Module 7: Ecosystems as Complex Systems

Source: Jay T. Dalet, PhD.

Introduction

To deduce how a particular living system works you must understand that you are dealing
with a conglomeration that is greater than the sum of many heterogenous things taken
together. However, the approach by which all complex systems are analyzed, in terms of
their components, has not revealed the fundamental laws that govern this entire system
as a whole (Cohen & Harel, 2007). So far, we have the technology to acquire fragments
of evidence. But to piece the information altogether, it would require machine learning. In
this module you will be introduced to the concept of complexity applied to biological
ecosystems which are formed by the non-linear interaction of a community of living
organisms with their physical environment. You will also be given the opportunity to be
familiar with how complexity exist in other ecosystems dubbed as “analogues” of
biological ecosystems.

Ecological complexity is an emerging multidisciplinary field of study that makes use of

tools and concepts developed from the essential disciplines of complex systems science
(CSS) namely physics, mathematics and computer science (Complex Environmental
Systems Lab, 2014). It provides special emphasis on the relationships between pattern
and process in natural systems. According to Complex Environmental Systems Lab
based in Canada that ecological complexity is characterized by local interactions between
individual ecosystem components, feedbacks between processes occurring at different
scales, amplification of minor variations in initial conditions, and the emergence of
patterns in the absence of a global controller. Ecological theory has provided the
fundamental assumptions for figuring out possible solutions to major social, economic
and environmental problems that comes into view indistinctly.

Our existence is greatly influenced by social organization, economic situation and natural
environment that have direct or indirect relations with the provisions that we derive from
ecosystem services such as food, energy source, human population, and natural
resources. Analyzing the connection between changes in both rural and urban
environments with the phenomenon observed at a single, or different points in space and
time is highly relevant in addressing the feedbacks brought about by the perturbations
across domains or microcosms (composed of different elements) that comprise complex
systems.

On the concept of social social-economic-natural complex ecosystem Rusong (1984)

stated “Complex problems that we experience today such as climate change, emerging
and re-emerging diseases, inflation and wars can be regarded as neither social nor
economic ones separately but as ones of the social social-economic-natural complex
ecosystem.” Economic and natural systems possess different characteristics as indicated
by their own structures, functions and developmental rules. However, their path to
maturity are influenced by the structures and functions of the others (Rusong, 1984). In
this perspective appreciating the role of keystone species, ecosystem engineers and
ecosystem components are essential in understanding their impact on how complex
ecosystems share common properties with each other. In this learning process you will
better understand the interplay between different ecological scenarios. Although, the in-
depth use of computer applications cited in this module is not required of you familiarizing
oneself how these computer technologies work will help focus one’s lens on measures of
ecological complexity as useful ecological indicator. Diagrams, illustrations and graphs
are provided in this module to facilitate your learning process.

Learning Outcomes

After studying this module, the student should be able to:

1. discuss unique characteristics of an ecological complex system;

2. explain the significance of models of ecological complex ecosystem;

3. interpret relationships between various measures of complexity among graphical

displays of data and

4. discuss agreements between biological ecosystem and its analogues based on

adaptation, survival and extinction
7.1 Ecosystem as a Complex System
Ecosystems are very good examples of complex systems governed by laws of physics
and chemistry. Each component of an ecosystem is predisposed to be involved in many
different interactions that generate emergent properties -- patterns at higher levels
emerge from localized interactions and selection processes acting at lower levels (Levin,
1998 and Cohen & Harel, 2007). Such interactions between components is non-linear.
The outcomes are determined by external conditions (i.e. the environment) and the extent
by which ecosystem components organized themselves.

7.1.1 Complex System

Here you will learn different examples of complex systems. Just to perk you up, other
than the ecological systems, our brain and the global economy in itself are all examples
of complex systems (Peltoniemi & Vuori, 2004 and Brown, 1994).

Supplementary Video Resources:

Watch the following supplementary video presentations (soft copies will be provided by
your teacher prior to your first meeting).
A. These videos will help you gather and refresh prior knowledge essential to this
learning process.
1. Understanding the Complex Systems Around Us: Martin Schmidt at
TEDxMcDonogh
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGFLegJEZTY
Duration: 17:18
Central Idea: In a general sense what is a complex system? What are
examples of complex systems? And where can we find them? And why are
they important?

2. Complex adaptive systems - Igor Nikolic – TEDxRotterdam

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS0zj_dYeBE
Duration: 16:06
Central Idea: How changes in the local environment may have impact on
global conditions?
 B. These videos will help you understand ecosystem as a complex system.
1. What is a Complex System? (Complexity Labs, 2017)
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8v2Udd_PM
Duration: 10:23
Central Idea: What is the working definition of a complex system? What is
emergence? How emergence is related to self-organization? Why you cannot
simply remove or isolate one component or reduce the levels of organization to
one?

2. Complexity Theory Overview (Complexity Labs, 2010)

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ladOjo1QA
Duration: 10:51
Central Idea: What are the four areas that encompass the major perspectives
in a complex system?

Guide/Study Questions for Activity 1

1. What are the four primary parameters that make up a complex system?

2. Define phase transition? Why is its occurrence relevant to our understanding of a

complex system?

3. What is the significance of heightened connectivity as indicated by networks

seen in complex systems in the integrity of the biosphere? Are these networks
good or bad indicators of a healthy society?

a. How is resiliency achieved in this context?

Discussion (Guide to study questions)

According to Complexity Labs (2010) complexity can be defined as the primary product
of four primary parameters. It is initially defined by the number of elements at different
hierarchy within a living system. Another dimension to complexity is nonlinearity where
non-additive interactions and feedback loops over time can give us exponential relations
between the input and output to systems and lead to phase transition a period of rapid
change where non-linear systems may grow or decay at exponential rate. Complex
systems are able to shift or flip into whole new regimes within very brief periods of time.
Some small change to the input value may trigger large systemic effect (sensitivity to
initial conditions). Another driver of complexity is connectivity that often appear as
networks in a higher level that indicates the degree of how things flow in the network. In
this regard resiliency is achieved in the presence of alternative species. Autonomy and
adaptation enable self-organization and the process of evolution that shapes complex
systems on macro scale. Typical examples of complex systems include: ecosystems,
economies, transportation networks and neural systems (i.e. brain).

7.1.2 Measures of Complexity in an Ecosystem

Knowing how complex an ecosystem under study will help you understand the importance
of species interactions and the relationships between patterns and processes in it. In the
next activity you will learn the various sources of complexity in an ecosystem. Also, you
will be familiar with some computational tools in biology used in measuring these sources
of complexity.

(Please refer to Activity 7.1)

Discussion (Guide to study questions):

Learning ecosystem as ecological complex system entails understanding the

relationships between types of ecosystems through the ensemble of different sources of
complexity like vegetation patterns, species distribution, population dynamics, weather
and climate change, food web structure, soil formation, gene expression and individual
tree crown. The following are examples of each type of ecosystems:

1. Terrestrial Ecosystems: (a) deserts, (b) savannahs, (c) steppe, (d) temperate
forest, (e) tropical forest, (d) boreal forest (taiga), (e) tundra and (d)
Mediterranean vegetation.

2. Water Ecosystems: (a) freshwater ecosystems (lakes and ponds, rivers and
torrents, marshes and swamps) and (b) marine ecosystems (reef, oceans,
continental plateaus, nutrient upstream-flowing areas and estuaries).
 3. Artificial ecosystems: (a) urban-industrial ecosystems (metropolises), (b) rural
ecosystems (small towns) and (c) agro-ecosystems (farmlands).

Below is a summary of signatures/ profiles (Table 1) you should expect when the
interaction of species is indicated as simple, complex or disordered in an ecological
system at different dimensions (Parrot, 2010). The graphical or visual patterns that
corresponds to each of these profiles are found in Figure 15 (Parrot, 2010).

Table 1. Summary of three different species interaction profiles in temporal, spatial

and structural dimensions.
Signatures/ profiles

Temporal Spatial Structural

Simple sinusoidal ordered regular network

Complex uniformly diffusion over a coupled scale-free

distributed mapped lattice network
regular noise

Disordered uniformly random spatial random network

distributed distribution
random noise

(L. Parrot, 2010)

 (L. Parrot, 2010)

Figure 15. Graphical representation of temporal, spatial and structural signatures of

simple ordered and disordered systems versus a complex system.

To gain further knowledge and understanding about the possible sources of complexity
you will read three scientific review articles: (1) “Measuring Ecological Complexity” written
by Lael Parrot. Focus only on sections I (Introduction), II (Measuring complexity), and
Figures 1 to 5. (2) Challenges of ecological complexity by Craig Loehle and (3) Ecological
systems as complex systems: challenges for an emerging science by Madhur Anand et
al (2010).

Research findings validated that common characteristic patterns of temporal, spatial,

spatio-temporal and structural signatures are shared across all types of complex systems
(Parott, 2010). The advent of computational tools in biology has helped better understand
measures of complexity, thereby provides both qualitative and quantitative assessments
of ecosystems under study. There are two types of measures of complexity that have
been reported recently (Atmanspacher, 2007 and Parott, 2010): Type 1 measures
increase with increasing disorder in the system in a linear manner, and Type 2 measures
are those of a convex function that assign their highest scores to systems whose
regularity lies at the intermediate level (Figure 16). The endpoint is to differentiate
between simple systems versus those that are complex regardless of what type of
measure is used (Grassberger, 1988 and Parrot, 2010).

Figure 16. Complexity versus regularity (Parrot, 2010).

As indicated by Dr. Parrot in her review article, recent research has thus focused on
developing methods to characterize the temporal, spatial or structural signatures of
complex systems, classifying the system along a gradient of order to disorder. Figure 16
is a plot of regularity versus complexity. It was argued that both highly ordered and highly
disordered (random) systems are simple systems and mostly complex systems are found
in the intermediate zone of regularity (Parrot, 2010). Properties of a complex system are
said to be found “at the edge of chaos” (Langton, 1992 and Parrot, 2010) in the middle of
two extremes of order (uniform spatial pattern or temporal equilibrium) and disorder
(random spatial distribution or white noise), demonstrating equal distribution between
underlying regularity and complete unpredictability (chaos) as shown in Figure 17 (Parrot
2010).

Figure 17. Ecological complexity as an ecological indicator (Parrot, 2010).

According to Dr. Lael Parrot’s (2010) view on ecological complexity as an ecological

indicator, an ecosystem tends towards greater complexity via the process of self-
organization, which draws the system away from the two extremes of order and disorder
to a state of maximal complexity. She further explained that this state of maximal
complexity is a site-specific attractor which is constrained by prevailing physical and
environmental conditions -- natural disturbance events may cause an ecosystems state
to tend towards greater disorder, whereas human intervention in the form of energy input
can move the system state towards greater order than might be attainable naturally.
Descriptive data in Figure 17 (Parrot, 2017) purports that in an agricultural monoculture,
such as a cornfield planted in rows, serves as an analogy for an ordered ecosystem,
whereas a recently opened gap in a forest, in which seeds have randomly fallen and just
begun to germinate, may be an example of a disordered ecosystem. An undisturbed,
ancient tropical rainforest (central image in Figure 17) is probably the best example of
one of the Earth’s most complex ecosystems.

Figure 18. Spatial analysis in macroecology (SAM) Figure 19. Ecopath with Ecosim

Temporal, spatial and structural data would provide information that would help orient
your point of view on how to preserve or relieve an ecosystem of pressures depending
on the case at hand. Below are some outputs of open-source computer applications that
are useful for measuring possible sources of ecological complexities. Examples of such
are computer program outputs from Spatial Analysis in Macroecology (SAM v4.0) which
aims to provide an integrated computational platform intended for spatial analyses,
identification, characterization of ecological and evolutionary forces that influence
patterns in body size, geographic range size, abundance, diversity and related
macroevolutionary trends. The software can be freely obtained from
http://www.ecoevol.ufg.br/sam. The description of the software was published in Global
Ecology & Biogeography (Rangel, Diniz-Filho & Bini, 2006) and in Ecography (Rangel,
Diniz-Filho & Bini, 2010).

Shown in Figure 20 is bird species richness profile in South America. Variations in birds’
species count in the continent are emphasized by the red dashed lines for regions A, B
and C.

Figure 20. Bird species richness profile in South America.

A B

Figure 21. Bird species richness correlated with normalized difference vegetation
index (NDVI) and annual evapo-transpiration (AET) in South America.
Figure 21 A and B indicate that bird species richness is negatively and positively
correlated with normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and annual evapo-
transpiration (AET), respectively. Perhaps species richness of plants are reduced due to
very high productivity resulting in an increase of nutrients. But light becomes more and
more of a problem for competing plants. Since there is increased production of woody
species in highly productive ecosystems (Oindo & Skidmore, 2002 and Prins & Olff 1998),
bird species richness too increases with woody vegetation (Pomeroy & Dranzoa 1997).
In the case of AET, water plays a vital role in the life of an ecosystem. Evapotranspiration
provides better capability for a land to sustain life depending on the maximum amount of
water regained per unit of water consumed. Species distribution can be correlated to the
rate of AET to examine how AET affects richness of species in a particular geographical
region.

Figure 22. Temporal data on biomass production by phytoplankton (blue) and

zooplankton (green) (EwE output using Anchovy Bay sample data).

Another program is Ecosim and Ecospace available in Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)
ecological modeling software. Ecosim and Ecospace are applications with dynamic
simulation capability at the ecosystem level and a temporal-spatial dynamic
computational capability, respectively. Ecospace is primarily designed for exploring
impact and placement of protected areas. It helps to allocate biomass across a grid map
while accounting for predation risk, feeding rate and species distribution. EwE is available
at http://ecopath.org/. Both SAM v4.0 and EwE will be provided by your teacher each with
a sample data file. Figure 22 shows temporal data on biomass production by
phytoplankton (blue) and zooplankton (green) (in (EwE Anchovy Bay sample data). Prey-
predator population dynamics is clearly demonstrated here that follows the principle
behind the Lotka-Voltera model the simplest mathematical model of predator-prey
interactions. The model was developed independently by Lotka (1925) and Volterra
(1926): It has two variables (P, H) and several parameters: H = density of prey, P = density
of predators, r = intrinsic rate of prey population increase, a = predation rate coefficient,
b = reproduction rate of predators per 1 prey eaten and m = predator mortality rate
(Sharov, 1996). The dynamics of predator and prey interaction can be plotted as an
estimate of predator and prey densities per unit time (Sharov, 1996). Analyzing the
predator-prey density profiles in time series at different locations provides an assessment
of the temporal complexity of an ecosystem under study. Take note of the uniformly
distributed regular noise (as mentioned in Table 1) generated by EwE from the temporal
biomass data of both groups. Such temporal signatures characterize that of a complex
system.
Figure 23. Ecosim output of food web flow diagram in a marine ecosystem.

Figure 24. Energy flow diagram in a marine ecosystem.

Hence, in Figure 23 is an output of Ecosim showing the food web flow diagram of a given
example of a marine ecosystem. The actual flow of energy in this diagram is depicted in
Figure 24. This emphasizes the role of phytoplankton (with zooplankton as its predator)
as primary producers and the decreasing amount of energy towards the top of the
pyramid.

(Please refer to Activity 7.2)

Discussion (Guide to study questions):

Ecosystem is a complex system because it has many parts that interacts with one another
in a non-linear manner. Interactions of components results in observable changes (phase
transitions) that may be experienced locally or globally. Hence, the term “ecological
complexity” arises a measure that describes the state of an ecosystem. Feedback
processes reflect the impact of pressures (anthropogenic or natural) as indicated by
various measures of complexities on the components of the ecosystem. These may result
in adaptation, survival and or extinction of a given ecosystem. Reorganization of
components into a more adaptive structure (i.e. food web) may lead to survival of some
components (old or new) resulting in a newly emerging ecosystem (i.e. succession,
benthic to pelagic organization, emerging or re-emerging diseases etc.). Anthropogenic
or natural pressures can modify the ecosystem structure (i.e. non-linear interaction in the
food web) may lead to conditions (emergence of patterns) that may be beneficial or
detrimental to the biosphere. Such conditions take place in the absence of a global
controller.

In this regard, feedbacks indicate the consequences of emergent and global agents
manifested in the local heterogeneous interacting components of the ecosystem.
Examples of positive feedback includes extreme temperature conditions (climate
change), disease outbreaks, eutrophication, pestilence and death while negative
feedback includes regulation of temperature conditions, homeostasis, and maintaining
the limits of carrying capacity of the environment (predators and prey interaction).
Homeostatic plateau is a relatively stable state of equilibrium that maintain balance
between population numbers and resources. It is characterized by the presence of a
minimum and maximum state of the ecosystem such that when exceeded may lead to
unfavorable ramifications i.e. death and or extinction of the ecosystem. Also, it is
noteworthy to mention two examples of socio-economic consequences of the poor
ecosystem services rendered by the ecosystems from the two regions (GRA and GRB)
you analyzed in this activity. GRA: Reduced food for humans (low calorie availability, high
food prices and malnutrition) and animals (i.e. calves dairy herd) and reduced water
security (diarrhea and infectious diseases). GRB: Decline in provisioning services
rendered by the regions ecosystem: (1) fish stock, (2) food production, crop area, pasteur
area, and area for biofuels and (3) clean water resources; and decline in the commercial
value of GRB.

Introduced species may or may not alter the host habitats. Tree shrews like Crunomys
fallax are common inhabitants of subtropical and or tropical dry forest that is only found
in the Philippines (Northern Luzon). It is threatened by habitat loss. In this given case it
was used as an example of one of the effects of anthropogenic pressures that led them
focus their diet on Rafflesia seeds which they brought to GRA -- a lowland flood plain
which could be a potential alternative habitat. Rafflesia is a parasitic plant that feeds on
the energy provided by a grapevine Tetrastigma sp. which however, can be indicative of
tree shrews habitat loss that has an impact on the rate and levels of productivity in
highlands proximal to GRA. One very good example of an adaptive mechanism
demonstrated by the freshwater ecosystem that led to more unfavorable conditions in
GRB was the response to restructured aquatic food web due to the presence of exotic
species. This led to a shift in dominance from a highly organized nearshore benthic-fish
associations to the relatively less organized offshore pelagic associations (Rapport,
1998).

Ecological complexity emerges from interactions between organisms and their

biotic and abiotic environments. It describes the state of an ecosystem…
Anand, 2010

7.2 Concepts of Adaptation, Survival and Extinction in Other Disciplines

The term “ecosystem” is mostly noticed in the science of biology; nonetheless it frequently
appears in economy related literature, as well (Pilinkiene & Maciulis, 2014). These are
the different analogies of biological ecosystem. It could be inferred in certain respects that
they exhibit ecosystem stages of adaptation, survival and extinction. Examples of these
are business, industrial, economy, digital business, and social ecosystems (Pilinkiene &
Maciulis, 2014 and Peltoniemi & Vuori, 2004). Certain causal factors are possessed by
these analogies that affect the performance of the entire complex system itself.

7.2.1 Different Analogies of Biological Ecosystem

The emerging paradigm of complexity as we understood it in the context of ecological

complexity has provided the lead to search for other applications in various fields
including social and economic systems (Peltoniemi and Vuori, 2004). Understanding the
interoperability of the concept of “ecosystems as complex systems” in other disciplines
would provide an opportunity for us to learn their similarities with biological ecosystems
and appreciate their existence in a global continuum that interconnects everything in our
planet. As evolving systems, ecosystems are dynamic, constantly remaking themselves,
reacting to natural disturbances and to the competition among and between species
(World Resources Institute, 2000 & Peltoniemi and Vuori, 2004). In the two remaining
short activities (Activity 4 and 5) put your answers (per group) in a one-half sheet of
paper.

Business Ecosystem

Read the article entitled “Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive
business environments” by Mirva Peltoniemi and Elisa Vuori. Based on this article you
identify which analogue of biological ecosystem (industrial, economy, digital business,
social and business ecosystems) is indicated by the descriptions below (a - e).

a. A “digital environment” populated by “digital species”. These digital species can

be software components, applications, services, knowledge, business models,
training modules, conceptual frameworks, laws, etc. that can interact with each
other, reproduce and evolve according to laws of market selection.
 b. All material is recycled infinitely and efficiently. Change of habits of both
manufacturers and consumers would help maintain standard of living without
devastating the environment. Different parties should co-operate by using each
other’s waste material and waste energy flows as resources.
c. Consists of firms and institutions such that when these components cease to
function like a community, they may break down. Organizations are always co-
evolving and are fully participating agents. This ecosystem is made up of all related
businesses, consumers, and suppliers, as well as economic, cultural, and legal
institutions.
d. Extended system of mutually supportive organizations, communities of customers,
suppliers, lead producers, and other stakeholders, financing, trade associations,
standard bodies, labor unions, governmental and quasigovernmental institutions,
and other interested parties. These communities come together in a partially
intentional, highly self-organizing, and even somewhat accidental manner.
Productivity defines its success. It is required to be robust such that it can survive
shocks from inside or outside of the ecosystem that threaten to destroy it. Also, it
should have the ability to create niches and opportunities for new firms. The latter
requires a change in attitudes from protectionist to cooperative.
e. Development, and the social change flowing from it, is not shaped by society’s
genes, but by its accumulated technical knowledge. Technology, not people, holds
the center stage.

Guide/Study Questions

1. How is virgin material and energy source conserved in industrial ecosystem?

2. In view of economic life who is the driver of economic development and social
change?

3. What are digital species? Why are they important to digital business
ecosystem?

4. Why is social ecosystem consist of firms and institutions, and not of people?
 5. Enumerate and describe the four stages in the life cycle of a business
ecosystem.

Discussion (Guide to study questions):

In an industrial ecosystem different members or parties involved in the ecosystem

cooperate by utilizing each other’s waste material and waste energy flows as resources.
There is a reduction in the use of virgin material and virgin energy inputs, including waste
and emission outputs of the system as a whole because waste is used to substitute for
the virgin material and energy sources. On the other hand, in view of economic life,
economic development, and the social change flowing from it, is shaped by its
accumulated technical knowledge – technology.

In digital business ecosystem, digital species plays a crucial role in shaping its ecosystem.
Digital species are the ones that populate the digital environment. Examples of digital
species are software components, applications, services, knowledge, business models,
training modules, conceptual frameworks, laws, etc. In digital business ecosystem, the
environment enables species to behave like species in natural world. Digital species are
important because they are the key players that interact, express an independent
behavior and evolve or become extinct if the amount of individuals of a species is not
sufficient. Simpler species may form compositions, which allows more complex species
to appear.

In social ecosystem it is the social consensus represented by the firms and institutions
(i.e. businesses, consumers, suppliers, as well economic, cultural and legal institutions),
that influence the functioning of the entire ecosystem itself such that when firms and
institution cease to function like a community or ecosystem, they may breakdown.

Among others based on existing literatures business ecosystem demonstrates clearly a

life-cycle. Birth stage of business ecosystem focus on more than just satisfying
customers. During the expansion stage the scale-up potential of the business concept is
tested. In the leadership stage the business ecosystem reaches stability and high
profitability. At the final stage, self-renewal or death, is caused by the threat of rising new
ecosystems.

7.2.2 Focal Complexity Aspects in Business Ecosystem

Here you will learn that complexity concepts are also applied in business ecosystems.
This provides a better view on how a business community organizes itself; from self-
organization how does new order arise as an emergent property; how the concept of co-
evolution (and adaptation) is relevant to business ecosystem.

Based on the article of Peltoniemi and Vuori that you read in the previous activity indicate
which of the given real-life scenarios below pertains to which complexity concept (self-
organization, emergence, co-evolution and adaptation.

The formation of a business ecosystem is a process, where participants are gathered

voluntarily and without external or internal leader. Goals are set in local interactions,
where companies negotiate and create new order. Companies are free to create the kind
of structures they prefer. This evolvement is continuing, new connections are created all
the time and old ones are dissolved.

a. A business ecosystem is always more than the sum of its parts. The result of
interactions between different units is something, which no one of those units could
produce by oneself. This is especially visible in R&D, where the result is consisted
by the contribution of many factors.

b. The evolution of one company affecting the evolution of other companies this is
exemplified by the classical case of microprocessors and software. While
microprocessor producers develop more efficient processors, the software
producers quickly make use of the new opportunities and the software becomes
heavier, which causes pressure to develop even more efficient processors. Also,
strategic changes of one company affect strongly to possibilities of other
companies in its ecosystem. This is why managers should consider the broad
impact of their decisions over the whole ecosystem.
 c. Governmental restrictions, taxes and tariffs are those constraints, which are set by
the other party generates structures of progressively higher performance among
the business participants.

Guide/Study Questions:

1. Is emergence independent of self-organization? Why?

2. What is the significance of negative and positive interactions in co-evolution?
3. Define fitness in the context of adaptation in business ecosystem.

Discussion
Complexity refers to “systems with many different parts which, by a rather mysterious
process of self-organization, become more ordered and more informed than systems
which operate in approximate thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings
(Cowan, 1994; Peltoniemi & Vuori, 2004 and Santa Fe Institute, 2018). On the other hand,
complex systems contain many relatively independent parts which are highly
interconnected and interactive (Cowan, 1994 and Peltoniemi & Vuori, 2004). In which
case, emergence is not independent of self-organization. In fact, emergent properties are
the result of self-organization. And together with self-organization emergence creates
new order. In business ecosystem we cannot do away with negative and positive
interactions happening during co-evolution and adaptation, nevertheless negative
interactions as exemplified by predation and competition and positive interactions as
exemplified by mutualism and sharing indeed contributes in the generation of high or low
performance among business participants. Hence, in the context of adaptation in
business ecosystem fitness is defined as the measure of performance (overachievement
or underachievement) in business.

References Cited
Anand, M., Gonzalez, A., Guichard, F., Kolasa, J. and Parrott, L (2010). Ecological
systems as complex systems: Challenges for an emerging science. Diversity, 2,
395-410.
Atmanspacher, H., 2007. A semiotic approach to complex systems. In: Mehler, A., Köhler,
R. (Eds.), Aspects of Automatic Text Analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp. 79–91.
Barabasi, A. L., and Bonabeau, E (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American
288:60–69.
Brown, J.H. (1994). Complex ecological systems. Cowan, G.A; Pines, D.; Meltzer, D.
(eds.) in Complexity: Metaphores, Models, and Reality. Westview, pp. 419-449.
Christensen, V., Walters, C.J., Pauly, D., (2005). Ecopath with Ecosim: a User’s guide.
Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Available online at
www.ecopath.org.
Chaerun, S. K., Tazaki, K., Asada, R., & Kogure, K. (2004). Bioremediation of coastal
areas 5 years after the Nakhodka oil spill in the Sea of Japan: isolation and
characterization of hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria. Environment
International, 30, 7, 911-922.
Clergeau, P., and Burel, F (1997). The role of spatio-temporal patch connectivity at the
landscape level: an example in a bird distribution. Landscape and Urban Planning
38:37.
Cohen, I. R., & Harel, D. (2007). Explaining a complex living system: dynamics, multi-
scaling and emergence. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(13), 175–182.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0173
Complex Environmental Systems Lab (2014). Ecological Complexity. Retrieved January
19, 2018, from http://complexity.ok.ubc.ca/about/ecological-complexity/
Complexity Labs (2010). Complexity theory overview. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ladOjo1QA
Complexity Labs (2017). What is a complex system? Retrieved January 19, 2018, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8v2Udd_PM
Cowan, G.A. 1994. Conference Opening Remarks. Cowan, G.A.; Pines, D.; Meltzer, D.
(eds.).
Ferreras, P. (2001). Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a
metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation 100:125–
136.
Flather, C. H., and Bevers, M. (2002). Patchy reaction-diffusion and population
abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. The
American Naturalist 159:40–56.
Grassberger, P. (1988). Complexity and forecasting in dynamical systems. In: Peliti,
L., Vulpiani, A. (Eds.), Measures of Complexity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1–22.
Hanski, I., and Gilpin, M. (1991). Metapopulation dynamics—brief-history and conceptual
domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:3–16.
Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., & Harris, J. A. (2009). Novel ecosystems: implications for
conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 11, 599-605.
King, A. W., and With, K. A. (2002). Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes:
when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? Ecological Modelling
147:23–39.
Langton, C. (1992). Life at the edge of chaos. Artificial Life II 10, 41–91.
Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems.
Ecosystems, 1, 5, 431-436.
Loehle, C. (2004). Challenges of ecological complexity. Ecological Complexity, 1(1), 3-6.
doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2003.09.001.
Lotka, A. J. 1925. Elements of physical biology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co.
Mexia, T., Vieira, J., Príncipe, A., Anjos, A., Silva, P., Lopes, N., Freitas, C., Santos-Reis,
M., Correia, O., Branquinho, C. and Pinho, P. (2018). Ecosystem services: Urban
parks under a magnifying glass. Environmental Research, 160, 469-478.
Minor, E. S., & Urban, D. L. (2008). A Graph-Theory Framework for Evaluating Landscape
Connectivity and Conservation Planning. Conservation Biology, 22(2), 297-307.
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00871.x.
Nikolic, I. (2010). Complex adaptive systems: at TEDxRotterdam. Retrieved January 19,
2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS0zj_dYeBE
Oindo, B. O., & Skidmore, A. K. (2002). Interannual variability of NDVI and species
richness in Kenya. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(2), 285-298.
doi:10.1080/01431160010014819.
Opdam, P., and Wascher, D. (2004). Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking
landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological
Conservation 117:285–297.
Parrot, L and Kok, R (2000). Incorporating complexity in ecosystem modelling.
Complexity International 7, 1-19.
Parrott, L. (2010). Measuring ecological complexity. Ecological Indicators, 10, 1069–
1076.
Pauly, D, Christensen V, Walters C. 2000. Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for
evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 697.
Peltoniemi, M., Vuori, E. (2004). Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex
adaptive business environments. Proceedings of EBusiness Research Forum, 2,
267-281.
Pomeroy, D., and Dranzoa, C. (1997). Methods of studying the distribution, diversity and
abundance of birds in East Africa-some quantitative approaches. African Journal of
Ecology, 35, pp.110-123.
Prins, H. H. T. and Olff, H. (1998). Species-Richness of African grazer assemblages:
Towards a functional explanation. Dynamics of Tropical Communities, edited by, D.
M. Newbery, H. H. T. Prins and N. D. Brown, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 449-
490.
Pilinkienė, V., Mačiulis, P. (2014). Comparison of different ecosystem analogies: the main
economic determinants and levels of impact, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 156, 365-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.204.
Rangel, T. F. L. V, Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. and Bini, M. (2006). Towards an integrated
computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography. Global
Ecology and Biogeography, 15, 321-327.
Rangel, T. F., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. and Bini, L. M. (2010), SAM: a comprehensive
application for spatial analysis in macroecology. Ecography, 33: 46–50.
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06299.x.
Rapport, D.J., Constanza, R., McMichael, A.J. (1998). Assessing ecosystem health.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13 (10), 397 – 402.
Rosen, C. (2000). World resources 2000-2001: People and ecosystems: the fraying web
of life. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rusong, M.S.W. (1984). The social-economic-natural complex ecosystem. Acta
Ecologica Sinica, 1984-01. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from http://en.cnki.com.cn/
Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-STXB198401000.htm
Santa Fe Institute (2018). Independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute in Santa
Fe, New Mexico, United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute.
Schmidt, M. (2012). Understanding the complex systems around us: at TEDxMcDonogh.
Retrieved January 19, 2018, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGFLegJEZTY
Sharov, A. (1996). Lotka-Volterra Model. https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/davis/375/
popecol/lec10/lotka.html.
Volterra, V. 1926. Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d'individui in specie animali
conviventi. Mem. R. Accad. Naz. dei Lincei. Ser. VI, vol. 2.
World Resources Institute, 2000. World Resources 2000-2001: People and ecosystems:
The fraying web of life. Report Series. 41p.
http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_pdf.cfm?PubID=
3027.