Eco-evolutionary feedbacks in community and ecosystem ecology: interactions between the ecological theatre and the evolutionary play.

Interactions between natural selection and environmental change are well recognized and sit at the core of ecology and evolutionary biology. Reciprocal interactions between ecology and evolution, eco-evolutionary feedbacks, are less well studied, even though they may be critical for understanding the evolution of biological diversity, the structure of communities and the function of ecosystems. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks require that populations alter their environment (niche construction) and that those changes in the environment feed back to influence the subsequent evolution of the population. There is strong evidence that organisms influence their environment through predation, nutrient excretion and habitat modification, and that populations evolve in response to changes in their environment at time-scales congruent with ecological change (contemporary evolution). Here, we outline how the niche construction and contemporary evolution interact to alter the direction of evolution and the structure and function of communities and ecosystems. We then present five empirical systems that highlight important characteristics of eco-evolutionary feedbacks: rotifer-algae chemostats; alewife-zooplankton interactions in lakes; guppy life-history evolution and nutrient cycling in streams; avian seed predators and plants; and tree leaf chemistry and soil processes. The alewife-zooplankton system provides the most complete evidence for eco-evolutionary feedbacks, but other systems highlight the potential for eco-evolutionary feedbacks in a wide variety of natural systems.

The Golden Rule Ethic, its Measurement, and Relationships with Well-Being and Prosocial Values Across Four Religions in India

As a psychological principle, the golden rule represents an ethic of universal empathic concern. It is, surprisingly, present in the sacred texts of virtually all religions, and in philosophical works across eras and continents. Building on the literature demonstrating a positive impact of prosocial behavior on well-being, the present study investigates the psychological function of universal empathic concern in Indian Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Sikhs.

I develop a measure of the centrality of the golden rule-based ethic, within an individual’s understanding of his or her religion, that is applicable to all theistic religions. I then explore the consistency of its relationships with psychological well-being and other variables across religious groups.

Results indicate that this construct, named Moral Concern Religious Focus, can be reliably measured in disparate religious groups, and consistently predicts well-being across them. With measures of Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Quest religious orientations in the model, only Moral Concern and religiosity predict well-being. Moral Concern alone mediates the relationship between religiosity and well-being, and explains more variance in well-being than religiosity alone. The relationship between Moral Concern and well-being is mediated by increased preference for prosocial values, more satisfying interpersonal relationships, and greater meaning in life. In addition, across religious groups Moral Concern is associated with better self-reported physical and mental health, and more compassionate attitudes toward oneself and others.

Two additional types of religious focus are identified: Personal Gain, representing the motive to use religion to improve one’s life, and Relationship with God. Personal Gain is found to predict reduced preference for prosocial values, less meaning in life, and lower quality of relationships. It is associated with greater interference of pain and physical or mental health problems with daily activities, and lower self-compassion. Relationship with God is found to be associated primarily with religious variables and greater meaning in life.

I conclude that individual differences in the centrality of the golden rule and its associated ethic of universal empathic concern may play an important role in explaining the variability in associations between religion, prosocial behavior and well-being noted in the literature.

Poverty and Place in the Context of the American South

In the United States, poverty has been historically higher and disproportionately concentrated in the American South. Despite this fact, much of the conventional poverty literature in the United States has focused on urban poverty in cities, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. Relatively less American poverty research has focused on the enduring economic distress in the South, which Wimberley (2008:899) calls “a neglected regional crisis of historic and contemporary urgency.” Accordingly, this dissertation contributes to the inequality literature by focusing much needed attention on poverty in the South.

Each empirical chapter focuses on a different aspect of poverty in the South. Chapter 2 examines why poverty is higher in the South relative to the Non-South. Chapter 3 focuses on poverty predictors within the South and whether there are differences in the sub-regions of the Deep South and Peripheral South. These two chapters compare the roles of family demography, economic structure, racial/ethnic composition and heterogeneity, and power resources in shaping poverty. Chapter 4 examines whether poverty in the South has been shaped by historical racial regimes.

The Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) United States datasets (2000, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013) (derived from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement) provide all the individual-level data for this study. The LIS sample of 745,135 individuals is nested in rich economic, political, and racial state-level data compiled from multiple sources (e.g. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research, etc.). Analyses involve a combination of techniques including linear probability regression models to predict poverty and binary decomposition of poverty differences.

Chapter 2 results suggest that power resources, followed by economic structure, are most important in explaining the higher poverty in the South. This underscores the salience of political and economic contexts in shaping poverty across place. Chapter 3 results indicate that individual-level economic factors are the largest predictors of poverty within the South, and even more so in the Deep South. Moreover, divergent results between the South, Deep South, and Peripheral South illustrate how the impact of poverty predictors can vary in different contexts. Chapter 4 results show significant bivariate associations between historical race regimes and poverty among Southern states, although regression models fail to yield significant effects. Conversely, historical race regimes do have a small, but significant effect in explaining the Black-White poverty gap. Results also suggest that employment and education are key to understanding poverty among Blacks and the Black-White poverty gap. Collectively, these chapters underscore why place is so important for understanding poverty and inequality. They also illustrate the salience of micro and macro characteristics of place for helping create, maintain, and reproduce systems of inequality across place.