I have this theory that development of ecological theory is really going to accelerate in the next few decades. It’s possible that everybody already takes this for granted, but whatever.

It’s like photography now that we’ve got digital cameras. Over the next few decades, I have another theory that the quality of photography is going to improve a lot. More people are going to be taking better pictures. Given the fast feedback available from digital cameras, people can quickly identify and correct the mistakes in their technique, instead of waiting a couple of months until they fill the roll and remember to take it in to the store for developing and then try and remember what settings they had the camera on when they finally get the prints back. Consequently, everyone with a digital camera who is paying attention will swiftly develop their skills and thats going to mean lots more beautiful pictures in the world.

Likewise theoretical ecology. Currently there is a largeish divide between ecological theorists and conservation professionals, due largely to the lack of really well tested, well supported ecological theory for conservationists to be interested in. I think the theorists are a) going to make better theories and b) going to be able to test them better to disprove and improve them faster.

Better theory because: faster feedback. Faster, more convenient computing means you can run more models, perhaps with more parameterizations, in the same amount of time. You can dabble and play more at higher levels of dimensionality. I suspect everyone knows that but me already.

Better testing because: remote sensing. Right now it’s rare to find a biological system for which remote sensing tools exist that can sample on the temporal and spatial scales necessary for good theory testing. In other words, an ecological theorist might want to test their equation on the spread of disease in birds, but satellites can’t yet spot individual birds. They might want to examine the large scale growth forms of clumps of trees, but satellite imagery only goes back 40 years or so and trees shift over decades or centuries. Over the next decades, these limitations are bound to be pushed back substantially. Our remote sensing record will by definition get deeper temporally as time passes, our temporal resolution will improve as more MODIS-like satellites reach orbit, taking photos of the same place once a day every day, our spatial resolution will improve (maybe not so we can tell a sick bird from a healthy one, but I’ve already tried looking at sick and healthy trees with some success), our spectral resolution will improve so we can glean more data from each pixel, our data mining methodology will improve so we can better satisfy our thirst from the firehose.

So, in short, I think remote sensing will provide new fields of data, in convenient, digitized, delivered to your office via internets form, which will give theorists an anvil to beat their theories into shape, an anvil that they have too rarely had before. More real world data will mean more robust theories. Better ecological theories, better photographs. The future is bright.