Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47 – 61

Sustainable biosphere: critical overview of basic concept of

sustainability

Yu. M Svirezhev a,*, A. Svirejeva-Hopkins b

a
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 60 12 03, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany
b
Geography Department, Uni6ersity of Toronto, 100 St. George Str., Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, Canada

Accepted 16 September 1997

Abstract

If we observe the evolution of different globalistic concepts from T. Malthus up to recent concepts such as the
models of the Club of Rome and the sustainability suggested by the Brundtland commission, we can see that all the
concepts are principally anthropocentric. For instance, the models of the Club of Rome, though differing by the levels
of spatial and functional complexity, are first of all macro-economic models, including the biosphere processes as
disturbances of global processes. On the other hand, we can consider the human society as a natural component of
the biosphere. We can consider also the Biosphere (in accordance to Vernadsky V.I. (1926) (The Biosphere.
Leningrad, Nauchtekhizdat (in Russian)) as an entity and study its reactions to human impact. Thus, we suggest the
concept of coevolution of mankind and the biosphere as a further development and an alternative to sustainability.
We try to show in this work how terms such as ‘limits to growth’, ‘sustainable development’ can be understood. We
try to analyse a few technocratic illusions and reveal some physical contradictions contained in the basis of some
globalistic concepts. © 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Global modelling; Biosphere; Sustainability; Thermodynamics approach

1. Limits to growth ment. When approaching that limit, the mecha-

All populations, including Homo sapienslandau,
expanding under conditions of limited resources,
sooner or later reach a maximum size, determined
by the so-called carrying capacity of the environ-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 49 331 2781157; fax: + 49
331 2781204; e-mail: juri@pik-postdam
nisms responsible for slowing growth start to
work, and exponential growth (or even faster than
exponential-like growth, Homo sapiens 1) slows
1
At the beginning of 1960s, the global human population
was growing hyperbolically, which led the noted cybernetician,
Heinz von Foerster, to predict facetiously that on a certain
day in October 2037 the population would become infinite!

0304-3800/98/$19.00 © 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S 0 3 0 4 - 3 8 0 0 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 1 7 7 - 4
48 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
down and later stops. The population now occu-
pies its new ecological niche. In natural popula-
tions, these mechanisms usually work through
competition for food resources, hunger, diseases
and epizootics. All this was described by T.
Malthus in relation to human populations. Since
the concrete consequences of these regulatory
mechanisms are anti-humanitarian from the
moral and spiritual point of view (hunger, wars
and epidemics), the criticism of Malthus is under-
standable (although how would one impose our
moral criteria, or our understanding of good and
bad upon nature?).
Of course, there are other possibilities for the
regulation of population processes. The first and
the most obvious one is the birth control, which
may be seen as quite humanitarian. Unfortu-
nately, in a lot of countries (such as India, for
example) different programs for regulation and
limitation of birth have not produced great re-
sults. We think the reasons for this lie not only in
religious and national traditions (for example the
age of marriage, the amount of children, sex ratio)
but also in the very slow-expanding to a few
generations—response of economics (leading in
turn, to an improvement of ‘life quality’) to cer-
tain demographic impacts.
The second method to avoid the negative con-
sequences of approaching the population limit is
to change the value of the maximum size of
population, in other words, to increase the carry-
ing capacity of the environment. This could be
done with the help of more efficient use of re-
sources, the expansion of resources in physical
space, or by creation of new resources.
Until now, the human population has been
developing in just this way. It is clear, however,
that this way of development has its limits: there
are thermodynamic limits of effective use of re-
sources, and the finiteness of our planet deter-
mines the finiteness of our resources and the limits
of expansion. These concepts were a basis for
investigation by the Club of Rome and its modern
successors (Forrester, 1971; Meadows et al., 1972;
Rotmans, 1990; Alcamo et al., 1993).
There is also the possibility of expansion into
outer space, but that will not occur in the near
future and we will not consider it.
2. Sustainable development
The works of the Club of Rome concluded
that in order to avoid ecological, demographic
and resource (the result of natural resource ex-
haustion) disasters in the near future, it is neces-
sary to stop demographic and economic growth,
i.e. the areas of economy connected with re-
source usage. In other words, to rescue the hu-
man population, the concept of zero growth has
been suggested.
Naturally, this concept has caused intense crit-
icism in both developed (with liberal market
economies, for example, the USA) and develop-
ing countries of the Third World.
If in developed countries the main argument
had to deal with the unlimited trust in opportu-
nities of a liberal economy (‘give business a free-
dom and it will solve all these problems’—N.
Rockfeller), then developing countries accused
them of national egoism: ‘the developed coun-
tries have already solved their problems, but we
are just facing them and our economy has to
grow very fast in order to do it’. The situation
grew tense and the Brundtland Commission was
formed as a compromise, which released the ten-
sion. The Commission suggested the remarkable
concept of ‘sustainable development’, which
looks far more attractive than the severe neo-
Malthusian concept of ‘zero-growth’. The ques-
tion is: can sustainable development for the
whole Earth exist in reality? Later, we are going
to try to answer this question. But before that,
in order to better understand the whole concept,
let us quote several sentences from the book
Our Common Future. From one Earth to one
World (1987).
‘‘Sustainable de6elopment: Humanity has the
ability to make development sustainable—to en-
sure that it meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. The concept of sustainable
development does imply limits—not absolute lim-
its but limitations imposed by the present state of
technology and social organization on environ-
mental resources and by the ability of the bio-
sphere to absorb the effects of human activities.
Technology and social organisation can be both
 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
managed2 and improved to make way for a new
era of economic growth. The Commission believes
that widespread poverty is no longer inevitable.
Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustain-
able development requires meeting the basic needs
of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfil
their aspirations for a better life. A world in
which poverty is endemic will always be prone to
ecological and other catastrophes. Meeting essen-
tial needs requires not only a new era of economic
growth for nations in which the majority are
poor, but an assurance that those poor get their
fair share of the resources required to sustain that
growth...’’.
‘‘Sustainable global development requires that
those who are more affluent adopt life-styles
within the planet’s ecological means — in their use
of energy, for example. Further, rapidly growing
populations can increase the pressure on resources
and slow any rise in living standards; thus sustain-
able development can only be pursued if popula-
tion size and growth are in harmony with the
changing productive potential of the ecosystem.
Yet in the end, sustainable development is not a
fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of
change in which the exploitation of resources, the
direction of investments, the orientation of tech-
nological development, and institutional change
are made consistent with future as well as present
needs. We do not pretend that the process is easy
or straightforward. Painful choices have to be
made. Thus, in the final analysis, sustainable de-
velopment must rest on political will’’.
Let us look at the last paragraph — from which
it follows that a sustainable development strategy
is quite realistic and has no physical, biological or
other natural and scientific limitations, but that its
realisation depends only on corresponding politi-
cal decisions. We shall try to show that the situa-
tion is far more complicated, and that what
actually exists is the myth of sustainable develop-
ment, but not sustainable development itself.
Let us first answer a very important question:
2
The possibility that social organisation can be managed is
a very dangerous idea. Moral persuasion? Yes. Social engi-
neering? No (authors’ comment).
49
3. How many people can live on the earth?
There are quite a few estimates of the ‘carrying
capacity’ of the ecological (trophic) niche for the
species Homo sapiens. Most estimates are tied to the
ability of the biosphere to provide food for growing
populations. For 30% of the planet’s population,
hunger related to agricultural production is the
main factor.
The maximum estimation assumes that all net
primary production of the biosphere is used as food
(Odum, 1983). The estimation is quite rough and
idealised, but it gives an idea about growth limits.
If we consider that net production makes up half
of total gross production, then the productivity of
the biosphere is 5× 1017 kcal/year. One human
individual spends about 1× 106 kcal/year in the
form of food. If we assume that all this organic
production is utilised by humans then the upper
limit for the human population is 500 billion. The
500 billion are located on 1.4× 1014 m2 of land, or
280 m2 surface area/person.
The minimum estimation (Odum, 1983) is calcu-
lated by assuming 6.7× 1015 kcal of food is col-
lected all over the world, (in other words, the
organic matter of the autotrophs, heterotrophs and
detritus which is traditionally consumed by hu-
mans). Badly regulated distribution, large losses,
and low quality of crops reduce this amount
significantly. If we pre-suppose that by organising
everything perfectly we could eliminate these losses,
then modern agriculture could feed no more then
6.7 billion people.
The intermediate estimation is based on the
assumption that agriculture is based on cereals,
with significant consumption of artificial energy. Its
productivity constitutes an average 5×103 kcal/m2
per year. Then one person (eating a vegetarian diet)
would need 200 m2 of arable land. Considering that
no more than 25% of the land surface could be used
for agriculture, we estimate the population at about
170 billion. Unfortunately, the intermediate estima-
tion is not the mean one. There are other limitations
which reduce this number significantly. The maxi-
mal possible population, calculated with the help
of the Moscow global model of biosphere processes
(Krapivin et al., 1982), was about 16–17 billion
people (pre-supposing that all major contemporary
50 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
tendencies for economic development are main-
tained over the next 100 years and that no revolu-
tionary changes in food processing are
introduced).
4. Technocrats’ illusions
In principle, it is possible to imagine algae as a
food source. This would cause the consumption of
artificial energy to increase, because algae culture
technologies require large amounts of mineral re-
sources and energy.
Theoretically, the maximum possible produc-
tion of algae culture is on average 2.5× 104 kcal/
m2 per year, so only 40 m2 is needed to support
one person. However, using the technologies
available at the present time, in order to produce
1 kcal of organics 600 kcal artificial energy need
be spent. The input is equal to 6×108 kcal (or
400 barrels of oil) in a year per individual. In
order to feed the existing population (5 billion
people) using this technology, 2×1012 barrels of
oil would have to be extracted, which is 20 times
higher than the total amount of oil extracted
today.
There are other sources of energy, of course.
Physicists promise us an ‘ocean’ of energy as a
result of high-temperature synthesis. At first
glance, it could also be used for food production,
but other factors are at work here. An increase in
energy consumption of 25 – 30 times could break
the global climatic equilibrium. This is because
energy is transformed into heat and an increase in
atmospheric temperature would cause a deteriora-
tion of the current metastable climate state, caus-
ing it to shift into one of two possible stable
states. It would either be so warm that the polar
ice would begin to melt and most of civilisation’s
centres were flooded, or winter would take over
the whole planet. If the first alternative is a well-
known consequence of global warming then the
second alternative is more unexpected and incom-
prehensible. Indeed, we know of such a result of a
specific anthropogenic impact as a ‘nuclear win-
ter’ (SCOPE 28. Environmental consequences of
nuclear war, 1986). However the phenomenon of
nuclear winter is a temporary climatic one: after a
relaxation time the climate system would return to
its pre-disturbed state. We are now just beginning
to understand that the current climatic equi-
librium is situated very close to a stability border
and a sufficiently strong perturbation could force
the system to cross the border. As a result the
climate would evolve to a new equilibrium which
may be interpreted as an ‘ice desert’ (Svirezhev
and von Bloh, 1998). A ‘nuclear winter’ would be
permanent!
With these considerations in mind, solutions for
overpopulation will not be found in extensively
increasing energy production from new technolo-
gies, i.e. the technocratic solution will fail.
5. Food security: sustaining the potential
Let us see how the Brundtland Commission
suggests solving the problem of food production
within the framework of sustainable development.
‘‘Growth in world cereal production has
steadily outstripped world population growth.
Yet, each year there are more people in the world
who do not get enough food. Global agriculture
has the potential to grow enough food for all, but
food is often not available where it is needed.
Production in industrialised countries has usu-
ally been highly subsidised and protected from
international competition. These subsidies have
encouraged the overuse of soil and chemicals, the
pollution of both water resources and foods with
these chemicals, and the degradation of the coun-
tryside. Much of this effort has produced sur-
pluses and their associated financial burdens.
Some of this surplus has been sent at concessional
rates to the developing world, where it has under-
mined the farming policies of recipient nations.
There is, however, growing awareness in some
countries of the environmental and economic con-
sequences of such paths, and the emphasis of
agricultural policies is to encourage conservation.
Many developing countries, on the other hand,
have suffered the opposite problem: farmers are
not sufficiently supported. In some, imported
technology allied to price incentives and govern-
ment services has produced a major breakthrough
in food production. Elsewhere, the food-growing
small farmers have been neglected. Coping with
often inadequate technology and few economic
 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
incentives, many are pushed onto marginal land:
too dry, too steep, lacking in nutrients. Forests
are cleared and productive dry lands rendered
barren.
Most developing nations need more effective
incentive systems to encourage production, espe-
cially of food crops. In short, the ‘terms of trade’
need to be turned in favour of the small farmer.
Most industrialised nations, on the other hand,
must alter present systems in order to cut sur-
pluses, to reduce unfair competition with nations
that may have real comparative advantages, and
to promote ecologically sound farming practices.
Food security requires attention to questions of
distribution, since hunger often arises from lack
of purchasing power rather than lack of available
food. It can be furthered by land reforms, and by
policies to protect vulnerable subsistence farmers,
pastoralists, and the landless-groups which by the
year 2000 will include 220 million households.
Their greater prosperity will depend on integrated
rural development that increases work opportuni-
ties both inside and outside agriculture’’.
We see that the strategy suggested is one of
improvement of already existing technology for
food production. Of course, this strategy increases
the carrying capacity of the trophic niche for
humans. It does not cancel those upper limits for
the size of the trophic ecological niche which we
discussed earlier (Section 3).
Now let us consider one more way to increase
the carrying capacity of the trophic niche.
6. The increase in food production: ecological
approach
Usually, ecosystems consist of two chains: graz-
ing and detritus, where a significant part of energy
(sometimes more than half) goes to the detritus
chain. Humans use the grazing chain for their
consumption. Timofeev-Ressovsky (1968) proved
for the first time that humans could use the
detritus chain on a global basis. As an example,
he pointed out the possibility of using ‘sapropel’
(half decomposed and transformed organics on
the bottom of fresh-water bodies) as a food
source. Another quality of the detritus chain
51
makes it useful for this purpose: its buffering
capacity, i.e. its capacity of allowing organics to
accumulate and be stored for a long time. For
example, there is enough sapropel in the water
reservoirs of the European part of Russia alone to
provide food for all of its population for 100
years. Sapropel accumulates again and again. The
only thing needed is the technology to process it,
this task however has been partially solved in
Japan where this material is widely used in the
production of pastries (Timofeev-Ressovsky,
1968).
In this case lakes and reservoirs play the role of
natural algae cultivators (Section 4); their func-
tioning is supported by solar energy. The main
energy expenditure would be dragging the sapro-
pel out of the lake, drying it and subsequently
processing it into food. It would be interesting to
do an ecological energetic analysis of such a pro-
cess but, it seems to us, this expenditure must be
relatively small. Certainly, the use of sapropel as a
new food source would be impossible without
seriously changing food traditions.
And what is more, the removal of parts of the
stored matter in the detritus chain accelerates
matter circulation in the whole ecosystem, which
in turn increases its productivity. This increases
the efficiency coefficient for the system. It seems
obvious that the food production problem should
be solved by ecological means and not by means
of technocratic solutions.
7. One more technocratic illusion: the limits to
agriculture intensification
It is known that intensification of agriculture
(the increase of crop production) correlates with
an increase of the artificial energy flow in the
ecosystem. Indeed, increased input of fertilisers,
usage of complex infrastructures, pesticides, her-
bicides, etc. that is all that is called a ‘modern
agricultural technology’, results in greater crop
production.
This is a typical pattern of development for
agriculture in industrialised countries. However,
there are limits, determined by physical laws. In
other words, we pay a price for increasing the
52 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
productivity of agriculture, which is a degradation
of the environment (including soil degradation).
This is obvious from an analysis of maize pro-
duction in Hungary in the 1980s (Svirezhev et al.,
1985, 1991; Svirezhev, 1989, 1990, 1998).
Let the gross agro-ecosystem production be P1,
the net production be (1−r) P1, where r is the
respiration coefficient, so that rP1 are the respira-
tion losses. For a maize crop in the temperate
zone r: 0.4. The kth part of the net production is
being extracted from the system with the yield, so
that the crop yield
y=k(1− r)P1 (1)
Let s be the annual entropy production (overpro-
duction) of one area unit of the agro-ecosystem
and T be the mean temperature of the vegetation
period for this site (in K).
Then the entropy balance of this system is:
sT = (1−k)(1−r) P1 +rP1 +W − P0 (2)
where W is the artificial energy inflow and P0 is
the gross production of a successionally closed
ecosystem. In the Hungarian case it is a middle-
European steppe (puszta).
There is an empirical relationship between P1
(and y) and W (let us remember, even the ecolog-
ical energetic analysis by Pimentel (1980) which
was very popular in 1970s – 1980s). The result of
this popularity is our knowledge of the coeffi-
cients of energy efficiency (h=y/W) for different
agro-ecosystems of many countries and various
regions.
The coefficient h is some sort of modification of
the efficiency coefficient (well-known in thermo-
dynamics) which is a consequence of the first law.
In thermodynamics it is usually less than one, but
here, on the contrary, the coefficient h may be
more than one. The point is really that we must
take into account the solar energy (Es), and the
correct form for efficiency will be h% =y/(W +Es).
What does Pimentel’s coefficient h mean in this
case? It is obvious that y = y(W, Es). If we lin-
earise this value at W= 0 we get
y(W, Es :y(0, Es)+
(y   W.
(W 0 must calculate the entropy balance for the total rotation.
If we assume now that the first term is negligibly
small in comparison with the second one and the
derivative ((y/(W)0 = h= const for considered
values W we immediately get Pimentel’s relation
h= y/W. Of course, there is some incorrectness in
this approach but, on the other hand, why should
we not use these results?
The average yield of maize was 4.9 t/ha (in dry
matter), which makes 0.735×1011 J/ha. For
maize production in Hungary h= 2.7 and k= 0.5.
Since the steppe community is an ecosystem suc-
cessionally close to that of a corn field after
cultivation is stopped (grassland of the temperate
zone), then the gross production
P0 = 2800 kcal/m2 = 1.18× 1011 J/ha.
Substituting these values into Eq. (2), we get:
sT = 0.8×1011 J/ha.
On the other hand, artificial energy input to the
system is
W= 0.27× 1011 J/ha.
Therefore, to compensate for environmental
degradation would require a 300% increment in
energy input, with all the additional energy spent
only on soil reclamation, pollution control, etc.
with no increase in the crop production.
Let us remember the condition of dynamic
equilibrium for an open system (Landau and Lif-
shitz, 1964): the change of its total entropy over
the course of a characteristic time period for the
system must be equal to zero. A system which
accumulates entropy cannot exist over a long
period of time and it will inevitably destroy itself.
The second law is not the scientific basis of any
eschatological concept for nothing. Certainly, we
implicitly assume that the considered agro-ecosys-
tem would be a long-living system.
If we assume that the characteristic time for
agriculture is equal to 1 year3 then from the
condition s = 0 we have Wcrit. = 16 GJ/ha (1
GJ= 109 J). Let us compare this value with the
3
If you consider an agro-ecosystem with crop rotation the
characteristic time will be equal to a rotation period and you
 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
value of ‘the limit energy load’4, which was ob-
tained by M. Simmons by means of very concrete
and detailed calculations. This value is equal to 15
GJ/ha. This is a very curious coincidence, is it not?
Calculating ycrit. (from Eq. (2) at s = 0), we get
ycrit. =2.9 t/ha. This is the estimation of maximal
crop production (in dry matter) for ‘sustainable’ or
‘ecological’ agriculture. Let us suppose that the
primary degradation process, which accumulates
all the degradation processes, is soil erosion. If we
have the thermodynamic model of soil erosion, we
can estimate the annual erosion losses resulting
from intensive agriculture. How can we estimate
the annual entropy production corresponding to
the erosive loss of 1 ton of soil? Consider the soil
erosion as a combination of two processes: the
burning of organic matter contained in the soil
(  4% of carbon in mass units), which results in
destruction of the chemical structure, and the
mechanical destruction of soil particles (from 10 − 1
to 10 − 4 cm in size, the latter is the size of dust
particles, which can be weathered by wind and be
washed out by water). Then
sST =0.17× 1010 + 0.14 × 1010
=0.31 · 1010 J/t per ha
where the first addendum corresponds to a chemi-
cal destruction and the second one corresponds to
a mechanical destruction (Svirezhev, 1990). The
annual total erosion loss of soil from one hectare
is equal to s/sS = 26 tons.
Consequently, high crop production will cost us
26 tons of soil loss annually. By the USA standards,
no more than 10 t of soil may be lost from a hectare.
Obviously, 26 t/ha is the extreme estimate: the
actual losses are less, since there are other degrada-
tion processes, like environmental pollution, soil
4
‘The limit energy load’ concept is a typical empirical
concept and it means the maximal value of the total anthropo-
genic impact (including tillage, fertilisation, irrigation, pest
control, harvesting, grain transportation and drying, etc.) on
one hectare of agricultural land. All these values are evaluated
in energy units (in accordance to Pimentel’s method). It is
assumed that when the anthropogenic impact exceeds this limit
then the agro-ecosystem begins to be destroyed (soil acidifica-
tion and erosion, chemical contamination, etc.).
53
acidification (this factor is very important for
Hungary), etc.
There is increasing talk about how chemical
‘no-till’ agriculture actually allows topsoil to ac-
crete. It is being touted as a ‘sustainable’ agricul-
ture. Let us consider this concept from a
thermodynamic point of view. If you look at the
formula for sST you see that the second addendum
corresponds to mechanical destruction. The main
reason for such destruction is tilling. ‘No-till’
agriculture means that the value sST is reduced
approximately two times. The first impression is
that we achieve our goal and reduce the soil
erosion. However, it is impossible to get something
free of charge, and if we want to save the same crop
production we must increase energy input W up to
the former value, replacing the mechanical compo-
nent by some chemical one. As a result we get
approximately the same value of the entropy over-
production (s) but the result of compensation
would be different. For instance, instead of soil
erosion we would get an increase of chemical
contamination.
Within the framework of the thermodynamic
approach we can calculate the entropy of these
processes as well. For example, the entropy contri-
bution to the acidification of soil can be calculated
in terms of appropriate chemical potentials. How-
ever, (and this is the principal constraint of the
thermodynamic approach), we can not predict the
way in which the degradation of the environment
will be realised: through strong mechanical degra-
dation of soil and weak chemical pollution, through
high acidification of soil, strong chemical contam-
ination by pesticides and fertilisers, or some inter-
mediate way. Every way and all combinations of
these ways are possible. For the solution of this
problem some additional information is needed.
On the other hand, this approach gives us the
possibility to estimate the ‘entropy fee’ which
mankind pays for high crop yields, for intensifica-
tion of agriculture. Overproduction of entropy can
be compensated by processes of environmental
degradation, in particularly, by soil degradation. It
is known that the loss of about 40% of soil tends
to promote the rapid decline of crop yield by five
to seven times (Dobrovolsky, 1974). This is a
typical agricultural disaster. However it is a disaster
54 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
only from the anthropocentric point of view; from
the point of view of the laws of physics, a fall in
crop yield due to soil degradation is a natural
reaction of a physical system, tending to decrease
the internal production of entropy and to min-
imise its overproduction. It is the consequences of
the Prigogine theorem5. The corresponding esti-
mations for Hungary shows that if the intensive
production of maize continues, it will finish in
agricultural disaster within 30 – 40 years.
8. Comparative analysis for energetics of the
biosphere and technosphere
In order make a correct analysis of the sustain-
ability concept we must analyse the main dynamic
factor of evolution for biosphere and techosphere
(anthroposphere), i.e. to compare their energy
flow patterns.
The biosphere, as an open thermodynamic sys-
tem, exists with a permanent flow of solar energy.
Earth receives 1.2× 1022 kcal of solar energy per
year (which maintains the work of the climatic
machine). Terrestrial vegetation and phytoplank-
ton in the ocean are the main concentrators and
transformators of solar energy in the biosphere,
5
We suspect that this statement will raise very serious
objections, especially among biologists. The essence of these
may be as follows. Of course, the Prigogine theorem applies to
the physical world. The same theorem does not, however, apply
to the biological realm, and it is the juxtaposition of the
countervailing tendencies of the physical and biological realms
that lends tragic overtones to the overwhelming of the biological
trend by that of the physical. In general we agree with this
statement but in self-justification we can say that here we speak
as strong followers of reductionism. We understand that this
point of view is a biological heresay but we consider an
agriculture system only as a physical system. In the framework
of our approach we reduce a variety of all processes within an
agrosystem to one process, i.e. heat production and its dissipa-
tion. In other words, we measure entropy production by the
total thermal effect of different physical and chemical processes
taking place in the system. We understand that it is a very serious
simplification of the biological realm but, as it seems to us, this
approach gives some practical results. It is namely in this sense
we can talk about the applicability of Prigogine’s theorem.
but uses only 2.5× 1020 kcal/year (Krapivin et al.,
1982). This energy is spent on the metabolism, i.e.
the respiration, the evapotranspiration by leaves,
providing water and nutrient transport for vegeta-
tion, and creating new biomass. The function of
the ‘green cover’ (we include into the definition
both the terrestrial vegetation and the phyto-
plankton of the ocean photic zone) results in
1.3× 1018 kcal/year of new biomass. About 70%
of this amount is a vegetation production.
Approximately 60% of it is immediately used
for respiration and the remaining 40% is the
annual global production, which is equal to 5.4×
1017 kcal/year.
The energetic characteristics of the biosphere
have not changed significantly since the beginning
of photosynthesis (0.5–1× 109 years ago). The
functioning of the autotrophic component of the
biosphere provides the energetic basis for the evo-
lution of animals (‘biological evolution’). Since
the efficiency coefficient of this autotrophic com-
ponent is equal to:
h=5.4×1017/2.5× 1020 : 0.2%
then, the biosphere stability is maintained by the
continuous dissipation of energy. In other words,
the biosphere is a typical dissipative system. This
energy flow provides the steady state for 1.84 ×
1018 grams of living biomass (or 8.3×1018 kcal),
and the animal biomass is only 0.8%, i.e. 1.46 ×
1016 g. Only 3% of annual net production (1.75×
1016 kcal/year) of plants is consumed by
animals-heterotrophs (Bazilevich and Titlyanova,
1978)6. This energy flow supports both the
metabolism of living matter and its diversity, i.e.
the information basis of evolution.
At the present time, the technosphere of Earth
(technological civilisation) spends about 6.9× 1016
kcal/year (Krapivin et al., 1982) for its function-
ing and evolution. This is mainly the energy of
fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The part of pure
biosphere energy (water energy, wood) in this
balance is small (:5%).
6
Speaking about we imply only heterotrophs which are
included into so-called ‘autotrophs trophic chain’. Therefore
our estimation is minimal.
 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61 55

Fig. 1. Energy food demand for mankind. Source: (Krapivin et al., 1982).

Obviously, Homo sapiens are a component both = exp{− 4 ×1012/1.75× 1016}= 99.9%
of the biosphere and the technosphere.
If we consider humans as animals, then all During the time period from the Neolitic until the
human energetic requirements are satisfied origin of the technosphere (XVIII century) with its
through food, and the annual energy demand per
own source of energy (fossil fuels), Humans were
individual is 106 kcal. For the current population
a part of the biosphere only. They were competing
size of Homo sapiens ( :5 × 109 individuals), the
with other species, and had increased their energy
annual energy demand is equal to 5 × 1015 kcal/
demand up to 6 ×1014 kcal/year, and the probabil-
year. When we compare these variables, one can
ity of their elimination diminished:
see that the energy demand of mankind as a
biological species is currently equal to 1/3 of the
total ‘animal’ energy of the biosphere. Fig. 1 P %e = exp{− 6× 1014/1.75× 1016}= 96.6%.
represents the dynamics of the food energy de-
mand for mankind, using the reconstruction of Looking at these numbers one can say that as a
human population growth from the neolithic era. biological species, Homo sapiens were very fortu-
Until the neolithic revolution, when man nate that they were not eliminated before the origin
changed his behaviour from gathering to produc- of the technosphere.
ing food, he was a part of the biosphere, no The primary biosphere net production (5.4×
different from other animals. The human popula- 1017 kcal/year) is the energy flow which supports
tion was 4 ×106 individuals, and required an en- the diversity of biota. Even now, the energy flow
ergy supply of 4×1012 kcal/year, which was
used by the technosphere (6.9× 1016 kcal/year) is
0.023% of the energy flow for all animals.
about 10% of the total primary production of the
According to the physical theory of fluctuations
biosphere. The conclusion is: at the present mo-
(Landau and Lifshitz, 1964) the probability of
ment, the biosphere and technosphere are in a state
fluctuation which could cause the elimination of
of strong competition for common resources, such
Homo sapiens is equal to:
!
Pe =exp −
energy demand for human population " as land area and fresh water. Pollution of the
environment and the reduction of biota diversity
energy supply for all animals are the consequences of this competition.
56 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
Since the biosphere (considered as an open
thermodynamic system) is in the state of dynamic
equilibrium, then all entropy flows must be bal-
anced too. Therefore, the entropy excess which is
produced by the technosphere must be compen-
sated by means of two processes:
1. biosphere degradation;
2. change in the Earth’s climate (in particular,
increase of the Earth’s average temperature).
Let us assume that all energy consumed by the
technosphere is transformed into heat Q. Then the
annual entropy produced by the technosphere is
equal to:
St = Q/T=6.9 ×1016 kcal/287 K per year
= 2.4×1014 kcal/K per year
(the annual average temperature of Earth (T) is
equal to 14°C or 273 + 14 =287 K). The full
destruction of biota, which, we assume, is equiva-
lent to its full combustion, gives us the following
value of entropy:
Sd = 8.3× 1018/287 K=2.9 ×1016 kcal/K.
If we assume that the energy consumption of the
technosphere will not be increased, then this ‘anti-
entropy storage’ of the biota is enough to compen-
sate the entropy production of the technosphere for
100 years. If this technogenic entropy is used for
soil destruction, then the agony would last 300 – 400
years more, since the organic matter storage in soil
is three to four times larger than in biota7.
9. Industry, energy and environment: the myth of
sustainable development
In this section we would like to formulate several
theses, which could provoke an interesting discus-
sion.
Sustainable development for the world commu-
nity is the Brundtland Commission’s main idea.
7
Since the estimation of Sd is maximal then we get a period
of less than 100 years. On the other hand, biota is partially
renewed every year and the 100-year period must be increased.
Certainly, we accept that such estimations are very approxi-
mate.
Sustainable development: the development of the
world’s industry and technology while saving its
natural environment.
Sustainable development is an old idea. Let us
remember that V. Vernadsky first spoke of a new
global system, called by him the ‘noosphere’, which
is the result of the evolution of the biosphere under
the influence of human technological civilisation
(Vernadsky, 1944).
Unfortunately this very attractive idea of sus-
tainable development runs counter to the basic laws
of physics (the Second Law of Thermodynamics).
What arguments can be used as proof of this last
thesis? Let us consider the entropy balance of one
area unit of the biosphere, occupied some natural
ecosystem (Svirezhev, 1998) (also see Appendix).
From the viewpoint of thermodynamics, any
ecosystem is an open thermodynamic system. The
climax of an ecosystem corresponds to the dynamic
equilibrium (steady-state), when the entropy pro-
duction in a system is balanced with the entropy
flow from the system to the environment. This work
is done by the ‘entropy pump’.
In other words, the climatic, hydrological, soil
and other environmental conditions are organised
in such a way that only a natural ecosystem
corresponding specifically to these conditions is at
the equilibrium state.
Let us suppose that the considered area is influ-
enced by anthropogenic pressure, i.e.
1. A direct flow of artificial energy takes place
(energy load).
2. There is an inflow of chemical elements into the
system (chemical load).
This represents a typical impact of industry (and in
a broad sense, technological civilisation) on the
environment.
If we consider the main characteristics of techno-
logical civilisation, we can see that they create
energy and chemical loads. These characteristics
are:
1. the use of non-biosphere sources of energy
(fossil fuels are the traces of past biospheres, not
replenishable by the current biosphere; nuclear
energy);
2. technological processes which increase concen-
trations of chemical elements in the biosphere
(metallurgy, chemical industry, etc.);
 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61 57

3. dispersal of chemical elements in comparison the purposeful export of industrial waste into
with their ‘biotic’ concentrations. other regions, or the import of low-entropy mat-
All the above processes produce entropy which ter (for example, fossil fuels) from other regions.
can not be ‘sucked’ away by the biosphere’s ‘en- Thus, sustainable development is possible only
tropy pump’. locally, in selective areas of the planet and only as
Since the ecosystem should also remain in a a result of creating ‘entropy dumps’ elsewhere.
dynamic equilibrium with its environment, the
entropy production (overproduction) of the
ecosystem should be compensated by the outflow
10. Conclusion
of entropy to the environment. This compensation
can occur only at the expense of environmental
Finally, ‘revenons à nos moutons’ and let us
degradation in this8 and maybe other locations,
discuss the real scope of our thermodynamic con-
resulting, for instance, from heat and chemical
siderations and speculations. Note that we use
pollution, from mechanical impact on the system.
models and methods of classic quasi-equilibrium
The value of this overproduction can be used as
(‘linear’) thermodynamics which in principal do
the criterion for environmental degradation or as
not allow us to describe the non-linear processes
the ‘entropy fee’ which has to be paid by society
and phenomena such as bifurcation, multiple
(which really suffers from the degradation of the
equilibria, etc. Therefore, applying these methods
environment) for modern industrial technologies.
to such an object as the biosphere (considered as
Thus degradation of the environment is a
a physical and chemical system) we can estimate
unique way to compensate for the overproduction
its behaviour only in the vicinity of the current
of entropy; the process of overproduction can be
equilibrium and for ‘sufficiently short times’. Nev-
non-homogenous in space (Schneider and Kay,
ertheless we can not extrapolate our conclusions
1994), i.e. there is the spatial transportation of
to ‘evolutionary time scale’. Indeed when the bio-
entropy. This transportation can be either natural
sphere passes through different bifurcations (as
or artificial. The natural process of entropy trans-
mentioned above), then the type of the biosphere
portation connects to the widespread dispersal of
equilibrium changes (so that we can speak about
different polluting elements by natural agents
the new biospheres). Therefore our extrapolation
(wind, rivers, etc.). The artificial process is either
is incorrect. We can not categorically assert that
the growth of anthropogenic impact and that
accompanying it, the overproduction of entropy,
8
We expect here numerous objections. Certainly, if we would lead to the destruction of the planet’s total
consider this problem from the evolutionary point of view, we
find examples that what we speak of above has not occured.
biosphere. However, it would switch on the start-
Looking back over evolutionary history, we can see the ap- ing mechanism of ‘anthropogenic’ succession and
pearance of eukaryotic organisms that drastically altered the the biosphere would enter a new steady-state. The
composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. We assume that, the possibility itself of the existence of Homo sapiens
‘overproduction’ of the eukaryotes resulted in a certain bal- as a species as well as the possibility of the
ance (in favour of the eukaryotes, it should be emphasised).
We must remember however, that this moment was a bifurca-
preservation of its ecological niche in this new
tion point in the history of the Earth, when the path of biosphere would become rather questionable.
evolution had been changed and the system passed from one
branch of its evolution to another. We can assume that the
outcome of the technocratic society will not be in our favour,
but we cannot logically exclude the optimistic scenario, espe- Acknowledgements
cially if one acknowledges ‘entropy overproduction’ as a natu-
ral adjunct of life on Earth. One such scenario would be the We are grateful to our colleagues and friends,
above-mentioned ‘noosphere’ by V. Vernadsky. That is a
different biosphere (or more correctly, a different steady-state
Sven-Erik Jørgensen and Robert Ulanowicz
of the biosphere). This is a very interesting problem but our for their very fruitful discussion. Their critical
task is much more modest (for details, see Conclusion). remarks have significantly improved the
58 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
manuscript. Our sincere thanks to our anonymous
reviewer: after his very deep comments we began
to understand our own concepts much better then
we did before. My special thanks go to Mrs
Alison Schlums for her invaluable help in prepar-
ing the manuscript. We are also grateful to IN-
TAS (Project 94–1154) for having maintained this
investigation.
Appendix A. Thermodynamic criterion for
environmental degradation: anthropogenic impact
assessment
‘nobody knows what entropy is in reality, that
is why in the debate you will always have an
advantage’ (John von Neumann).
There are no constraints in principle in the
application of thermodynamic concepts to such
physical–chemical systems as ecological systems.
The problem is the following: there is not a direct
homeomorphism between the models (in a broad
sense) in thermodynamics and the models in ecol-
ogy.
Despite all this, if we were able to formulate
correctly the concept of a thermodynamic system
in relation to an ecosystem, it could be very useful
(Svirezhev, 1990). From the viewpoint of thermo-
dynamics, any ecosystem is an open thermody-
namic system. The climax of the ecosystem
corresponds to a dynamic equilibrium, when the
entropy production inside the system is balanced by
the entropy outflow to the environment. This work
is done by the ‘entropy pump’. What does this term
mean?
1. Let us consider one unit of the Earth’s surface,
which is occupied by some natural ecosystem
(i.e. meadow, steppe, forest, etc.) and is main-
tained in the climax state. The natural period-
icity in such a system is 1 year.
2. The internal energy of the ecosystem is in-
creased by a value of gross primary produc-
tion (which can be expressed in caloric units).
3. One part of this production is used for respira-
tion (with the further transformation into
heat).
4. Another part turns into litter and other forms
of soil organic matter and is taken by con-
sumers.
5. Since the system is in equilibrium, an appro-
priate part of dead organic matter in litter and
soil has to be decomposed (releasing a place
for a ‘new’ dead organic matter of annual net
primary production). The ‘old’ dead organic
matter has ‘to be burned’ entirely (i.e. no peat
and coal formation, no new soils formation,
etc. since we consider only short terms such as
decades and hundreds of years), so that its
chemical energy is transformed into heat.
Consequently, the heat production dQ in a
stable (climax) ecosystem at the state of thermo-
dynamic equilibrium with its environment (tem-
peratures in ecosystem and its environment are
equal) is equal to the annual total (gross) produc-
tion P0:
dQ= P0. (1a)
In fact, total heat production= heat emission of
plant metabolism (heat emitted during the process
of respiration + heat emission of consumers’
metabolism+ heat emission of decompostion of
the ‘old’ organic matter (which is equal to the
caloric equivalent of an appropriate part of the
net primary production)= gross (total) primary
production.
The annual entropy produced by the ecosystem
(internal production) is equal to
S0 = dQ/T =P0/T (2a)
where T is the mean ‘active’ temperature (in K) at
a given point of the Earth, i.e. the mean tempera-
ture of season, when the ecosystem functions.
According to our assumption, this production is
compensated (in accordance with the equilibrium
condition) by the flow of the entropy due to the
solar ‘entropy pump’, with the power at some
point of the Earth being equal to S0 = P0/T.
We assume that (‘entropy pump’ hypothesis):
the climatic, hydrological, soil and other en6iron-
mental conditions are organised at a gi6en point in
such a way that only a natural ecosystem which is
specific to these local conditions which they helped
to create is at the equilibrium.
We know that our attempt to apply thermody-
namic concepts to analyse ecosystems is not origi-
 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
nal. For instance, we may refer to the brilliant
work of Ulanowicz and Hannon (1987) in which
the direct method for calculation of entropy fluxes
inside ecosystems was developed. In our approach
we use a different (indirect) method for similar
calculations based on the ‘entropy pump’ hypoth-
esis. Its correctness depends on the plausibility of
this hypothesis. Since a direct test is a very com-
plex task we say that it is plausible if we obtain
coincidences between theoretical conclusions and
real observations (for instance, in agricultural sys-
tems). Nevertheless we shall try once again to
argue our point of view using a classic and stan-
dard thermodynamic method of consideration. In
other words we shall develop a thermodynamic
model of vegetation.
If we consider the vegetation as some open
system (in a thermodynamic sense) then the en-
tropy change of leaves caused by photosynthesis
will be dS =deS +diS (we retain standard ther-
modynamic notations) where the term diS de-
scribes the change of entropy caused by a heat
dissipation of the vegetation cover accompanying
its living functions. We assume that the total heat
produced in leaves by spontaneous metabolic re-
actions is outputted into the environment at a rate
which is equal to the rate of entropy production
diS/dt. The main processes which cause an output
of heat are heat radiation and evapotranspiration.
The first process gives
di S dT
=qT 2 ,
dt qW T duction will be equal to dS=(Pn + T di S)/T =
and the second one gives so that
di S
= gqW
dpm
dt T,qT T
so that
diS dT dp
= qT 2 + gqW m
dt T T
where T is the mean temperature of the ‘leaf-air’
system, dT is the temperature difference between
the leaves and surrounding air, qT is the corre-
sponding heat flow, g=600 cal/gram of water is
the heat of vapour formation for water, qW is the
rate of evapotranspiration and dpm is the differ-
ence of specific humidity between leaf and air.
59
The energy balance will be
di S
Pn = (Phar− El)− T (4a)
dt
where Pn is the net primary production (in caloric
units), Phar is the solar radiation, El, represents
the losses of consumption and photosynthetic as-
similation of solar energy.
The value diS/dt was obtained experimentally
(using formula Eq. (3a)) for coniferous forest in
Northern Russia (Rubin, 1976) and it was equal
to 3.3 kcal/m2 per K/year. Therefore the value of
the so-called dissipative function b= T×diS/
dt= 3.3× 285= 940 kcal/m2 per year. The mean
annual net production for trees was equal to 4320
kcal/m2 per year. Then the amount of utilised
solar energy, i.e. the total (gross) annual produc-
tion is equal to P=Pn + b=4320+ 940=5260
kcal/m2 per year. The direct measurement showed
that Phar = 534 420 kcal/m2 per year. Using these
data we may estimate, for instance, the efficiency
coefficient for total photosynthesis hph = 5260/534
420:0.1% and also the respiration coefficient
r= 940/5260 : 20%. All these values are very sim-
ilar to reality. Note that we took into account
evapotranspiration into account in our calcula-
tion.
Since this area must be in a steady-state, then
the dead organic matter which is equivalent to the
created biomass must decompose and the corre-
sponding amount of heat must be emitted to the
environment. And finally, the annual entropy pro-
P/T (compare with formula Eq. (2a)).
We assume that the biosphere may be presented
in the form of a mosaic of some spatial elemen-
tary units called biogeocoenoses (BGC). In accor-
dance to the definition of Timofeev-Ressovsky
(1961), BGC is the part of the biosphere, which
has no essential ecological, geomorphologic, hy-
(3a) drological, microclimatic or any other boundary
within itself. By this the whole biosphere of the
Earth is divided into elementary systems, natu-
rally separated from one another. Due to the
reality of the existence of these boundaries, BGCs
can be considered as semi-isolated subsystems,
and the function of averaging inside of BGCs is
quite natural. So BGC dynamics can be described
by a comparatively small number of variables.
60 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
According to N. Basilevich (personal communi-
cation), there are about 50 000 BGCs on the Earth.
From the other side, BGCs are the elementary
units of biogeochemical cycles in the biosphere.
Indeed, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles inside
BGCs are practically isolated (excluding denitriph-
ication). If we consider only the horizontal migra-
tion of biogeochemical elements (without river
transport), then the carbon cycle is also isolated.
We understand this isolation so that all the carbon
(and to some extent nitrogen) cycles of the BGC are
connected with one another through the atmo-
sphere and hydrosphere, and their direct relation-
ships or the intensity of their internal connections
are developed much more weakly. It is significant
that all the BGCs are dynamically
similar—for every BGC we have the same structure
of local biogeochemical cycles. Therefore, if we
describe BGC dynamics as the dynamics of local
biogeochemical cycles, then the differences between
the BGCs are the differences in parameters of the
same dynamical systems.
We assume also that every BGC is in a local
dynamic equilibrium and its entropy production is
compensated by the work of the entropy pump. The
horizontal entropy fluxes are negligible in compari-
son with the vertical ones. Then the local entropy
balance is for each ‘undisturbed’ elementary unit,
for each natural BGC.
Let us now assume that several of these units are
under anthropogenic pressure, i.e. in corresponding
areas there is:
1. direct inflow of artificial energy (energy load).
We suppose that this inflow is dissipated inside
the system and transformed into the heat;
2. inflow of chemical elements qi maintaining mo-
lar concentration Ci (i =1,…, n) of these ele-
ments inside the system (chemical load).
Let the gross production of the ecosystem under the
anthropogenic pressure be P1, the energy load be
W and the concentrations of chemical elements in
a natural (‘wild’) ecosystem be Ci0.
We assume that the ‘natural’ and ‘anthropo-
genic’ ecosystems are connected by the relation of
succession.
A few words about the relation of succession.
Let us assume that the anthropogenic pressure
has been removed. The succession from the anthro-
pogenic ecosystem towards the natural one has
started. The next stage of this succession would be
a ‘natural’ ecosystem in our sense. Indeed, if the
anthropogenic pressure has been weak, the ‘natu-
ral’ (‘wild’) ecosystem (in our sense) is typical for
this locality.
On the other hand, if the anthropogenic ecosys-
tem is an agro-ecosystem, surrounded by forest, a
grass-shrubs ecosystem (but not a forest) is succes-
sionaly close to its ‘natural’ ecosystem9.
The following ‘Gedankenexperiment’ testifies in
favour of this hypothesis. Let us stop the energy
and chemical fluxes into the ecosystem. As a result
a succession would take place at the site which
tends towards the natural ecosystem type specific
to the territory (grassland, steppe, etc.).
Under severe degradation a succession would
take place also, but possibly towards another type
of ecosystem.
This is quite natural, since the environmental
conditions have been perturbed (for instance, as a
result of soil degradation). So, if there is no input
of artificial energy, the equilibrium state for a given
site (locality) will be presented by the natural
ecosystem, as the local characteristics of the ‘en-
tropy pump’ correspond exactly to the natural type
of ecosystem.
Nevertheless, there is a slight incorrectness.
When we discussed successionally closed systems
above, we assumed implicitly that any stage of the
succession is a dynamic equilibrium. Since a succes-
sion is a transition process between two stationary
states, this statement is incorrect, but as far as we
can suggest that the time-scale of ecological succes-
sion is much longer than the time-scale of anthro-
pogenic processes, we can consider a succession as
the thermodynamically quasi-stationary process
(simultaneously, we remain inside the model of
equilibrium thermodynamics). However, if we in-
tend to construct a thermodynamic model of suc-
cession, we should release the hypothesis on
quasi-stationary transition.
The equation of the balance of entropy produc-
tion (s) at the given site:
n
sT =W+RT % ln(Ci /Ci0) qi + P1 − P0 (5a)
i=1
9
This is commonly called ‘old field succession’.
 Y.M. S6irezhe6, A. S6ireje6a-Hopkins / Ecological Modelling 106 (1998) 47–61
where R is the gas constant and Ci0 are some
basic concentrations.
The values in Eq. (5a) are not independent. For
instance, P1 depends on W and Ci. Since we are
not able to estimate this correlation in a frame-
work of thermodynamics, we have to use the
empirical correlation.
Since the ecosystem should also remain at a
dynamic equilibrium with its environment, the
entropy production of the ecosystem should be
compensated by the outflow of entropy to the
environment. This compensation can occur only
at the expense of environmental degradation (s \
0), which results, for instance, from heat and
chemical pollution, from mechanical impact on
the system. Therefore, the value s can be used as
the criterion for environmental degradation or as
the ‘enthropy fee’ which has to be paid by society
(really, suffering from degradation of the environ-
ment) for modern industrial technologies.
References
Alcamo, J., Kreileman, G.J.J., Krol, M., Zuidema, G., 1993.
Modelling the Global Society Biosphere Climate System:
Part 1: Model Description and Testing. Water, Air, Soil
Pollution. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Bazilevich, N.I., Titlyanova, A.A., 1978. Functioning of grass-
land ecosystems in comparison with forest and desert ones.
In: Molchanov, A. (Ed.), Mathematical Modelling in Ecol-
ogy. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 65–100.
Dobrovolsky, G.V., 1974. Soil Geography. Moscow Univ.
Press, Moscow.
Forrester, J.W., 1971. World Dynamics. Wright-Allen Press,
Cambridge, MA, 142 pp.
Krapivin, V.F., Svirezhev, Yu.M., Tarko, A.M. 1985. Mathe-
matical Modelling of the Global Biosphere Processes.
Nauka, Moscow, 237 pp. (in Russian).
Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M., 1964. Statistical Physics. Nauka,
Moscow, 568 (in Russian).
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., et al., 1972. The Limits to
Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the
Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, NY, 205.
61
Odum, E.P., 1983. Basic Ecology, vol. 1. Saunders, Philadel-
phia, PA, 320.
Our Common Future. From one Earth to one World, 1987. A
Report of the Brundtland Commission. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, NY.
Pimentel, D. (Ed.), 1980. Handbook of energy utilization in
agriculture. CRS Press, Boca Raton, FL, 475.
Rothmans, J., 1990. IMAGE: An Integrated Model to Assess
the Greenhouse Effect. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Rubin, A.B., 1976. Thermodynamics of Biological Processes.
Moscow University Press, Moscow, 240.
Schneider, E.D., Kay, J.J., 1994. Complexity and Thermody-
namics: Towards a New Ecology. Futures 24, 6.
SCOPE 28. Environmental consequences of nuclear war, 1986.
Vol. 1. In: Pittock, A.B., et al. (Eds.). Physical and Atmo-
spheric Effects. Wiley, Chichester, NY.
Svirezhev, Yu.M., 1989. Coevolution of the Biosphere and
Mankind: the modern globalistics and concepts of Russian
Classical School. In: Yablokov, A. (Ed.), Ontogenesis,
Evolution and Biosphere. Moscow, Nauka, pp. 254 – 264
(in Russian).
Svirezhev, Yu.M., 1990. Entropy as a measure of environmen-
tal degradation. Proc. Int. Conf. on Contaminated Soils,
Karlsruhe, Germany.
Svirezhev, Yu.M., 1998. Thermodynamics and Ecology. Ecol.
Model. (submitted).
Svirezhev, Yu.M., von Bloh, W., 1998. A zero-dimensional
climate-vegetation model containing global carbon and
hydrological cycle. Ecol. Model. (submitted).
Svirezhev, Yu.M., Krapivin, V.F., Tarko, A.M. 1985. Mod-
elling of the main biosphere cycles. In: Malone, T.F.,
Roederer, J.G. (Eds.), Global Change. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 298 – 313.
Svirezhev, Yu.M., Harnos, Zs., Racsko, P., Semyonov, M.,
Szeidl, L., 1991. Systems Analysis of the Hungarian Crop
Production: a Report of Int. Ecol. Model. Group,
Akademia Kiadó, Budapest.
Timofeev-Ressovsky, N.V., 1961. About some principles of the
biohorological units of classification. Proc. UF AS USSR,
27, pp. 290 – 311.
Timofeev-Ressovsky, N.V., 1968. The Biosphere and
Mankind. UNESCO Bull 1, pp. 3 – 10.
Ulanowicz, R.E., Hannon, B.M., 1987. Life and the produc-
tion of entropy. Proc. Royal Soc. London B 232, pp.
181 – 192.
Vernadsky, V.I., 1926. The Biosphere. Leningrad,
Nauchtekhizdat (in Russian).
Vernadsky, V.I., 1944. A few words about the Noosphere.
Uspekhi Sovremennoi Biologii 18 (2), pp. 113 – 120.