# Welcome back

## Find a book, put up your feet, stay awhile

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more

Download

Standard view

Full view

of .

Look up keyword

Like this

Share on social networks

3Activity

×

0 of .

Results for: No results containing your search query

P. 1

Law of the Minimum Paradoxes - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COMRatings:

4.5

(1)|Views: 304|Likes: 1Published by Fausto Intilla

Summary. The “law of the minimum” states that growth is controlled by the

scarcest resource (limiting factor) (Justus von Liebig (1840), [1]). This concept was

originally applied to plant or crop growth and quantitatively supported by many experiments.

Some generalizations based on more complicated “dose-response” curves

were proposed. Violations of this law in natural and experimental ecosystems were

also reported. We study models of adaptation in ensembles of similar organisms under

load of environmental factors and prove that violation of the Liebig law follows

from adaptation effects. If the fitness of an organism in fixed environment satisfies

the law of the minimum then adaptation equalizes the pressure of essential factors

and therefore acts against the law. This is the the law of the minimum paradox: if for

a randomly chosen pair “organism–environment” the law of the minimum typically

holds, then, in a well-adapted system, we have to expect violations of this law.

For the opposite interaction of factors (a synergistic system of factors which

amplify each other) adaptation leads from factor equivalence to limitations by a

smaller number of factors.

For analysis of adaptation we develop a system of models based on Selye’s idea

of the universal adaptation resource (adaptation energy). These models predict that

under the load of an environmental factor a population separates into two groups

(phases): a less correlated, well adapted group and a highly correlated group with

a larger variance of attributes, which experiences problems with adaptation. Some

empirical data are presented and some evidences of interdisciplinary applications to

econometrics are discussed.

scarcest resource (limiting factor) (Justus von Liebig (1840), [1]). This concept was

originally applied to plant or crop growth and quantitatively supported by many experiments.

Some generalizations based on more complicated “dose-response” curves

were proposed. Violations of this law in natural and experimental ecosystems were

also reported. We study models of adaptation in ensembles of similar organisms under

load of environmental factors and prove that violation of the Liebig law follows

from adaptation effects. If the fitness of an organism in fixed environment satisfies

the law of the minimum then adaptation equalizes the pressure of essential factors

and therefore acts against the law. This is the the law of the minimum paradox: if for

a randomly chosen pair “organism–environment” the law of the minimum typically

holds, then, in a well-adapted system, we have to expect violations of this law.

For the opposite interaction of factors (a synergistic system of factors which

amplify each other) adaptation leads from factor equivalence to limitations by a

smaller number of factors.

For analysis of adaptation we develop a system of models based on Selye’s idea

of the universal adaptation resource (adaptation energy). These models predict that

under the load of an environmental factor a population separates into two groups

(phases): a less correlated, well adapted group and a highly correlated group with

a larger variance of attributes, which experiences problems with adaptation. Some

empirical data are presented and some evidences of interdisciplinary applications to

econometrics are discussed.

Summary. The “law of the minimum” states that growth is controlled by the

scarcest resource (limiting factor) (Justus von Liebig (1840), [1]). This concept was

originally applied to plant or crop growth and quantitatively supported by many experiments.

Some generalizations based on more complicated “dose-response” curves

were proposed. Violations of this law in natural and experimental ecosystems were

also reported. We study models of adaptation in ensembles of similar organisms under

load of environmental factors and prove that violation of the Liebig law follows

from adaptation effects. If the fitness of an organism in fixed environment satisfies

the law of the minimum then adaptation equalizes the pressure of essential factors

and therefore acts against the law. This is the the law of the minimum paradox: if for

a randomly chosen pair “organism–environment” the law of the minimum typically

holds, then, in a well-adapted system, we have to expect violations of this law.

For the opposite interaction of factors (a synergistic system of factors which

amplify each other) adaptation leads from factor equivalence to limitations by a

smaller number of factors.

For analysis of adaptation we develop a system of models based on Selye’s idea

of the universal adaptation resource (adaptation energy). These models predict that

under the load of an environmental factor a population separates into two groups

(phases): a less correlated, well adapted group and a highly correlated group with

a larger variance of attributes, which experiences problems with adaptation. Some

empirical data are presented and some evidences of interdisciplinary applications to

econometrics are discussed.

scarcest resource (limiting factor) (Justus von Liebig (1840), [1]). This concept was

originally applied to plant or crop growth and quantitatively supported by many experiments.

Some generalizations based on more complicated “dose-response” curves

were proposed. Violations of this law in natural and experimental ecosystems were

also reported. We study models of adaptation in ensembles of similar organisms under

load of environmental factors and prove that violation of the Liebig law follows

from adaptation effects. If the fitness of an organism in fixed environment satisfies

the law of the minimum then adaptation equalizes the pressure of essential factors

and therefore acts against the law. This is the the law of the minimum paradox: if for

a randomly chosen pair “organism–environment” the law of the minimum typically

holds, then, in a well-adapted system, we have to expect violations of this law.

For the opposite interaction of factors (a synergistic system of factors which

amplify each other) adaptation leads from factor equivalence to limitations by a

smaller number of factors.

For analysis of adaptation we develop a system of models based on Selye’s idea

of the universal adaptation resource (adaptation energy). These models predict that

under the load of an environmental factor a population separates into two groups

(phases): a less correlated, well adapted group and a highly correlated group with

a larger variance of attributes, which experiences problems with adaptation. Some

empirical data are presented and some evidences of interdisciplinary applications to

econometrics are discussed.

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/17441519/Law-of-the-Minimum-Paradoxes-WWW-OLOSCIENCE-COM

05/11/2014

text

original

Law of the Minimum Paradoxes

Alexander N. Gorban

1

, Elena V. Smirnova

2

, and Tatiana A. Tyukina

1

1

Centre for Mathematical Modelling, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH,UK,

{

ag153,tt51

}

@le.ac.uk

2

Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, 660041, Russia,

seleval2008@yandex.ru

Summary.

The “law of the minimum” states that growth is controlled by thescarcest resource (limiting factor) (Justus von Liebig (1840), [1]). This concept wasoriginally applied to plant or crop growth and quantitatively supported by many ex-periments. Some generalizations based on more complicated “dose-response” curveswere proposed. Violations of this law in natural and experimental ecosystems werealso reported. We study models of adaptation in ensembles of similar organisms un-der load of environmental factors and prove that violation of the Liebig law followsfrom adaptation eﬀects. If the ﬁtness of an organism in ﬁxed environment satisﬁesthe law of the minimum then adaptation equalizes the pressure of essential factorsand therefore acts against the law. This is the

the law of the minimum paradox

: if fora randomly chosen pair “organism–environment” the law of the minimum typicallyholds, then, in a well-adapted system, we have to expect violations of this law.For the opposite interaction of factors (a synergistic system of factors whichamplify each other) adaptation leads from factor equivalence to limitations by asmaller number of factors.For analysis of adaptation we develop a system of models based on Selye’s ideaof the universal adaptation resource (adaptation energy). These models predict thatunder the load of an environmental factor a population separates into two groups(phases): a less correlated, well adapted group and a highly correlated group witha larger variance of attributes, which experiences problems with adaptation. Someempirical data are presented and some evidences of interdisciplinary applications toeconometrics are discussed.

Keywords: Liebigs Law, Adaptation, Fitness, Stress

Introduction

The “law of the minimum” states that growth is controlled by the scarcestresource (limiting factor) [1]. This concept was originally applied to plant orcrop growth. Many times it was criticized, rejected, and then returned to anddemonstrated quantitative agreement with experiments [1], [2], [3]. Liebig’s

2 A.N. Gorban, E.V. Smirnova, T.A. Tyukina

law of the minimum was extended then to more a general conception of fac-tors, not only for the elementary physical description of available chemicalsubstances and energy. Any environmental factor essential for life that is be-low the critical minimum, or that exceeds the maximum tolerable level couldbe considered as a limiting one.The biological generalizations of Liebig’s Law were supported by the bio-chemical idea of limiting reaction steps (see, for example, [4] or recent review[5]). Some of the generalizations of the law went quite far from agricultureand ecology. The law of the minimum was applied to economics [6] and toeducation, for example [7].We consider also the opposite principle organization of factors. This issynergy, the superlinear mutual ampliﬁcation of factors. Synergy is possiblefor interactions of various poisons, for example.The reaction of an organismto the load of a single factor may have plateaus(intervals of tolerance consideredin Shelford’s “lawof tolerance”,[22], Chapter5). The dose–response curves may be nonmonotonic [8] or even oscillating.Nevertheless, we start from a very simple abstract model that is close tothe usual factor analysis. We consider organisms that are under the inﬂuenceof several factors

F

1

,...F

q

. Each factor has its intensity

f

i

(

i

= 1

,...q

). Forconvenience, we consider all these factors as negative or harmful (later, afterwe introduce ﬁtness

W

, it will mean that all the partial derivatives are non-positive

∂W/∂f

i

≤

0). This is just a convention about the choice of axesdirections: a wholesome factor is just a “minus harmful” factor.We represent the organisms, which are adapting to stress, as the systemswhich optimize distribution of available amount of resource for neutralizationof diﬀerent aggressive factors (we consider the deﬁcit of anything needful as anegative factor too). These

factor–resource

models with optimization are veryconvenient for the modeling of adaptation. We use a class of models

many factors – one resource

.Each organism has its adaptation systems, a “shield” that can decrease theinﬂuence of external factors. In the simplest case, it means that each systemhas an available adaptation resource,

R

, which can be distributed for theneutralization of factors: instead of factor intensities

f

i

the system is underpressure from factor values

f

i

−

a

i

r

i

(where

a

i

>

0 is the coeﬃcient of eﬃciencyof factor

F

i

neutralization by the adaptation system and

r

i

is the share of theadaptation resource assigned for the neutralization of factor

F

i

,

i

r

i

≤

R

).The zero value

f

i

−

a

i

r

i

= 0 is optimal (the fully compensated factor), andfurther compensation is impossible and senseless.Interaction of each system with a factor

F

i

is described by two quantities:the factor

F

i

pressure

ψ

i

=

f

i

−

a

i

r

i

and the resource

r

i

assigned to the factor

F

i

neutralization. The ﬁrst quantity characterizes,how big the uncompensatedharm is from that factor, the second quantity measures, how intensive is theadaptation answer to the factor (or how far the system was modiﬁed to answerthe factor

F

i

pressure).

Law of the Minimum Paradoxes 3

For the modeling of adaptation we follow ﬁrst the classical Selye ideasabout an adaptation resource (adaptation energy [9, 10]). Already one factor–one resource models of adaptation produce the tolerance law and give theseparation of groups of organism into two subgroups: the less correlated well-adapted organisms and highly correlated organisms with a deﬁcit of the adap-tation resource. The variance is also higher in the highly correlated group of organisms with a deﬁcit of the adaptation resource.The crucial question is: what is the

resource of adaptation

? This questionarose for the ﬁrst time when Selye published the concept of

adaptation energy

and experimental evidence supporting this idea [9, 10]. Selye found that theorganisms (rats) which demonstrate no diﬀerences in normal environment maydiﬀer signiﬁcantlyin adaptation to an increasingload of environmentalfactors.Moreover, when he repeated the experiments, he found that adaptation abilitydecreases after stress. All the observations could be explained by existence of an universal adaptation resource that is being spent during all adaptationprocesses.Later the concept of adaptation energy was signiﬁcantly improved [11],plenty of indirect evidence supporting this concept were found, but this elu-sive adaptation energy is still a theoretical concept, and in the modern “En-cyclopedia of Stress” we read: “As for adaptation energy, Selye was never ableto measure it...” [12]. Nevertheless, the notion of adaptation energy is veryuseful in the analysis of adaptation and is now in wide use (see, for example,[13, 14]).The idea of

exchange

can help in the understanding of adaptation energy:there are many resources, but any resource can be exchanged for another one.To study such an exchange we have to specify, what is the

exchange rate

,how fast this exchange could be done (what is the

exchange time

), what isthe

margin

, how the margin depends on the exchange time, and what is the

limit of that exchange

. Market economics seems closer to the idea of resourceuniversalization than biology is, but for biology this exchange idea also seemsattractive. Of course there exist some limits on the possible exchanges of dif-ferent resources. It is possible to include the exchange processes into models,but many questions appear immediately about unknown coeﬃcients. Never-theless, we can follow Selye’s arguments and postulate the adaptation energyunder the assumption that this is not an “energy” or Aristotle’s “entelechy”(which deﬁnitely had an impact on Selye’s work), but just a pool of vari-ous exchangeable resources. When an organism achieves the limits of resourceexchangeability, the universal non-speciﬁc stress and adaptation syndrometransforms (disintegrates) into speciﬁc diseases. Near this limit we have toexpect the

critical retardation

of exchange processes.Adaptation optimizes the state of the system for given available amountsof the adaptation resource. This idea seems very natural, but it may be a dif-ﬁcult task to ﬁnd the objective function that is hidden behind the adaptationprocess. Nevertheless, even an assumption about the existence of an objec-

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Probability and Non Locality in Many Minds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM)

We argue that a certain type of many minds (and many worlds) interpretations ...

© Copyright 2015 Scribd Inc.

Language

Choose the language in which you want to experience Scribd:

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Password Reset Email Sent

Join with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

By joining, you agree to our

read free for two weeks

Unlimited access to more than

one million books

one million books

Personalized recommendations

based on books you love

based on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Join with Facebook

or Join with emailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

Already a member? Sign in.

By joining, you agree to our

to download

Unlimited access to more than

one million books

one million books

Personalized recommendations

based on books you love

based on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Continue with Facebook

Sign inJoin with emailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

By joining, you agree to our

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd