Traditional Biological Chain Theory

duantext

Traditional Biological Chain Theory Is Worth Discussing Duan Xiu-Bin Binzhou city, Shandong province, China Mobile: 86 13793888426 Email: [email protected] In view of the incompatible contradictions between the traditional biological (food) chain and the material cycle theory as well as their adverse effects, this article, through an in-depth analysis of the contradictory phenomena and their causes, yielded biological chain ≠ food chain and tried to have a necessary amendment, so that the material transformation at all levels could conform to the transformation law of organic - inorganic - organic in the biological chain. In 1843, Darwin started to explore the food chain. In 1923 (some said in 1927), the British zoologists Summerhayes and Elton put forward the concept of the food chain for the first time based on the relations among plants, animals and microorganisms, and made it have a circulation (1). Just because of the circulation, it was understood as the biological chain, and became the mode of the material cycle in the ecosystem. Later, Who and when exactly made the food chain = biological chain (2) outright in accordance with the principles of the food chain? There was no source for verification. Since then in nearly a century, this theory had been actually regarded as an indubitable creed and became an important basic theory of life sciences (See Fig. l).

1

duantext

Ⅰ. Serious Contradictions On the surface, Fig. 1 and its ideas seem impregnable. However, with the constant discovery and gradually in-depth research, we would find that this fig and its ideas exposed too many contradictions: 1. Blotted out the transformation law of decomposition and synthesis. May see from Fig. 1, obviously the figured food chain is regarded as the material cycle in the ecosystem, misleading people to believe that the figure is just the so-called material cycle in the ecosystem. In fact, this food chain is only the phenomenon of the material cycle and covers up the essence of the decomposition and synthesis to promote the material cycle. At all the levels of the chain’s transfers built up by plants – herbivores - carnivores, just as clearly shown in the figure that the soil micro-organisms decompose the organic materials in the natural material cycle, they are implying the process of the decomposition and synthesis. It is the energy to be able to drive the transformation between the materials. If there 2

duantext

was no decomposition (catabolism), there would be no release of energy and energy flow, thus the so-called material transformation would not be able to continue (4). But the material transformation from plants to animals and from animals to animals (that are in animal bodies) reflected in the food chain does not indicate actually the decomposesing process, on the contrary embodied the wrong idea of animal's food = animal. That does not conform to the law of material transformation and energy flow. 2. Covered up the passage of atmospheric circulation. Refering to the Fig. 1, at the top there seems to be a sun, intending to show the plants are storing energy through the photosynthesis, but not indicating the role of the atmosphere. It seems that the material cycle only occured between underground and ground surface. According to the willow test of Belgium scientist Helmont, the source of the materials to synthesis plants comes mainly from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (5). In the course of the material cycle, when plant and animal bodies decomposed by micro-organisms, most of their materials would be volatilized to the atmosphere and take part in the natural re-cycle (4). The above figure covered up such a main passage that the plants carry on their material cycle through the atmosphere. 3. Met an obstruction and discontinued the circulation. What the figired food chain showed is an eating and aten relationship, however between the producers (plants) and decomposers (micro-organisms), what the former would eat is not the latter themselves, but the materials acted by the latter. As a result, the material cycle reflected in this food chain would meet an obstruction and unable to continue its circulation. 4. Not conform to the theory and reality. With the theoretical study continuously deepened, it does not conform to the theory and the reality that the figired food chain was divided into three major links as producers, consumers and decomposers: (4.10) Theory side （ 4.11 ） Food chain category: Food is the material which uses in appeasing hunger, but micro-organisms do not have any alimentary function. If the Fig. 1 was treated as a pure food chain, it is not in line with its theoretical reality, because the micro-organisms are not the food of plants or animals. The original intention to divides the food chain into producers, consumers and decomposers should be to want to embody the material cycle, but the concept of the three major links are also not in the category of the food to appease hunger. 3

duantext

（ 4.12） Biological chain category: Since the original intention of the food chain inventor was to want to embody the material cycle and divided it into the three major links of producers, consumers and decomposers, that should be understood in the biological chain category. Refering to the equation “a + b = c” in the article 《Preliminary Analysis of Biological Enzymes Originating from Micro-organisms》, the micro-organisms would play a medium role at all the levels of the material transformation in the whole ecosystem (not only in the nature) (6). It is just them to make the materials to have a mutual transformation between the inorganic and organic world, promote the decomposition and synthesis at all levels of material movement and promote a continuous energy flow. In this case, they should not be the decomposers only in the natural material cycle and become an essential link of the biological chain. The classification about the decomposers in the Fig. 1 is obviously some offside and neither fish nor flesh as well. Thus it would cause not conform to the theory of the material transformation and equation "a + b = c". （ 4.13 ） Right and wrong transformation mode interweaved mutually. Refer to "Ⅱ. Biological chain ≠ food chain" in this article. When the plants and animal bodies are reflected to be transformed in the soil, Fig. 1 applies the equation "a + b = c" and the transformation law embodied is organic - inorganic – organic, which is reasonable and right. But In the reflected transforming process of plants - animals and animals - animals, that is in the animal bodies, what are applied is the equation "a + 0 = c" and its transformation law embodied is organic – organic, which is obviously wrong. Because the equation "a + b = c" is used in the easily observable and acceptable link, people are confused to believe that the biological chain = food chain, so that the right and wrong concept are intertwined, mutually contradictory and difficultly distinguished. That is neither fish nor fowl, resulting in the biological chain and food chain mixed into one pot of porridge, boiling for nearly a century. (4.20) Reality side The micro-organisms embodied in the food chain only appeare in the soil, but in fact they massively exist in the animal body, too. This division does not conform to the reality.

Ⅱ. Biological Chain ≠ Food Chain The traditional theoretical view is that the biological chain ＝ food chain(2). There is no difference between them. But in fact, there is an essential difference between them. (See the table below). 4

duantext

Comparable table of living thing and food Item

Living thing

Food

Entry 1 2 3 4 5

Including micro-organisms Not including micro-organisms Including the contact with inorganic Not Including the contact with inorganic world world Relative subject in material cycle Relative object in material cycle Living, able to metabolize Nonliving，unable to metabolize Ingester of energy Supplier of energy

We can see from Entry 3/4/5 in the table, living thing and food seem to be two sides of one matter, that is the subject and object of the material transformation in the material cycle movement. If only these, it would be impeccable to call the biological chain as food chain. However, there are no symmetrical relations in the Entry 1/2, meaning including or not the micro-organisms and the contact with the inorganic world. Only including the micro-organisms it could have the transforming relationship with the inorganic world and bring about the circulation. If not, it could not occur the transforming relationship with the inorganic world and bring about the circulation. Of course it might be said that inorganic matter also is autotrophic micro-organisms’ food, but the micro-organisms has not been included in the food concept, and even there are not any other living things to take the autotrophic micro-organisms for their food to continue the circulation of the food chain. If it might be said that the organic matter (carbohydrates) could be as the heterotrophic micro-organisms’ food, but to make an inference according to the theory of 《 Preliminary Analysis of Biological Enzymes Originating from Microorganisms 》 and an analysis that the food, after most of the nutrient have been absorbed in the small intestine, would cause a massive proliferation of microorganisms only into the large intestine, the heterotrophic micro-organisms’ food should yet be different from the animals’. At the same time, there are no other living thing as a relay member in the material cycle movement would take them (heterotrophic micro-organisms) for its food to continue the circulation of the food chain. On the contrary, this is further to explain they only belong to a role to promote the transformation between the organic – inorganic materials. Although edible fungus could be used as human and other animal’s food, it is only restricted in the fungus type, does not represent the broad heading of the microorganisms and is not yet the necessary food for human and other animals. Moreover, whether the edible fungus should be classified as micro-organisms or plants, there is no final conclusion (based on the growth habits and characteristics, 5

duantext

it should be classified as the plant). Very obviously, the food chain inventor intended to reflect the meaning of the material cycle in the biological chain. From the above analysis we could see that the biological chain should contain all the living things, including the microorganisms and the relation between the living nature and inorganic world. What it would embody is the material property that the materials could be transformed each other and circulate unceasingly. But the food chain occurs actually between plants and animals, then between animals and animals. What it embodied is the material property that food might appease hunger, and it should not include the microorganisms, which had no food function and only acted as a medium in the material transformation. The biological chain could cycle repeatedly, but the food chain could only be a unidirectional movement. The above analysis shows that the biological chain ≠ food chain, which should not be confused in concept. If the microorganisms were far-fetchedly draged into the food chain, then which was renamed as the biological chain and attempted to make it to reflect the material cycle, it would be somewhat poles apart. The result can only produce a confusion in the basic theory concept and cause the disorder of the relevant disciplines. Such a confusion in the basic theory concept and its caused disorder have been producing a great harm. First is the humanity ourselves. Except having restricted a breakthrough and further development of the theory of medical, health and nutrition, it has been misleading us in practice to believe that food could be directly transformed into the human body and not to value the role of the micro-organisms in the body (even some synthetic drugs would kill the micro-organisms in vivo). Even the role of large intestine, where is the main site of the micro-organism activities, can not be paid an enough attention in theory and practice and occupy its rightful place in the whole human digestive system. Therefore it has affected people’s health seriously and even caused many diseases difficult to be expained at present. Next, that has had a serious influence to the agriculture, animal husbandry and fishery production. Because the biological chain belongs to the basic theory, many of the specific researches in the life sciences would be led to a directional error with its fetter and unable to have an active breakthrough and development in the right direction.

Ⅲ . Trial Amendment Refer to the article 《Preliminary Analysis of Biological Enzymes Originating from Micro-organisms》. If its theoretical discussion and the equation "a + b = c" could be tenable, it would be inevitable to cause the above contradictions in the traditional 6

duantext

biological chain exposed and produce the following amendments. If the decomposers in the Fig. 1 were changed into "soil" and "atmosphere" and then set in the equation “a + b = c” (expressed with —M→ going to decompose and synthesize) at every level of the material transfer, this changed figure would become a biological chain with both content and form. Thus it would no longer be worried with all the above contradictions and initiate an essential change. Combining the discussion that the micro-organisms play a medium role at all levels of the transfer in the material cycle in the ecosystem, both of the soil in the natural ecosystem and the chyme in the digestive tract in the animal body belong to the site or base materials for the micro-organisms to decompose and synthesize. Their differences are merely in the site size, in the micro-organism genus survived of the fettest, in the micro-organisms density and in the efficiency to decompose and synthesize the organic materials, but their meanings are same. In the small world in the animal body, the chyme in the digestive tract is the same to the microorganisms as the soil for the plants to utilize in the natural world (in fact, such a soil in vivo is more important than the one in the natural world for the plants to utilize). At the same time, it also revealed a small unidirectional cycle (the chyme could be transformed into the animal body, but the animal body could not be transformed into its own chyme) in the animal body, which derived from the plants under the large background in the natural material cycle. Subsequently, on the basis of these one by one small cycles, they are connected in series by a food chain and constitute another greater unidirectional cycle (as the food chain after getting rid of the “decomposers” from Fig. 1). The surplus plants, herbivores and carnivores in the series connection and the various animals at the top of the food chains, all of their destination is the soil and atmosphere, and finally they are connected in parallel to the large cycle in the nature (see Fig. 2).

7

duantext

Note: 1. In the Fig. 1, the arrows indicate the eating and eaten relationship, but the amended arrows on the original base indicate the meaning of decomposing and synthesizing in the eating and eaten processes. 2. Why the trial amendment was taken on the basis of the original Fig. 1 is to draw support from it for the explanation of the particular issue. In fact, it is not so reasonable, because all of its every link should be via the same transformation process like animal and plant — soil – plant in the soil stressedly emphasized in the two Figs.

Ⅳ, Conclusions 8

duantext

The amended biological chain has an essential difference from the traditional one. It might get rid of the incompatible contradictions with the material transformation theory of organic - inorganic – organic and the adverse effects to the relevant disciplines, cause the material transformation at all levels to conform to the material transformation law of organic - inorganic – organic, vitalize endlessly and cycle constantly along its own path.

References: 1, Food chains, Wikipedia Web Site (05 November 2008), available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain. 2, Biological chain—Food chain, Tne Web Site of Popular Science Panorama of China (27 May 2002), available at http://www.kepu.net.cn/gb/earth/environment/biochain/200205270144.html. 3, food webs, The Web Site of Montana State University, U.S. (2005), available at http://weedeco.msu.montana.edu/class/LRES443/Lectures/Lecture20/FoodWeb.JP G. 4, Catabolism, Metabolism, Wikipedia Web Site (16 November 2008), available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism#Catabolism. 5, Jan Baptist van Helmont, Wikipedia Web Site (21 October 2008), available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmont. 6, (China) Duan Xiu-Bin, Preliminary Analysis of Biological Enzymes Originating from Micro-organisms, Unpublished.

First draft: 17, Aug., 2008. Revised for many times. Hope English-speaking friends to help me to revise my English translation (the above manuscript) and then email it to me at [email protected]. I shall have many thanks.

9