-chemical, ecological, medical, and humanities and social sciences knowledge that can be called upon to draw out all of the strands of a problem of this kind. Wherever this method is used in the chapters of the book, all over the world, we find the alliance between multifactorial approach and preventive action, particularly through the identification of “risk landscapes”, for example, the one that increases the surface of exposure between rodents and foxes and thus offers the parasite a complete development cycle from one organism to another. The identification of this landscape, once done in the Jura, led to an international collaboration with British, Chinese and Japanese researchers to explore the same avenues in regions of China affected by the same phenomenon, in Xinjiang, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Ningxia. The result is a panoramic picture of the development of the disease and an exploration of the socio-economic factors that promote it, and, ultimately, a robust toolkit for human communities seeking to prevent the emergence of “risk landscapes” and the onset of cycles that lead to humans.
The exploration of cholera risk landscapes in the Bukama region also leads to the description of preventive actions and a form of toolkit, ranging from awareness-raising to the use of fishing nets, through the distribution of water storage devices. This method is then transposed to other epidemic areas and leads to the construction of a vast prevention program based on a database listing cases and their contexts (Chapter 7). The difficulty of modifying ancestral practices in the fight against cholera in the Congo echoes the investigation in Chapter 5 on the specific resistance of the populations of the Jura to prevention campaigns for alveolar echinococcosis. Socio-anthropologists undertake the collection and analysis of representations: the relationship to health, animals and food, as well as to the environment, disease and health risks. The survey shows that the perception of the risk of contamination is strongly correlated with the way farmers see their environment, “nature”, depending on whether they perceive it as intact and beneficial or as corrupted, polluted and a source of new dangers; these representations are linked to know-how and inherited practices, and have an impact on the modification of practices. The perception of risk is also expressed in terms of relationships to proximity, domestic and wild space, and focuses on the intermediate space of the garden. Proximity to the disease, contracted by a close person, is a strong factor in modifying practices. The lessons of anthropology thus add to the precautions to be included in the toolkit: the collective construction of solutions presupposes that the representations through which human collectives approach the situation are taken into account.
A toolkit again gradually emerges in the investigation of Chapter 6 on the black-and-white snub-nosed monkey, in Tibet and Yunnan. The arrangement of knowledge is again daring, by bringing together the ecological study of monkey population movements, the resistance and facilitation of this movement by the environment (the measurement of its “viscosity”) with the genetic study of populations over time, the comparison of which is based on the use of the remains of members of the species preserved in museums since the 19th century, with a considerable amount of work carried out to identify ancient capture sites. Once again, the picture that has been drawn up provides a toolkit for the inhabitants and local authorities who wish to prevent the black-and-white snub-nosed monkey from disappearing. Collective action is therefore based on a range of means and actions that could only be identified by bringing heterogeneous knowledge into contact and discovering the concatenation of their objects.
The inclusion of Franche-Comté in the regions where the European PASTURE study was deployed has made it possible to explore the environmental factors of human health in greater depth (Chapter 3). Following cohorts of children across Europe for 20 years, the study established the protective effect of three factors: life on a farm, contact with animals and consumption of raw milk. It leads to the idea of “lifestyle” as a combination of independent factors, the list of which remains open. There is a delicacy to these causalities that only work in correlation with our lifestyles and are only triggered by early exposure, that of mothers during gestation and of young children. The study establishes the role of diversity of exposure, including microbiological, in the development of a balanced immune system. We now know that each of us, individually, are ecosystems unto ourselves, with more microbiotic cells than human cells. The lifestyle described by the PASTURE study is therefore remarkable in that it allows us to make the hypothesis of a correlation between the community of factors gathered in the environment and the balance achieved by the microbiotic community within the individuals who develop there. We understand how the situations we are struggling with involve a plurality of disparate elements, whose variations may be independent but whose chance encounter in the environment is necessary for the balance and continuity of its effects.
In the course of these pages, an equation thus emerges that links the community of things, the community of knowledge and communities of action. The commonality should be understood here not as unification or identification, a way of putting all one’s eggs in one basket, but, on the contrary, as the fragile correlation between heterogeneous things, the emergence of a “divisible community” (Macé 2019), in which each thing and each actor must do their part or else the edifice will fall apart. We must first manage to arrange together the heterogeneous objects of specific knowledge in order to understand how our environments are complex architectures where each disparate and independent element has its own role to play. Then, on the basis of this community of things, we must learn to act in a plural way by bringing together communities of actors with disparate points of view, but who will not solve anything without uniting and benefiting from the contribution of each. Let us give the Ancients the last word. As the author of the Hippocratic treatise On the Nature of Man (VII, 8) says, a year unfolds with all the qualities, such as hot, cold, dry and wet, but it would be enough for one to disappear for all to disappear: “none would remain the least time without all the others that are in the world” (we translate here the term kosmos, which means the arrangement of things). The author concludes that all of these things nourish each other, and are thus bound “by the same necessity”. This fragile community, because it depends on the integrity and solidarity of each of its members, is the uncertain world that this book invites us to tame.
January 2022
References
Macé, A. (2013). Le Savoir public: la vocation politique du savoir en Grèce ancienne. Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, Besançon.
Macé, A. (2019). La Communauté divisible: pour une réappropriation contemporaine de la notion ancienne de commun (koinon). In Vie bonne, vulnérabilité, commun(s) : schèmes anciens et usages contemporains, Alexandre, S., Gueguen, H., Renaut, O. (eds). Presses universitaires de Paris-Nanterre, Nanterre.
1
Odyssey
, 17, 382–385.
Preface
Patrick GIRAUDOUX1,2
1Chrono-environnement UFC-CNRS, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
2Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, China
The world is going from crisis to crisis: financial crises, economic crises, health crises and, of course, ecological crises, including those caused by climate change and the erosion of biodiversity, the sixth extinction. They are not independent. These crises are perceived on many scales where interests seem irreconcilable. The “end of the month” (the short term) is theatrically opposed to the “end of the world” (the long term), while the local is opposed to the global. These oppositions deny the necessary coexistence of processes that take place at and through each of these scales. They are largely the result of a demographic and social crisis, on a planet with limited resources, which is seeing growing inequalities at all levels where they are measured – rich and poor in each country, rich and poor countries at the global level. This sociodemographic crisis is concomitant with a breakdown of solidarity, where community and individualistic logics are supposed to determine, along with the “invisible hand of the market”, “competition”, the dogmas of “free trade” and eternal growth of GDP, the best of all possible worlds, in an Anthropocene dynamic described as a “great acceleration” (European Environmental Agency 2019). One or more answers to these crises are desperately sought, without, more often than not, making a distinction between what belongs to the solution and what is the problem. However, our species needs to change its paradigm by ensuring, with increasing urgency, the recovery and maintenance of dignified and secure subsistence conditions for all the elements and processes of the biogeosphere that are necessary for the planet to be habitable for humans (Magny 2019; Latour 2020).
There are regular forums urging scientists to bring their special ability to characterize the ecological and health situation to the political debate. As a result, scientific advice is being multiplied in every respect. Science has a real vocation to produce a discourse free of conflicts of interest, where, in theory at least, only the quality of the data, methodically collected, and their interpretation, rigorously discussed and collectively validated, count. As soon as the issue is environmental, that is, macroscopic while being multi-scale, it comes up against the complexity of the problems to be solved. Their study requires the integration of knowledge divided into different disciplines, many of which have developed on the basis of concepts and methods so different that they can only communicate with each other with great difficulty, or even no longer at all.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) was the archetypal Renaissance man, some of whom were artists as well as scientists and engineers, capable of combining several orders of thought in a wide range of achievements. Like them, the scientists of the Enlightenment were part of that long line of philosopher-scientists, whose roots go back to antiquity, describing the objects and processes of nature without exclusivity. The major divisions into scientific disciplines, such as those known today, were established only in the 19th century, starting with the work of Auguste Comte (1798–1857) (Legay 2006). At the same time, Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), a chemist with a degree in physics and later a doctorate in science, continued to break free from neighboring disciplinary barriers. This is how he was able to discover molecular dissymmetry, specify the microbiological conditions of alcoholic fermentation and the “diseases” of beer and wine, disprove spontaneous generation and make it possible to fight more effectively against pébrine, a silkworm disease. Moreover, it was by mobilizing a physicist-biologist, Charles Chamberland (1851–1908), and a physician, Émile Roux (1853–1933), that Pasteur was able to discover the process of transmission of anthrax and its vaccine, and then to invent a vaccination against rabies (Gascar 1986). His notes to the Academy of Sciences, without going so far as to include elements of the humanities, were presented under headings as diverse as biology, chemistry and microbiology, and were added to those presented to the Academy of Medicine. He was elected to the French Academy of Sciences (Académie des sciences) in 1862 for the field of mineral science and was appointed Permanent Secretary for the physical sciences in 1887. This mobilization of the skills of an eminent scientist, albeit limited to the neighboring fields of biology and chemistry, appears by today’s standards to be an admirable transgression of a school model. It cannot, however, illustrate what is known today as multidisciplinarity, insofar as the focal point of the research and the methods used were each time related to a single discipline or to a few closely related disciplines, the contents of which the scientist mastered perfectly. However, his starting point was a science that was less specialized than it is today, where the questioning was determined by an applied issue to solve problems in fields as varied as the mastery of beer production, silk production and disease prevention. In the end, Pasteur was still part of a tradition that was then already thousands of years old, in which, although he did not escape the quarrels of schools and guilds (the Academy of Medicine did not recognize his merits for some time, because he was not a medical doctor), a scientist, in order to solve a problem, was not bothered by disciplinary divisions which were, however, increasingly formalizing his era.
The need for multidisciplinarity shared between specialists then appeared, first in an industry that had experienced the benefits of the Taylorization of tasks. Aeronautics provides a very good example of the outcome of complex but concurrent research, linking engineering sciences and human sciences, both fundamental and applied, ensuring in the end the transport of passengers over very long distances, in conditions of great safety, comfortable for a minority, and of bearable inconvenience for a majority. This confluence of disciplines specialized in research and innovation, led by scientists and engineers specialized in their discipline, is now practically the rule in all industrial or even craft production. The implementation of scientific and technical ways of thinking is then determined by an explicit final object whose characteristics are defined a priori, thus outside the disciplinary contents.
The exhortation to multidisciplinarity and multisectoriality has accompanied most calls for research on environmental issues for the past 50 years. This exhortation has been the permanent background music of the career of the authors of this book, without them finding, except by the greatest of chance and the strength of their determination, the human and financial conditions that would allow them to carry it out, at least partially, and, in any case, without experiencing it as anything other than a contingent consequence of the problems to be solved in relation to a clearly defined object of study. It is also remarkable that after such a long period of exhortation, and despite reflection and the production of a substantial bibliography spanning several decades, no work tracing what could be a general theory of operational multidisciplinarity independent of the object of study has emerged, to the point that many of its practitioners currently consider this concept to be inoperative and outdated (Frodeman 2019). Legay (2006), in a collective work entitled L’Interdisciplinarité dans les sciences de la vie (Interdisciplinarity in Life Sciences), noted that it was:
ultimately constructed in the face of a question posed, most often in the course of research. Depending on the case, biologists, for example, will begin the work and will realize along the way that sociology or psychology would provide them with new, perhaps original, views, to the point of modifying their own program1.
It is therefore the a priori invention of objects allowing scientists to cooperate on a subject that is central, the summoning of such and such a discipline to the resolution of the problem being only the consequence. Clearly, despite a plethora of literature on the subject, no design model or engineering has yet emerged for multidisciplinary research. Only the object of study “obliges”.
Figure P.1.Conceptual diagram of a socioecosystem as proposed for the CNRS Workshop Zones, from Bretagnolle et al. (2019). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/giraudoux/socioecosystems.zip
This is evident, for example, in the theorization of regional socioecosystems that has been proposed so far to solve environmental problems. All attempts lack clear operational links explicitly linking several disciplines that can be used as levers. None of them completely shed the ball and chain of the nature/culture dichotomy, as evidenced by the founding conceptual schemes and their most recent derivatives (Collins et al. 2011; Bretagnolle et al. 2019), an example of which is presented in Figure P.1 with, on one side, the box of the “social template”, on the other side, well separated, that of the “biophysical template”, and, in between, depending on the version, a more or less furious storm of arrows and feedback, which can hardly account for their real number, the multiple spatial and temporal factors involved, and even less so the interweaving of one into the other.
These integrative conceptual systems have at least the merit of trying to structure all of the disciplines around a common concept on an identified object. Their history is interesting to follow. The Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987) provides one of the first archetypes. It is made up of three intersecting circles representing the economic, social and environmental spheres (to which we sometimes add, suspended above this theoretical tripod, governance) (Figure P.2(b)). Only the overlap is important here, as none of the circles seems to constrain any other: each appears separately dilatable in the non-overlapping part. Humanity (the social and economic) is in no way limited by the non-human (the environmental), the emphasis here is on a balanced governance between three poles. More than 30 years later, a multitude of warnings have been effectively ignored by governments and peoples (Union of Concerned Scientists 1992; Ripple et al. 2017). IPBES formalizes the dangerous and unprecedented decline in biodiversity and, following the IPCC on climate, makes it known that one more planetary limit has been exceeded (IPBES 2019). The economic and social spheres are then admitted as constrained by the biogeosphere. The vital necessity of an “ecological transition” is now generally accepted, leaving open the question of “where to land?” (Latour 2017). In the interplay of constraints, the biosphere includes the social, itself including the economic (Giddings et al. 2002; Morandín-Ahuerma et al. 2019) (Figure P.2(c)). The organization of the real world in the Capitalocene, another proposed name for the Anthropocene (Campagne 2017; Magny 2019), is the antithesis of these models. The hierarchy of circles is simply the reverse: the economic constrains the social, and both weigh irresponsibly and deleteriously on the biogeosphere (Figure P.2(a)). While attention is drawn in all these examples to the need to consider several fields of application simultaneously and in a complementary manner, and implicitly to many disciplinary fields, no science or meta-science formally allows for the organization of convergences.
Reducing the scope of application, for example to the field of health (Patz et al. 2004), does not, however, reduce this difficulty, which appears fractal. Figure P.3 shows how the upstream resolution of a health issue cannot be reduced to studying the pathogen-infection-disease causal chain alone (in red in the figure). The context in which pathogen and disease emergence occurs is usually much more complex, being multifactorial and involving a large number of combined distal causes (black). The prevention and sustainable elimination of disease requires understanding and action on key factors in the system. A large number of disciplines should therefore be mobilized in a complementary manner (blue).
Figure P.2.Representations of the social, economic and living spheres. a) As currently perceived by world citizens. b) As derived from the Brundtland Report promoting the concept of sustainable development. c) As imposed by the IPBES and IPCC findings and the socio-ecological emergency, according to Morandín-Ahuerma et al. (2019), modified. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/giraudoux/socioecosystems.zip
The scientific and educational challenge is to prepare professionals from each discipline to work in a multidisciplinary context designed to understand and control the processes leading to disease elimination. In addition, it would be necessary to extend this framework to consider the consequences of a change to one of the parameters of the system on other spheres than those of health. For example, to measure the multiple possible collateral consequences of controlling the abundance of a vector, or the release of antibiotics into the environment, on the other balances and “services” of the socioecosystem. This integrative approach, still conducted in a very partial and modest way (Destoumieux-Garzón et al. 2018), has underpinned the concepts of One Health and Ecohealth for the past 20 years (Gibbs 2014). Its most limited meaning, in the concept of One Health as currently in use at the WHO, is essentially to cross the contributions of the medical sciences with those of the veterinary sciences, but the real ambition must go much further. Ecohealth researchers, that is, researchers in ecology, humanities and health sciences, and the practitioners who apply the results, are committed to promoting human, animal and ecosystem health together, and to conducting research that recognizes the inextricable links between the health of all species and their environments. A core principle is that health and well-being cannot be sustained on a resource-depleted, polluted and socially unstable planet. They implement systemic and integrated approaches to sustainably optimize ecosystem services related to the concept of health (human, animal and ecosystem) and social stability, and seek to foster and promote the interdependence, coexistence and evolution of living things and their environment (Lerner and Berg 2017). Again, no science or meta-science formally organizes disciplinary convergences.
Figure P.3. Set of causalities and disciplines related to the upstream resolution of a health issue, according to Giraudoux (2019). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/giraudoux/socioecosystems.zip
Research and disciplinary methods have become so complex in their details that no scientist can master them all at once and they easily cross borders. In the environmental sciences and especially in ecology, the complication of gathering sufficient human resources to carry out the numerous measurements necessary to study regional dynamics is added to this difficulty. This is the case, for example, with measurements, even if only of abundance, made on wild animal populations, where the researcher depends to a large extent on collaboration with technical organizations interested in the results of the research (agricultural, sanitary, forestry, hunting, fish farming, naturalists, etc.) in order to gather the necessary data at the appropriate scales. The multidisciplinary injunction is then coupled with a contingent injunction, that of multisectoriality, which forces the research subject to be placed on the borderline between fundamental and finalized. Participatory sciences can further increase the circle of people who, through their territorial networking, constitute an irreplaceable observation network for measuring and raising public awareness of the state and dynamics of biodiversity and socioecosystems. The disciplines and sectors thus constitute human resources for collectively defining a problem that cannot emerge from the disciplines and sectors considered separately. The formulation and resolution of the problems call for design engineering to coordinate them, but it is often a matter of course and the chance of encounters that organize things. It can also be noted that, very often, it is the emergence of new technologies and methods at a given moment in the researchers’ understanding of the problem (e.g. developments in molecular biology, geolocation, computer programming and data analysis, and ultrasound diagnosis) that makes joint advances possible (or easier) and enables a certain type of collaboration. In this apparent complexity, however, the residual common platform of all sciences continues to be summarized in few words and is within everyone’s reach: critical doubt and proposals derived from shared evidence, knowledge that is always updated, admitted as provisional, in an open corpus, in perpetual construction.
In the absence of an established theory and science of multidisciplinarity, there are, however, practices, some of which have lasted for decades, around ad hoc defined objects, most often motivated by the resolution of a problem that each discipline or sector cannot solve alone. Much of the work presented in this book is inspired by that conducted in the 1960s by French physicians and parasitologists whose training included zoology and botany (ecology was rarely taught as an organized discipline at that time). Following the example of the work of the Pastorians near Chartres, in the “cursed fields” on the transmission of anthrax in the 19th century, these researchers deliberately used systemic approaches to understand the transmission mechanisms of certain zoonotic diseases. Golvan and Rioux (1961, 1963), for example, showed that plague outbreaks in Iranian Kurdistan were caused by a stable and resistant population of gerbils, Meriones persicus, living in rocky areas and serving as a reservoir, which transferred the bacillus (Yersinia pestis) to an unstable susceptible population of Meriones vinogradovi living in agricultural lands. During peak outbreaks of the latter species, the dispersal of a few individuals from farmland to sub-optimal rocky habitats brings them into contact with the fleas of M. persicus, present in the burrows, causing a wave of infection and an epizootic in the M. vinogradovi population. This epizootic then leads the M. vinogradovi population to near extinction. During phases of high density of M. vinogradovi, damage to crops is such that people compensate for their losses by digging up caches of grain harvested by the gerbils (several kilos per burrow). This practice, and the careless handling of dead gerbils, then increases the risk of human contamination (Combes 2001). In this case, most of the key issues that challenge multidisciplinary research were already present: the importance of space (transmission is explained by the movement of species between habitats), the importance of time (the dynamics of disease transmission depend on the temporal dynamics of the host population), the importance of species susceptibility (plague is stable because a population is resistant) and the importance of human behavior (which explains human exposure). The term “landscape epidemiology” was coined at the same time by Pavlowski (1964). Later, Darling (1970) emphasized some of the interactions between ecology and medicine. This type of research was continued by Jean-Antoine Rioux (Houin et al. 2018), who implemented it in the study of intestinal schistosomiasis in Guadeloupe (Rioux et al. 1977), leishmaniases in southern France (Rioux and Golvan 1969) and North Africa (Rioux et al. 1997), and the ecology of mosquitoes for their control in southern France (Rioux et al. 1967). In this work, he conceptualized how ecological and epidemiological paradigms and methods could be combined with studies on parasite transmission and control (Rioux et al. 1981). He coined the term “eco-epidemiology” for systems approaches integrating methods from both ecology and epidemiology. His approach focused on defining spatial, temporal and population risks (related to the age structure of the population, its immune responses, etc.), and stressed the importance of spatial and temporal scales in understanding transmission phenomena (Rioux et al. 1990). It was mainly based on ecological strata defined according to composite maps developed from existing thematic maps (topography, soils, vegetation, etc.) (Ozenda 1986) and field measurements (vector population densities, etc.). The link of his work with the Zürich-Montpellier school of phytosociology, which was at its peak, is evident. For example, the use of multivariate exploratory analysis methods, which were popular in phytosociology for analyzing “habitat x species” matrices, was favored for the analysis of insect vector distribution (Rioux et al. 1997; Rioux 2001). The multidisciplinarity that resulted from the work as a whole was evident from the quality of the authors associated with the publications (Figure P.4).
Finally, as early as 1958, the creation of joint operational bodies with an applied vocation, such as the Entente interdépartementale pour la démoustication du littoral méditerranéen (Interdepartmental Agreement for Mosquito Control on the Mediterranean Coast) in Languedoc-Roussillon, provides an example of successful integration between politicians, scientists and sectoral operators.
Figure P.4.Diversity of specialties involved in the work edited by Jean-Antoine Rioux. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/giraudoux/socioecosystems.zip
The aim of this book is to illustrate, from a human perspective, how, in a regional socioecosystem, the Jura Mountains, a certain number of answers could be found to questions jointly affecting agriculture, human health and conservation, based on an eco-epidemiological approach and through action-based research. Here, it was the field and a form of pragmatism in the resolution of the questions posed that led disciplined researchers, in the sense of “each having a clear disciplinary root”, to indiscipline, that is to extract themselves from the mainstream of their discipline, often operating in spite of it, in order to cultivate the interactions with the disciplines useful for the resolution of the questions. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the functioning of certain processes in the regional socioecosystems of the Jura Mountains, and then to answer similar questions on other continents and socioecosystems. Beyond the case, the aim is to learn from the experience and, if possible, to infer a style and practice a posteriori. Each chapter is preceded by a list of guiding questions that motivate it and followed by key points drawn from the experience.
Chapter 1 shows how research in the 1980s on a series of problems linked to the appearance of population outbreaks of grassland voles in the Jura Mountains in the 1970s led to results that brought together the agricultural world, wildlife managers, ecologists, geographers and anthropologists, and ultimately led to a description and understanding of the coherence of a regional socioecosystem and its evolution, which was essentially guided by changes in agricultural practices under socioeconomic constraints.
Chapter 2 shows another view of the same socioecosystem. River pollution has led to more frequent episodes of fish mortality. The actors concerned by this situation have mobilized different resources to understand the causes and control them. The anthropologist’s work shows the complexity of the phenomenon, which goes beyond the singular resolution capacity of each actor, whether scientific or not.
Chapter 3 shows how health research on children’s exposure to the farm environment and their consumption of raw milk, in relation to the predisposition to allergic diseases, leads to general reflections on biodiversity and to ambiguities in the perception of the risk/benefit ratio, including in the medical world. At the heart of these ambiguities, sociological representations, economic concerns and opposing (and often implicit) conceptions of animal welfare and rural development are working hypotheses that have yet to be addressed and that epidemiologists, microbiologists and immunologists alone cannot resolve.
Chapter 4 shows how findings from previous regional studies on landscape ecology and the eco-epidemiology of a rare disease, alveolar echinococcosis, conducted in collaboration with medical doctors and veterinarians, have been confirmed in other ecosystems in China, and how the know-how has then been adapted to other regional realities.
Chapter 5 shows how the representation of risk in this regional socioecosystem is linked to the perception that each person has of nature and their territory, and explores the consequences of this observation on the evolution of practices and the adaptability of the socioecosystem to future changes.
Chapter 6 shows how the use of existing expertise helped to address conservation biology questions relating to a species of primate endemic to Yunnan and Tibet, the black-and-white snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus bieti).
Chapter 7, based on the personal itinerary of a doctor “at the end of the trail”, shows how an eco-epidemiological approach makes it possible to understand the socio-ecology of cholera transmission in the African Great Lakes region, and on this basis inspires the implementation of the multisectoral strategic plan for the elimination of cholera in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Finally, the conclusion presents a socio-anthropological analysis of the scientific position adopted to answer the questions raised in the previous chapters, and thus analyzes the conditions that prevailed in order to address questions relating to a regional socioecosystem through an indisciplinary approach.
January 2022
References
Bretagnolle, V., Benoit, M., Bonnefond, M., Breton, V., Church, J.M., Gaba, S., Gilbert, D., Gillet, F., Glatron, S., Guerbois, C. et al. (2019). Action-orientated research and framework: Insights from the French long-term social-ecological research network. Ecology and Society, 24(3), 10.
Campagne, A. (2017). Le Capitalocène. Aux racines historiques du dérèglement climatique. Éditions Divergences, Paris.
Collins, S.L., Carpenter, S.R., Swinton, S.M., Orenstein, D.E., Childers, D.L., Gragson, T.L., Grimm, N.B., Grove, J.M., Harlan, S.L., Kaye, J.P. et al. (2011). An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(6), 351–357.
Combes, C. (2001). Parasitism – The Ecology & Evolution of Intimate Interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Darling, F.F. (1970). Borderlines of medicine and ecology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine
