Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T13:35:57.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Astroecology: bridging the gap between ecology and astrobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2023

Juliana Campos Meurer
Affiliation:
Ecology Department, Biosciences Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, CEP 91501-970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Jacob Haqq-Misra
Affiliation:
Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, 600 1st Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, USA
Milton de Souza Mendonça Jr.*
Affiliation:
Ecology Department, Biosciences Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, CEP 91501-970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Milton de Souza Mendonça Jr.; Email: milton.mendonca@ufrgs.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although astrobiology studies how life functions and evolves, ecology is still largely overlooked in astrobiology research. Here we present an argument for astroecology, a merger of ecology and astrobiology, a self-aware scientific endeavour. Ecology is rarely mentioned in influential documents like the NASA Astrobiology Strategy (2015), and terms such as ‘niche’ can end up being used in a less precise fashion. As ecology deals with sequential levels of organization, we suggest astrobiologically-relevant problems for each of these levels. Organismal ecology provides ecological niche modelling, which can aid in evaluating the probability that Earth-like life would survive in extraterrestrial environments. Population ecology provides a gamut of models on the consequences of dispersal, and if lithopanspermia can be validated as a form of space dispersal for life, then metabiospheres and similar astrobiological models could be developed to understand such complex structure and dynamics. From community ecology, the discussion of habitability should include the concept of true vacant habitats (a misnomer, perhaps better called ‘will-dwells’) and contributions from the blossoming field of microbial ecology. Understanding ecosystems by focusing on abiotic properties is also key to extrapolating from analogue environments on Earth to extraterrestrial ones. Energy sources and their distribution are relevant for ecological gradients, such as the biodiversity latitudinal gradient – would tropics be species-rich in other inhabited planets? Finally, biosphere ecology deals with integration and feedback between living and non-living systems, which can generate stabilized near-optimal planetary conditions (Gaia); but would this work for other inhabited planets? Are there ‘strong’ (like Earth) and ‘weak’ (perhaps like Mars) biospheres? We hope to show ecology can contribute relevant ideas to the interdisciplinary field of astrobiology, helping conceptualize further levels of integration. We encourage new partnerships and for astrobiologists to take ecology into account when studying the origin, evolution and distribution of life in the universe.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe – this definition has existed since NASA rebranded its previous ‘exobiology’ programmes under the umbrella of ‘astrobiology’ (DeVincenzi, Reference DeVincenzi1984), and it helps us understand that astrobiology is not only limited to the ‘science that looks for life on other planets’. Expanding the understanding of how life on Earth functions and evolves is also an important goal of astrobiology that can be harnessed with the help of any area of biology. In that sense, astrobiology draws from various branches of biology, some still full of unrealized potential. We believe that this is the case for ecology, which seems to have been overlooked in astrobiology research so far. Ecology is seemingly restricted to planet Earth, where we have evidence life exists, but it can and should surely go beyond. The extension of traditional ecology into the broader concept of ‘astroecology’ (as proposed by Mendonça, Reference Mendonça2014) represents a great possibility for theoretical advances in both areas it encompasses. In this review, we aim to present an argument for astroecology, a merger of ecology and astrobiology that could be useful and meaningful, as well as a self-aware scientific endeavour.

For defining ecology, we agree with Begon and Townsend (Reference Begon and Townsend2021) when they state that ‘at the heart of ecology lies the relationship between organisms and their environments’, which is a clear recognition of ecology's first definition (Haeckel, Reference Haeckel1866). Ecology consists of three main approaches (Krebs, Reference Krebs2014): a descriptive approach, to count and characterize particular aspects of organisms – or groups of organisms – in our world; a functional approach, to understand how complex systems involving life work the way they work; and an evolutionary approach, focusing on studying why the dynamics of life work the way they work through both current and deep time. Each of these can provide insights into the ways that life could originate, occur and thrive in different terrestrial or extraterrestrial environments. The wide range of scales in which ecology can operate includes organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems and the biosphere (Begon, Howarth and Townsend, Reference Begon, Howarth and Townsend2014). At a first glance, we can state that organismal ecology already contributes to astrobiology with concepts such as habitat and niche, which are used by astrobiologists to speculate about planetary habitability and the possible distribution of extraterrestrial biota. At scales between organisms (lowest ecological scale) and the biosphere (highest assumed scale), the intermediate levels of organization in ecology (populations, communities and ecosystems) have been very rarely explored in astrobiology, even though they form a large proportion of current ecological research. Finally, the ecology of the biosphere seeks to deepen our understanding of the limits to planetary homoeostasis (Lovelock, Reference Lovelock2003), and perhaps this is where an intersection with astrobiology more clearly lies. This ecological vision of astrobiology could result in innovative ideas and may represent an important step forward to inspire researchers to address unsolved or new questions.

Here, we seek to explore how astrobiologists employ ecological ideas, review the extent of previous contributions by ecologists to astrobiology, and develop a framework for advancing towards the unification of ecological and astrobiological ideas and concepts by exploring the whole span of ecological levels from organisms to the biosphere, with the intent of identifying questions relevant to astrobiology.

The employment of ecology in astrobiology

How much is ecology employed in astrobiology? To diagnose and quantify the contribution of ecology to astrobiology in a more objective way, we looked for the presence – or absence – of ecological concepts and ideas in the NASA Astrobiology Strategy (Hays, Reference Hays2015), which is widely cited and discussed as a framework for prioritizing research in astrobiology. It mentions six major research topics in astrobiology: 1. Identifying abiotic sources of organic compounds; 2. Synthesis and function of macromolecules in the origin of life; 3. Early life and increasing complexity; 4. Co-evolution of life and the physical environment; 5. Identifying, exploring, and characterizing environments for habitability and biosignatures; and 6. Constructing habitable worlds. In the approximately 165 pages of the text, the word ‘ecology’ appears only once (p. 87). The word ‘ecological’ is seen more often: 28 times.

The first topic to mention ecology is the third one: ‘Early life and increasing complexity’. Here, it is mentioned that the drivers of evolution are genetic and ecological mechanisms, which include the evolution of cooperation and symbiosis (both ecological interactions, p. 39, 40). Predation and competition are also mentioned as interactions that, being selective pressures, can lead to evolution (p. 55). Ecosystem engineering, which happens when communities produce environmental modifications, is cited in the text as a mechanism that affects the evolution of the ‘engineer’ species and the species that live nearby. Here, ecology is mentioned because of its evolutionary explanations. However, ecology is surely more than just evolutionary biology. Ecosystem engineering, for example, could be discussed in terms of organismal adaptation to extreme environments, which could possibly increase habitability parameters as one kind of organism could facilitate the occurrence of other kinds. More complex approaches could be developed to build on these ideas as we start to look at ecological phenomena not only for their evolutionary implications but also for their functional ones.

Another relevant topic is ‘Constructing Habitable Worlds’. While the important concept of ecological niche (p. 136) is presented here, it seems to be misused relative to its ecological perspective. The Roadmap points to ‘What Are the Processes on Other Types of Planets That Could Create Habitable Niches? (p. 136) as being a key research question for astrobiology. It is worth noting that the term ‘habitable niches’ appears redundant. There is no such thing as an uninhabitable niche because niches are intrinsically related to the existence of life. Begon and Townsend (Reference Begon and Townsend2021) noticed the common misunderstanding in the use of the term and explained that ‘(…) where an organism lives is its habitat. A niche is not a place but an idea: a summary of the organism's tolerances and requirements’ (p. 33). However, in the glossary of the NASA Astrobiology Strategy (Hays, Reference Hays2015), ecological niche (p. 168) and habitable niche (p. 171) share the same definition: ‘the space in which an organism or community lives, uses resources, competes with other life forms, and has other behaviors related to the specific aspects of that environment’. Ecological niche was a synonym of habitat when it was first used by Grinnell (Reference Grinnell1917), but in the following hundred years, the concept of niche has evolved as distinct from the concept of habitat (Sales et al., Reference Sales, Hayward and Loyola2021). This is not a profound mistake, nor does it come to the detriment of a relevant discussion; however, the misuse of an ecological term could be easily fixed with stronger collaborations between astrobiologists and ecologists, probably also leading to new insights.

Use of the term ‘astroecology’ and its correlates in the scientific literature has been scant, which sometimes attempts to define a crossroads discipline between astrobiology and ecology, as in here, but otherwise has been used in more specific designations (Table 1). For this review, we see astroecology as a good term for this proposed combination of astrobiology and ecology, which aligns with the definition proposed by Mendonça (Reference Mendonça2014). Whether this word will be widely used or not is up to the community of scientists who could feel encouraged to work on these themes, although we hope that the ideas presented here resonate with current research trends.

Table 1. Appearances of the term ‘astroecology’ and derivatives in the literature and definitions proposed by the authors

The definitions of exoecology by Jones (Reference Jones2001) and astroecology by Mautner (Reference Mautner2002b, Reference Mautner2014) do not need to be discarded but can be encompassed within the scope of the definition proposed here. The first one restricts the study to outer space and does not take terrestrial life into account, while the second one includes terrestrial life but primarily focuses on space resources. Both ideas can be valuable and provide useful insights for astroecology research since they do not disagree with the broader concept presented in this paper. Meanwhile, the concept of astro-ecology by Buettel et al. (Reference Buettel, Brook, Cole, Dickey and Flies2018) is part of an essay on the capacity to use methodological interdisciplinarity to study well-defined questions about complex systems such as forests and galaxies. In that case, ecologists adapted an astronomical model to analyse fallen trees in forest plots. The merger of ecology and astronomy can result in relevant theoretical modelling (see also Keddy, Reference Keddy1994) but does not present the panoramic view that is being advocated here, since ecology deals primarily with biological systems. Given that astrobiology is already an interdisciplinary science that addresses numerous questions related to life itself, ecology can take a more prominent role in this field as described in the following sections.

Can ecology go beyond Earth? – presenting astroecological levels

As explained above, ecology can be divided into five main hierarchical levels of study: organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems and the biosphere. It is important to note that division does not mean lack of connection, since the functioning of each level depends crucially on the functioning of the level below it; however, each level has its own emergent properties and is investigated using different methodologies (Begon, Howarth and Townsend, Reference Begon, Howarth and Townsend2014). The following subsections suggest how the five (or even more) levels of ecology can be studied under the lens of astrobiology.

Organisms

In organismal ecology, the focus is on how individuals are affected by their environment and how they respond to it, from a basis of physiology and behaviour (Begon, Howarth, and Townsend, Reference Begon, Howarth and Townsend2014). It can be a powerful tool in conservation studies for understanding organismal responses to environmental changes (Bozinovic and Pörtner, Reference Bozinovic and Pörtner2015; Lyons et al., Reference Lyons, Bigman, Kacev, Mull, Carlisle, Imhoff, Anderson, Weng, Galloway, Cave, Gunn, Lowe, Brill and Bedore2019), especially while trying to predict responses to global climate change.

The adaptations of many extremophile organisms for surviving in hot, cold, salty, acid and metal-rich extreme environments have been extensively studied in terms of their physiological ecology (Shu and Huang, Reference Shu and Huang2022). Studying the physiology of such organisms helps astrobiologists hypothesize about the origin and maintenance/presence of life on other planetary bodies. The relationships between Earth-based organisms and their ability to survive in extraterrestrial environments has also been the subject of research. For instance, Beblo-Vranesevic et al. (Reference Beblo-Vranesevic, Piepjohn, Antunes and Rettberg2022) studied the survival of facultative anaerobic microorganisms on Martian soil, while Mautner (Reference Mautner2002b) investigated mesophile and cold-tolerant algae on meteorite minerals, both falling within the scope of geomicrobiology (Cockell, Reference Cockell2010). Recent experiments have demonstrated that plants can grow in lunar regolith, which expands the range of life forms that can be considered in such environments (Paul, Elardo and Ferl, Reference Paul, Elardo and Ferl2022).

Another way that organismal ecological understanding can contribute to answering astrobiological questions draws upon recent suggestions on the use of ecological scaling laws, sometimes called metabolic ecology (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Gillooly, Allen, Savage and West2004). Kempes et al. (Reference Kempes, Follows, Smith, Graham, House and Levin2021) explored size distributions of cells of known organisms to derive stoichiometric relationships expected of life, which relates to biosignatures as well, for example: (1) stoichiometry of living things should differ in specific ways from non-living systems (given particle sizes); (2) specific particle size distribution in itself is expected of living systems as well (a power law). One implication is that studying cell size as a functional trait in extreme and/or extraterrestrial environments could perhaps suggest ecological limits to cell size. This possibility was shown in the purported fossils retrieved from Martian meteorite ALH84001 that were supposedly too small to have been living (McKay et al., Reference McKay, Gibson, Thomas-Keprta, Vali, Romanek, Clemett, Chillier, Maechling and Zare1996), and such limits are worth considering in the context of proposed sample studies from Mars and icy moons.

In organismal ecology, the concept of ecological niche is fundamental since it is closely related to the particularities of a given organism (Kearney, Reference Kearney2006). Ecological niche modelling (ENM), which is sometimes (and more correctly) referred to as species distribution modelling or habitat modelling (Soberón and Nakamura, Reference Soberón and Nakamura2009), involves estimating the geographic distribution of organisms and then identifying suitable habitats for them by matching their environmental requirements with environmental condition maps. The insights provided by ENM not only enhance our understanding of Earth-based ecology, such as the implications of climate change for species distribution dynamics, but also help us evaluate the probability of Earth-like life to survive in extraterrestrial environments. For example, Bioclim, an envelope-based model, was used to investigate the possibility of mapping methanogen niches into Enceladus plumes, and the results suggest that this is indeed possible (Tenelanda-Osorio et al., Reference Tenelanda-Osorio, Parra, Cuartas-Restrepo and Zuluaga2021). Further, if we can model the ecological niches occupied by extinct organisms, such as ancient bacterial and archaeal biota, from paleoclimatic-derived data, this would expand the scope of habitats that we know could be occupied by organisms in general, and consequently, expand the roster of potential extraterrestrial habitats as well.

Populations

A population is a group of individuals belonging to the same species that are found in the same defined space and time (Krebs, Reference Krebs2014). Population ecology is concerned with understanding the underlying reasons for the distribution and abundance of organisms and making predictions about them (Krebs, Reference Krebs2015). This discipline has made significant advances in mathematical modelling and statistical methods. Given the expectation that theoretical principles of population ecology remain constant across different environments (Wilkinson, Reference Wilkinson2003), we certainly have grounds to extend its models to astrobiology.

One of the most studied concepts in population ecology is the spatial dynamics of organisms as they disperse across heterogeneous environments to form metapopulations and metacommunities. A metapopulation is a population of populations (Levins, Reference Levins1969), and metapopulation ecology studies ‘the dynamic consequences of migration among local populations and the conditions of regional persistence of species with unstable local populations’ (Hanski, Reference Hanski1998). This concept has parallels in astrobiology, particularly with the lithopanspermia hypothesis, which suggests that life can be transferred between inhabitable solar system bodies via solid material ejected from planetary surfaces (Cockell et al., Reference Cockell, Brack, Wynn-Williams, Baglioni, Brandstätter, Demets, Edwards, Gronstal, Kurat, Lee, Osinski, Pearce, Pillinger, Roten and Sancisi-Frey2007). Experiments have shown that organisms can survive the harsh conditions of space and re-enter Earth's atmosphere (Slobodkin et al., Reference Slobodkin, Gavrilov, Ionov and Iliyin2015). Given that interplanetary organismal dispersal is possible, albeit improbable, typical population ecological processes involving dispersal may have this foothold in space as well as on Earth. In the basic model of a metapopulation (Levins, Reference Levins and Gesternhaber1970), a population is divided into subpopulations distributed among habitable patches. With this parallel, the dispersal of organisms between patches here on Earth could be a system similar to the dispersal of organisms between planets; as a set of populations linked by dispersion is called a metapopulation, a set of biospheres linked by dispersion would be called a metabiosphere (Mendonça, Reference Mendonça2014). In this sense, the concept of a metabiosphere is an extension of a well-established Earth-bound ecological concept applied to the context of the cosmos. Example of indirect evidence for the concept of a metabiosphere include the discovery of Earth-like life (e.g. in biochemical composition or genetic code) on Mars, Europa or Enceladus (which could mean common ancestry rather than independent origins of life) or the detection of biosignatures on sets of neighbouring exoplanets of other planetary systems (e.g. TRAPPIST-1 system). Table 2 presents some implications of extrapolating the distribution and dispersal of organisms to space.

Table 2. Important concepts for the study of organismal dispersal, their usual definition and how they fit into astrobiology. The last column specifies the sources for the origin of the ideas as applied to astrobiology

Population ecology has already been applied to astrobiology, but there is still a vast landscape to explore. For instance, Simpson's (Reference Simpson1940) ‘sweepstake’ dispersal route proposed an indeterministic migration process that happens randomly and cannot be correlated with other events in space and time. Although this model was deemed inadequate to explain the colonization of Madagascar by mammals (Stankiewicz et al., Reference Stankiewicz, Thiart, Masters and De Wit2006), the probability values derived from Simpson's equations could still be significant when applied to the context of random meteor bombardments over billions of years. Another idea is the suggestion by Ginsburg, Lingam and Loeb (Reference Ginsburg, Lingam and Loeb2018) that panspermia could happen on galactic scales, and extremophiles that survive the journey could seed the entire galaxy with life, similar to the island-continent metapopulation models. There are still many other ecological models that could be revisited with new astrobiology perspectives in mind (Table 3).

Table 3. Population ecology models, suggested applications to astrobiology and an example of current usage of the model (for Earth-based ecology)

Biological communities

Theoretically, biological communities include all populations of species that occur in a defined location and time. However, given the difficulties in studying all organisms in an area, ecologists frequently research partial communities based on taxonomic or functional groupings (Begon and Townsend, Reference Begon and Townsend2021). Also crucial for community ecology are the myriad interactions among individuals and species, such as competition, mutualism, etc. Community ecology is often used in applied ecology, for example, dealing with ecological restoration, which may be relevant for the debate on terraforming other planets (Smith, Reference Smith2022). Ecological succession theories have been widely used in restoration research (Wainwright et al., Reference Wainwright, Staples, Charles, Flanagan, Lai, Loy, Reynolds and Mayfield2017), but they can also be examined in the context of astrobiology (Graham, Reference Graham2004). Another important subject that relies on community ecology in most instances is microbial ecology, and technical improvements may reveal new understandings for astrobiology (Walker and Pace, Reference Walker and Pace2007).

Ecological succession, which describes the sequence of communities from colonization to the climax community of a given ecosystem (Clements, Reference Clements1916), is a central concept in ecology and an important characteristic of communities (Krebs, Reference Krebs2014). The facilitation model of primary succession, in which pioneer organisms help the establishment of those arriving later in sterile areas, may have relevance for astrobiology. Fiedler and Mendonça (Reference Fiedler and Mendonça2023) explored this concept in terms of propagule arrival on planets through lithopanspermia events, which led us to ask new questions: what if ejecta arrive with live organisms repeatedly throughout the history of a planet? Can invasion ecology help us understand this process? Why do we not find this pattern on Earth? And here we can propose an extension to Fermi's paradox: if life is common in the universe, then why did it not arrive here multiple times throughout history from space rocks?

When discussing panspermia, it is important to remember that life might not get established on all habitable-yet-uninhabited planets, resulting in what is known as vacant habitats: places where organisms could thrive but in which they are simply not there now (Cockell, Reference Cockell2011). Vacant habitats can also exist on Earth (Cockell, Reference Cockell2011). True vacant ‘habitats’, without any kind of living being present, are not even habitats by definition, but ‘will-dwells’, where life meets a limit that not even 4.5 billion years of opportunity for the evolution of terrestrial biota were apparently able to overcome. Further research is necessary to provide convincing explanations for the existence and persistence of ‘will-dwells’ on Earth.

Considering the possibility of extraterrestrial life (or Earth-based life that would be able to live elsewhere), we usually assume that life will be microscopic; this is why astrobiologists should also utilize concepts from microbial ecology (as many already are). Microbial ecology focuses on the same topics as community ecology in general: abundance, diversity and distribution of microorganisms, their specific interactions, and the effect they have on ecosystems (Gray and Head, Reference Gray and Head2008; Ladau and Eloe-Fadrosh, Reference Ladau and Eloe-Fadrosh2019). Microbial communities appear to have emergent properties (Prosser and Martiny, Reference Prosser and Martiny2020), and despite ongoing challenges, the rules governing their assembly are gradually being unveiled due to advances in research areas such as molecular biology and bioinformatics (Mony et al., Reference Mony, Vandenkoornhuyse, Bohannan, Peay and Leibold2020). The study of microbial communities in extreme environments and extraterrestrial analogues within a microbial ecology framework can also deepen the habitability discussion and potentially enhance astrobiology research protocols (Cockell et al., Reference Cockell, McMahon, Lim, Rummel, Stevens, Hughes, Kobs Nawotniak, Brady, Marteinsson, Martin-Torres, Zorzano and Harrison2019; Meslier and DiRuggiero, Reference Meslier, DiRuggiero, Seckbach and Rampelotto2019). These concepts are relevant for exploring expected microbial communities like those on Mars subsurface brines, on ocean worlds like Europa or Enceladus or even on the clouds of Venus.

Ecosystems

Ecosystems reveal the relationship between ecological communities and their environment, and ecosystem ecology is concerned with understanding the functioning of the relevant portions of Earth in terms of energy and matter flow (Begon and Townsend, Reference Begon and Townsend2021). Some ecosystem principles can be seen as universal, as Jones (Reference Jones2001) has stated: ‘Ecology exists wherever there is an energy source and living things can employ some method to capture, store, and use the available energy’. Dynamic systems with environmental interactions and material cycling are not restricted to Earth, and so ecosystem ecology might help astrobiologists identify and characterize extraterrestrial sites where life could occur as proper ecosystems.

Some locations on Earth are often considered analogues for extraterrestrial environments and thus are used as field sites for exploring new organisms, studying habitability, validating biosignatures and understanding possible past life on our planet to decipher the signatures of extinct life (Preston and Dartnell, Reference Preston and Dartnell2014). Examples of analogue environments where extremophiles can be found would be terrestrial caves and desert soils (Coleine and Delgado-Baquerizo, Reference Coleine and Delgado-Baquerizo2022). Extreme environments may also be used to test ecological theories that address limits and absolute restrictions, such as specific resource availability, temperature and water availability, that are not typically found in conventional ecological studies (for a modelling of an extreme ecosystem, see Fisher and Schulze-Makuch, Reference Fisher and Schulze-Makuch2013). These studies can reveal the role of functional traits, such as adaptations to extreme conditions, and ecological interactions, such as mutualisms and facilitation, in enabling organismal survival and can also aid in understanding the reasons underlying ‘ecological extinctions’ (Warren-Rhodes et al., Reference Warren-Rhodes, Phillips, Davila, McKay, Ramond and Cowan2022).

Many questions discussed in ecosystem ecology, like habitability and biogeochemical cycles, are derived from global/biosphere ecology as well as ecosystem ecology, an unsurprising fact since Earth itself can be considered an ecosystem (Krebs, Reference Krebs2014). Taking habitability as an example, we can try and classify planetary objects as either habitable or not (global ecology), but this approach comes from the study of their specific environments (or possible exoecosystems). Nevertheless, the question remains: can a single inhabited ecosystem on a planet suffice to deem the entire planet as habitable? As habitable ecosystems emerge, does the habitability of the planet ‘increase’, being thus quantifiable, and justifying using terms such as ‘superhabitable’ (Heller and Armstrong, Reference Heller and Armstrong2014)? Studies of habitability began by examining current Earth ecosystems, but as habitability research widens its scope and scale, perhaps ecology can be instrumental in developing more sophisticated approaches.

Ecosystem ecology is also important in the uncovering of ecological patterns. One of the most significant global patterns is the latitudinal gradient in biodiversity (LGB): there is more biodiversity (e.g. taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic) at low latitudes and less at high latitudes (Chown and Gaston, Reference Chown and Gaston2000). Although the LGB is global and has been present throughout geological eras, its causative factors are still explained by local environmental and population hypotheses, not by global feedback (Willig et al., Reference Willig, Kaufman and Stevens2003). Recent ideas suggest the availability of energy (such as sunlight on Earth), resources (such as water) and environmental conditions (such as temperature) are the key factors driving higher productivity in tropical regions, which leads to faster ecological and evolutionary processes such as speciation and extinction (Mittelbach et al., Reference Mittelbach, Schemske, Cornell, Allen, Brown, Bush, Harrison, Hurlbert, Knowlton, Lessios, McCain, McCune, McDade, McPeek, Near, Price, Ricklefs, Roy, Sax and Turelli2007). Spatial arrangements also play a role, with south and north tropical areas being contiguous while temperate zones are separated by the tropical regions (Rosenzweig, Reference Rosenzweig1995).

Would this be relevant for other kinds of biospheres (Brodie and Mannion, Reference Brodie and Mannion2023), such as icy worlds with underground oceans, in which solar energy may not be the main source for life? Would energy show any relevant spatial pattern there, or even on Mars, if life there is buried deep and based on chemolithotrophy? Superhabitable planets could sustain a tropical zone larger than Earth today (Schulze-Makuch et al., Reference Schulze-Makuch, Heller and Guinan2020), but would that mean we should still expect an LGB on those planets? Or would there be stronger unknown factors affecting the distribution of life? Once more, this is a relevant question for ecology, which ultimately suffers from the statistical limit of having a single data point to study. And finally, would we expect a sharp biodiversity gradient along the ‘terminator’ region of tidally-locked planets? This is the circular band dividing a hemisphere in permanent daylight from another in permanent night in the case where the planet is in synchronous rotation around its star, expected of M-dwarfs – a possible habitable region where available solar energy would change drastically across a sharp gradient (e.g. Wandel, Reference Wandel2018; Lobo et al., Reference Lobo, Shields, Palubski and Wolf2023).

Another significant pattern in nature is the tight association between high biodiversity and mountains. The geology and climate systems of mountain regions provide an environment where many biogeographic processes, such as speciation, diversification, adaptive radiation and dispersal, can occur (Rahbek et al., Reference Rahbek, Borregaard, Antonelli, Colwell, Holt, Nogues-Bravo, Rasmussen, Richardson, Rosing, Whittaker and Fjeldså2019a). Although mountains make up only 25% of Earth's landmass, their regions host approximately 87% of the world's species of birds, amphibians and mammals; understanding the underlying mechanisms remains challenging (Rahbek et al., Reference Rahbek, Borregaard, Colwell, Dalsgaard, Holt, Morueta-Holme, Nogues-Bravo, Whittaker and Fjeldså2019b). Considering mountains as a ‘generator and reservoir of biodiversity’ (Perrigo, Hoorn and Antonelli, Reference Perrigo, Hoorn and Antonelli2019) could raise new astrobiologically relevant questions. Observing mountains may reveal internal (buildup of lava on Mars) or external (mounds or ridges created by asteroid impacts) planetary processes (McTier and Kipping, Reference McTier and Kipping2018). Such observations may also depend on the presence of plate tectonics, a geological feature on Earth that may be crucially linked to the maintenance of habitability (Korenaga, Reference Korenaga2012). As discussions about exoplanet topography are beginning (Landais, Schmidt and Lovejoy, Reference Landais, Schmidt and Lovejoy2019) and selenography techniques are advanced, we can broaden such considerations by questioning the ecological implications of having mountains on an exoplanet or moon. Should we expect more forms of life to be found on planetary objects with mountains? Should a higher percentage of mountains be a relevant factor when we classify planets as superhabitable (Schulze-Makuch et al., Reference Schulze-Makuch, Heller and Guinan2020), or is this an Earth-specific pattern due to the relatively small percentage of mountain regions on Earth today? Are there other geologic features that could be more common on planets other than Earth, which could lead to such patterns, but because of other factors? Will the discipline of mountain microorganismal biodiversity, which emerged only a decade ago but is evolving rapidly (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Hu, Meng, Zhao, Yang, Soininen, Shen and Zhou2022), reveal relevant astrobiological insights?

Biosphere

The biosphere is Earth's entire ecosystem (Krebs, Reference Krebs2014), where living organisms can survive and reproduce. Global ecology as a field began with Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis as a central concept (Reference Lovelock2000) but has widened its scope as measurements at both local and global scales became easier, more common and more detailed (Schimel and Schneider, Reference Schimel and Schneider2019). The Gaia Hypothesis remains controversial; however, it helped us conceptualize Earth as a nearly-closed planetary system that maintained its habitability despite all disturbances across deep time (Stolz, Reference Stolz2017). Since the number of planetary objects that can be studied in situ is very small compared to the number of known planetary objects, most of what we know about planets beyond Earth is based on limited observations at a distance. Given such restrictions, developing a systems-based approach towards understanding exoplanets and other solar system bodies falls under the scope of a biosphere-level ecology as well. Studying the integration among subsystems (geological, atmospheric, hydrological and cryological) can help determine whether an ecological subsystem could also be present, which could serve as a definition of a biosignature from a different point of view.

We suggest the most relevant astrobiology theme for contributions from biosphere ecology is habitability. This term has been defined astronomically in some detail in the recent past (Seager, Reference Seager2013), but the concept continues to face conceptual changes as new ideas and research respond to (1) our growing understanding of the limits for life on Earth (Yung et al., Reference Yung, Chen, Nealson, Atreya, Beckett, Blank and Forget2018); (2) the variety of environments found in our solar system (e.g. icy moon oceans; Paganini et al., Reference Paganini, Villanueva, Roth, Mandell, Hurford, Retherford and Mumma2019); and (3) the results of our searches for habitable exoplanets and the diversity they reveal (Tsiaras et al., Reference Tsiaras, Waldmann, Zingales, Rocchetto, Morello, Damiano, Karpouzas, Tinetti, McKemmish, Tennyson and Yurchenko2018). The habitable zone (HZ), within which liquid water could exist on the surface of a planet, is determined by astronomical variables such as star size and temperature. But the primary reason for this definition as it stands is operational: the HZ is a place in which we can search for evidence of life using space telescopes. There are certainly ideas for how planets outside the HZ might be habitable, but the difficulty is also identifying ways that evidence of such life could be detected. For example, a subsurface biota may have little or no interaction with the atmosphere (Horne et al., Reference Horne, Volpe, Korza, DePratti, Conze, Shuryak, Grebenc, Matrosova, Gaidamakova, Tkavc, Sharma, Gostinčar, Gunde-Cimerman, Hoffman, Setlow and Daly2022), so detecting these life forms, especially on an exoplanet, may not be possible. Further extensions of the concept of the HZ may have limited applications when attempting to characterize exoplanets (Nicholson et al., Reference Nicholson, Wilkinson, Williams and Lenton2018), but such an approach does not necessarily consider the concept of habitability from an ecological perspective.

In a thought-provoking review, Méndez et al. (Reference Méndez, Rivera-Valentín, Schulze-Makuch, Filiberto, Ramírez, Wood, Dávila, McKay, Ceballos, Jusino-Maldonado, Torres-Santiago, Nery, Heller, Byrne, Malaska, Nathan, Simões, Antunes, Martínez-Frías and Haqq-Misra2021) highlighted the lack of integration between different concepts of habitability in astrobiology and advocated for the incorporation of ecological methodologies, such as Habitability Suitability Models. While astrobiologists have been using various criteria for habitability, ecologists have well-developed and established frameworks for modelling habitable environments. As the authors postulated, ‘ecology methods are more capable than our limited planetary and astronomical data allow, but they also provide the basic language and framework to connect Earth and astrobiology science for decades to come’. We fully support this viewpoint and aim to underscore its significance in this article.

Biosphere ecology has yet to determine any limits to planetary homoeostasis produced by life, but for astrobiology, understanding such habitability limits is a crucial problem. If planetary homoeostasis is difficult to achieve and thus rare, then habitability is lower than could be expected (Chopra and Lineweaver, Reference Chopra and Lineweaver2016). Life in the universe may be common, but how common is planetary homoeostasis achieved by biological processes (in other words, Gaian biospheres)? This raises two major problems for astrobiology: the ease with which life arises and the likelihood of persistent biospheres evolving, the latter of which is not often discussed. Ecology is thus an important factor: the extent to which biospheres on other planets and moons would be able to alter and maintain abiotic conditions adequate for life is a crucial question that astrobiology returns to biosphere ecology. Many abiotic factors related to habitability, like the age of rocky exoplanets (Unterborn et al., Reference Unterborn, Foley, Desch, Young, Vance, Chiffelle and Kane2022), ice surface coverage (Wilhelm et al., Reference Wilhelm, Barnes, Deitrick and Mellman2022) or the presence of a satellite (Nakajima et al., Reference Nakajima, Genda, Asphaug and Ida2022), have been examined. However, taking a Gaian approach (e.g. the enhancing/optimizing Gaia model; Kleidon, Reference Kleidon2002) can lead to somewhat different, biological-centred answers compared to the ones that rely uniquely on chemistry and physics (Nicholson et al., Reference Nicholson, Wilkinson, Williams and Lenton2018). We can begin right now to try and deepen theoretical explorations using biosphere ecology since some ecological ideas can bear fruit in the light of astrobiological phenomena.

As above, we finish by highlighting a set of examples of ecological biosphere-level questions related to current astrobiological problems. If life is present on Mars, then why is its atmosphere not clearly chemically unbalanced and indicative of a biosphere present (were Lovelock & Margulis right in Reference Lovelock and Margulis1974)? Is the Martian methane question (e.g. Lefèvre, Reference Lefèvre, Cavalazzi and Westall2019) an answer to this? Is it possible for life to arise and not strongly affect its environment globally – so could there be ‘weak biospheres’ (potentially like Mars) and ‘strong biospheres’ (like Earth)? Alternatively, is life on Mars now the very last remnant of life on a dying planet, in which cosmic and areological (Martian geology) factors impeded biosphere maintenance, with perhaps no more remaining living biomass left to significantly affect planetary processes (a form of swansong biosphere, O'Malley-James et al., Reference O'Malley-James, Greaves, Raven and Cockell2013)?

Conceptualizing further levels of integration

The biosphere is accepted as the uppermost level to which ecology is relevant (Begon, Howarth, and Townsend, Reference Begon, Howarth and Townsend2014) and involves all other ecological levels. However, the search for life elsewhere in our solar system suggests a direct question from astrobiology to ecology, which no ecologist seems to have addressed, as far as we know: are biospheres completely isolated? If panspermia is in any form a plausible process (lithopanspermia, at least, is seriously discussed but only likely depending on a series of factors; Nicholson, Reference Nicholson2009), then biotas from life-bearing planets might interact by a form of, ecologically speaking, interbiospheric dispersal. So far, we have already mentioned a series of ideas related to this one, and we could further include efforts at space settlement/colonization, such as plans to send humans (and their microbiomes) to Mars, mining asteroids, etc – which could be considered a form of directed panspermia (c.f., Crick and Orgel, Reference Crick and Orgel1973). One approach towards understanding this ecological process is to study and describe patterns resulting from similar systems at different scales, and the metabiosphere model (Mendonça, Reference Mendonça2014) is one such proposition, although not the only one.

An alternative take on this broad and important question is: if biospheres are numerous and they can interact, does this represent a further, sixth level of understanding for ecology? Although this has been mentioned briefly in the context of metabiospheres (Mendonça, Reference Mendonça2014), the concept has never been seriously discussed. And even then, the metabiosphere model appears to be more adequate for describing biospheres that share a common origin: metapopulations arise when the same population is distributed among different patches, and metabiospheres arise when the ‘same biosphere’ (i. e. common ancestry) is distributed among different planetary bodies. Most level definitions in ecology involve describable, independent and repeatable units that act on each other – that is, interact – such as organisms interacting, which leads to population processes if these units belong to a reproductive lineage or community processes if populations of different species are interacting (Krebs, Reference Krebs2014). If biospheres that are phylogenetically distinct do interact, what would we call this astrobiological level of ecology, and at what scales is it relevant? Is the concept of metabiospheres appropriate to also describe this process? How would astronomical distances factor into this kind of system? Interacting biospheres within a given planetary system could lead to different dynamics than if interstellar dispersal is possible (e.g. in star-forming clusters; Adams and Spergel, Reference Adams and Spergel2005) – could this be different enough to suggest a seventh level for ecology? This discussion is even more relevant given the Fermi paradox, which is an ecological hypothesis when taken from this point of view. Colonization (in the ecological sense, along with the cultural sense) by an intelligent extraterrestrial biota could be expected to be rather common but has not been detected so far in our own biosphere, at least.

Five (or more) levels of astroecology: a summary

We hope to have shown that ecology can contribute relevant ideas to the interdisciplinary field of astrobiology. The possibilities of research presented here are still incipient; there is much to be done, and certainly more ideas are yet to come. However, we have provided the first steps by recognizing previous work, gaps and opportunities for the future. The theoretical foundations of ecology and its levels (organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems, biospheres and perhaps further) have a lot to offer to astrobiology. Figure 1 summarizes the topics we suggest that could lead to future insight.

Figure 1. Hierarchical levels of ecology and study opportunities they might present for a self-aware astroecology.

© Eucalyp via Canva.com | Designed by JM.

We hope this paper will encourage astrobiologists to take ecology consciously into account when studying the origin, evolution and distribution of life in the universe. New partnerships with ecologists, both in individual (astrobiologists and ecologists conducting studies together) and collective (astrobiology organizations working with ecology organizations) ways, should be established as the astrobiology community integrates one more discipline into this huge interdisciplinary field. Theoretical research in astroecology is just beginning, but it is also time for us to put these ideas into practice by conducting experimental astroecology in the laboratory and field campaigns – here on Earth and ‘out there’.

If astrobiologists work together with ecologists, then our speculation does not need to appear unbridled, as mutual checks would be put in place. New patterns and processes can be hypothesized, and different paths could open up new ideas if we think about ecological questions in astrobiology. Ecology may seem a little ‘too close’ for those who study planets that are trillions of kilometres away or farther, but perhaps we should seek new ways to look at Earth while we observe far beyond it.

Acknowledgements

JCM would like to thank the Office of Research of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (PROPESQ-UFRGS) for the opportunity to participate in the Voluntary Scientific Initiation Program. JHM acknowledges funding from the NASA Exobiology programme under award 80NSSC22K1632. MMJ thanks the National Science Council of Brazil (CNPq) for a Productivity grant (PQ 311298/2019-2).

Competing interests

None.

References

Adams, FC and Spergel, DN (2005) Lithopanspermia in star-forming clusters. Astrobiology 5, 497514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beblo-Vranesevic, K, Piepjohn, J, Antunes, A and Rettberg, P (2022) Surviving Mars: new insights into the persistence of facultative anaerobic microbes from analogue sites. International Journal of Astrobiology 21, 110127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begon, M and Townsend, CR (2021) Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Begon, M, Howarth, RW and Townsend, CR (2014) Essentials of Ecology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bozinovic, F and Pörtner, HO (2015) Physiological ecology meets climate change. Ecology and Evolution 5, 10251030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brodie, JF and Mannion, PD (2023) The hierarchy of factors predicting the latitudinal diversity gradient. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38, 1523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, JH and Kodric-Brown, A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58, 445449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, JH, Gillooly, JF, Allen, AP, Savage, VM and West, GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 17711789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buettel, JC, Brook, BW, Cole, A, Dickey, J and Flies, EJ (2018) Astro-ecology? Shifting the interdisciplinary collaboration paradigm. Ecology and Evolution 8, 95869589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chopra, A and Lineweaver, CH (2016) The case for a Gaian bottleneck: the biology of habitability. Astrobiology 16, 722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chown, SL and Gaston, KJ (2000) Areas, cradles and museums: the latitudinal gradient in species richness. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15, 311315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clements, FE (1916) Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Washington, D. C: Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication Number 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockell, CS (2010) Geomicrobiology beyond Earth: microbe-mineral interactions in space exploration and settlement. Trends in Microbiology 18, 308314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockell, CS (2011) Vacant habitats in the universe. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26, 7380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockell, CS, Brack, A, Wynn-Williams, DD, Baglioni, P, Brandstätter, F, Demets, R, Edwards, HG, Gronstal, AL, Kurat, G, Lee, P, Osinski, GR, Pearce, DA, Pillinger, JM, Roten, CA and Sancisi-Frey, S (2007) Interplanetary transfer of photosynthesis: an experimental demonstration of A selective dispersal filter in planetary island biogeography. Astrobiology 7, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CS, Cockell, Balme, M, JC, Bridges, Davila, A and SP, Schwenzer (2012) Uninhabited habitats on Mars. Icarus 217, 184193.Google Scholar
Cockell, CS, McMahon, S, Lim, DSS, Rummel, J, Stevens, A, Hughes, SS, Kobs Nawotniak, SE, Brady, AL, Marteinsson, V, Martin-Torres, J, Zorzano, MP and Harrison, J (2019) Sample collection and return from Mars: optimising sample collection based on the microbial ecology of terrestrial volcanic environments. Space Science Reviews 215, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleine, C and Delgado-Baquerizo, M (2022) Unearthing terrestrial extreme microbiomes for searching terrestrial-like life in the Solar System. Trends in Microbiology 30, 11011115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crick, FH and Orgel, LE (1973) Directed panspermia. Icarus 19, 341346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVincenzi, DL (1984) NASA's exobiology program. Origins of Life 14, 793799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, MS and Mendonça, MS (2023) Post-dispersal astrobiological events: modelling macroevolutionary dynamics for lithopanspermia. Extremophiles 27, 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, TM and Schulze-Makuch, D (2013) Nutrient and population dynamics in a subglacial reservoir: a simulation case study of the Blood Falls ecosystem with implications for astrobiology. International Journal of Astrobiology 12, 304311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forgan, DH (2019) Predator-prey behaviour in self-replicating interstellar probes. International Journal of Astrobiology 18, 552561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, I, Lingam, M and Loeb, A (2018) Galactic panspermia. The Astrophysical Journal 868, L12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N (1991) Metapopulation models: the rescue effect, the propagule rain, and the core-satellite hypothesis. The American Naturalist 138, 768776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, NJ (2008) A Primer of Ecology. Sunderland, USA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Graham, JM (2004) The biological terraforming of Mars: planetary ecosynthesis as ecological succession on a global scale. Astrobiology 4, 168195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, N and Head, I (2008) Microbial Ecology, Encyclopedia of Ecology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science, pp. 23572368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinnell, J (1917) The niche-relationships of the California thrasher. The Auk 34, 427433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeckel, E (1866) Generelle Morphologie der Organismen: Allgemeine Grundzuge der Organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, Mechanisch Begrundet durch die von Charles Darwin Reformierte Descendenz-Theorie 1 & 2, Georg Reimer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396, 4149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, L (ed.) (2015) Astrobiology Strategy. Washington, DC: NASA.Google Scholar
Heller, R and Armstrong, J (2014) Superhabitable worlds. Astrobiology 14, 5066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horne, WH, Volpe, RP, Korza, G, DePratti, S, Conze, IH, Shuryak, I, Grebenc, T, Matrosova, VY, Gaidamakova, EK, Tkavc, R, Sharma, A, Gostinčar, C, Gunde-Cimerman, N, Hoffman, BM, Setlow, P and Daly, MJ (2022) Effects of desiccation and freezing on microbial ionizing radiation survivability: considerations for Mars sample return. Astrobiology 22, 13371350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, H (2001) Extraterrestrial Ecology (Exoecology), SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-2143, Society of Automotive Engineers, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, M (2006) Habitat, environment and niche: what are we modelling? Oikos 115, 186191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keddy, PA (1994) Applications of the Hertzsprung-Russell star chart to ecology: reflections on the 21st birthday of Geographical Ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, 231234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempes, CP, Follows, MJ, Smith, H, Graham, H, House, CH and Levin, SA (2021) Generalized stoichiometry and biogeochemistry for astrobiological applications. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 83, 73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kermack, WO and McKendrick, AG (1927) A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 115, 700721.Google Scholar
Kleidon, A (2002) Testing the effect of life on earth's functioning: how Gaian is the earth system? Climatic Change 52, 383389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korenaga, J (2012) Plate tectonics and planetary habitability: current status and future challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1260, 8794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovačević, A (2022) On possible life-dispersal patterns beyond the Earth. International Journal of Astrobiology 21, 7895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, CJ (2014) Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Pearson New International Edition, pp. 14389.Google Scholar
Krebs, CJ (2015) One hundred years of population ecology: successes, failures and the road ahead. Integrative Zoology 10, 233240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladau, J and Eloe-Fadrosh, EA (2019) Spatial, temporal, and phylogenetic scales of microbial ecology. Trends in Microbiology 27, 662669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landais, F, Schmidt, F and Lovejoy, S (2019) Topography of (exo)planets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 484, 787793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefèvre, F (2019) The enigma of methane on Mars. In Cavalazzi, B and Westall, F (eds), Biosignatures for Astrobiology. Advances in Astrobiology and Biogeophysics. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Levins, R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15, 237240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, R (1970) Extinction. In Gesternhaber, M (ed.), Some Mathematical Problems in Biology. Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society, pp. 77107.Google Scholar
Lobo, AH, Shields, AL, Palubski, IZ and Wolf, E (2023) Terminator habitability: the case for limited water availability on M-dwarf planets. The Astrophysical Journal 945, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotka, AJ (1925) Elements of physical biology. Nature 116, 461461.Google Scholar
Lovelock, JE (2000) Gaia: A new Look at Life on Earth. Oxford, UK: Oxford Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Lovelock, JE (2003) The living Earth. Nature 426, 769770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovelock, JE and Margulis, L (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia Hypothesis. Tellus 26, 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, K, Bigman, JS, Kacev, D, Mull, CG, Carlisle, AB, Imhoff, JL, Anderson, JM, Weng, KC, Galloway, AS, Cave, E, Gunn, TR, Lowe, CG, Brill, RW and Bedore, CN (2019) Bridging disciplines to advance elasmobranch conservation: applications of physiological ecology. Conservation Physiology 7, coz11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mautner, MN (2002a) Planetary bioresources and astroecology. 1. Planetary microcosm bioassays of Martian and carbonaceous chondrite materials: nutrients, electrolyte solutions, and algal and plant responses. Icarus 158, 7286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mautner, MN (2002b) Planetary resources and astroecology. Planetary microcosm models of asteroid and meteorite interiors: electrolyte solutions and microbial growth-implications for space populations and panspermia. Astrobiology 2, 5976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mautner, MN (2014) Astroecology, cosmo-ecology, and the future of life. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 83, 449464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, DS, Gibson, EK, Thomas-Keprta, KL, Vali, H, Romanek, CS, Clemett, SJ, Chillier, XDF, Maechling, CR and Zare, RN (1996, August 16) Search for past life on Mars: possible relic biogenic activity in Martian meteorite ALH84001. Science (New York, N.Y.) 273, 924930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McTier, MAS and Kipping, DM (2018) Finding mountains with molehills: the detectability of exotopography. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 475, 49784985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Méndez, A, Rivera-Valentín, EG, Schulze-Makuch, D, Filiberto, J, Ramírez, RM, Wood, TE, Dávila, A, McKay, C, Ceballos, KNO, Jusino-Maldonado, M, Torres-Santiago, NJ, Nery, G, Heller, R, Byrne, PK, Malaska, MJ, Nathan, E, Simões, MF, Antunes, A, Martínez-Frías, J, … Haqq-Misra, J (2021) Habitability models for astrobiology. Astrobiology 21, 10171027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendonça, MDS (2014) Spatial ecology goes to space: metabiospheres. Icarus 233, 348351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meslier, V and DiRuggiero, J (2019) Endolithic microbial communities as model systems for ecology and astrobiology. In Seckbach, J and Rampelotto, P (eds.), Model Ecosystems in Extreme Environments. Astrobiology Exploring Life on Earth and Beyond. London, UK: Academic Press, pp. 145168.Google Scholar
Mittelbach, GG, Schemske, DW, Cornell, HV, Allen, AP, Brown, JM, Bush, MB, Harrison, SP, Hurlbert, AH, Knowlton, N, Lessios, HA, McCain, CM, McCune, AR, McDade, LA, McPeek, MA, Near, TJ, Price, TD, Ricklefs, RE, Roy, K, Sax, DF and … Turelli, M (2007) Evolution and the latitudinal diversity gradient: speciation, extinction and biogeography. Ecology Letters 10, 315331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mony, C, Vandenkoornhuyse, P, Bohannan, BJM, Peay, K and Leibold, MA (2020) A landscape of opportunities for microbial ecology research. Frontiers in Microbiology 11, 561427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakajima, M, Genda, H, Asphaug, E and Ida, S (2022) Large planets may not form fractionally large moons. Nature Communications 13, 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, WL (2009) Ancient micronauts: interplanetary transport of microbes by cosmic impacts. Trends in Microbiology 17, 243250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholson, AE, Wilkinson, DM, Williams, HTP and Lenton, TM (2018) Gaian bottlenecks and planetary habitability maintained by evolving model biospheres: the ExoGaia model. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477, 727740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley-James, JT, Greaves, JS, Raven, JA and Cockell, CS (2013) Swansong Biospheres: the biosignatures of inhabited earth-like planets nearing the end of their habitable lifetimes. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 8, 378379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paganini, L, Villanueva, GL, Roth, L, Mandell, AM, Hurford, TA, Retherford, KD and Mumma, MJ (2019) A measurement of water vapour amid a largely quiescent environment on Europa. Nature Astronomy 4, 266272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, AL, Elardo, SM and Ferl, R (2022) Plants grown in Apollo lunar regolith present stress-associated transcriptomes that inform prospects for lunar exploration. Communications Biology 5, 382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perrigo, A, Hoorn, C and Antonelli, A (2019) Why mountains matter for biodiversity. Journal of Biogeography 47, 315325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, LJ and Dartnell, LR (2014) Planetary habitability: lessons learned from terrestrial analogues. International Journal of Astrobiology 13, 8198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosser, JI and Martiny, JBH (2020) Conceptual challenges in microbial community ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375, 20190241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahbek, C, Borregaard, MK, Antonelli, A, Colwell, RK, Holt, BG, Nogues-Bravo, D, Rasmussen, CM, Richardson, K, Rosing, MT, Whittaker, RJ and Fjeldså, J (2019a) Building mountain biodiversity: geological and evolutionary processes. Science (New York, N.Y.) 365, 11141119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahbek, C, Borregaard, MK, Colwell, RK, Dalsgaard, B, Holt, BG, Morueta-Holme, N, Nogues-Bravo, D, Whittaker, RJ and Fjeldså, J (2019b) Humboldt's enigma: what causes global patterns of mountain biodiversity? Science (New York, N.Y.) 365, 11081113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenzweig, ML (1995) Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sales, LP, Hayward, MW and Loyola, R (2021) What do you mean by “niche”? Modern ecological theories are not coherent on rhetoric about the niche concept. Acta Oecologica 110, 103701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimel, D and Schneider, FD (2019) Flux towers in the sky: global ecology from space. New Phytologist 224, 570584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze-Makuch, D, Heller, R and Guinan, E (2020) In search for a planet better than earth: top contenders for a superhabitable world. Astrobiology 20, 13941404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seager, S (2013) Exoplanet habitability. Science (New York, N.Y.) 340, 577581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shu, WS and Huang, LN (2022) Microbial diversity in extreme environments. Nature Reviews Microbiology 20, 219235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, GG (1940) Mammals and land bridges. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 30, 137163.Google Scholar
Slobodkin, A, Gavrilov, S, Ionov, V and Iliyin, V (2015) Spore-Forming thermophilic bacterium within artificial meteorite survives entry into the earth's atmosphere on FOTON-M4 satellite landing module. PLOS ONE 10, e0132611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, PL (2022) Extraterrestrial nature reserves (ETNRs). International Journal of Astrobiology 22, 118156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soberón, J and Nakamura, M (2009) Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 1964419650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stankiewicz, J, Thiart, C, Masters, JC and De Wit, MJ (2006) Did lemurs have sweepstake tickets? An exploration of Simpson's model for the colonization of Madagascar by mammals. Journal of Biogeography 33, 221235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, JF (2017) Gaia and her microbiome. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 93, fiw247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tenelanda-Osorio, LI, Parra, JL, Cuartas-Restrepo, P and Zuluaga, JI (2021) Enceladus as a potential niche for methanogens and estimation of its biomass. Life (Chicago, Ill 11, 1182.Google ScholarPubMed
Tsiaras, A, Waldmann, IP, Zingales, T, Rocchetto, M, Morello, G, Damiano, M, Karpouzas, K, Tinetti, G, McKemmish, LK, Tennyson, J and Yurchenko, SN (2018) A population study of gaseous exoplanets. The Astronomical Journal 155, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unterborn, CT, Foley, BJ, Desch, SJ, Young, PA, Vance, G, Chiffelle, L and Kane, SR (2022) Mantle degassing lifetimes through galactic time and the maximum age stagnant-lid rocky exoplanets can support temperate climates. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 930, L6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volterra, V (1926) Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature 118, 558560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, CE, Staples, TL, Charles, LS, Flanagan, TC, Lai, HR, Loy, X, Reynolds, VA and Mayfield, MM (2017) Links between community ecology theory and ecological restoration are on the rise. Journal of Applied Ecology 55, 570581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, JJ and Pace, NR (2007) Endolithic microbial ecosystems. Annual Review of Microbiology 61, 331347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wandel, A (2018) On the biohabitability of M-dwarf planets. The Astrophysical Journal 856, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J, Hu, A, Meng, F, Zhao, W, Yang, Y, Soininen, J, Shen, J and Zhou, J (2022) Embracing mountain microbiome and ecosystem functions under global change. New Phytologist 234, 19872002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren-Rhodes, K, Phillips, M, Davila, A and McKay, CP (2022) Insights of extreme desert ecology to the habitats and habitability of Mars. In Ramond, JB and Cowan, DA (eds). Microbiology of Hot Deserts. Ecological Studies. New York, NY: Springer, vol. 244, pp. 237291.Google Scholar
Wiens, JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Annual review of ecology and systematics 7, 81120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm, C, Barnes, R, Deitrick, R and Mellman, R (2022) The Ice coverage of earth-like planets orbiting FGK stars. The Planetary Science Journal 3, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, DM (2003) The fundamental processes in ecology: a thought experiment on extraterrestrial biospheres. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 78, 171179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willig, MR, Kaufman, DM and Stevens, RD (2003) Latitudinal gradients of biodiversity: pattern, process, scale, and synthesis. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34, 273309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yung, YL, Chen, P, Nealson, K, Atreya, S, Beckett, P, Blank, JG and Forget, F (2018) Methane on Mars and habitability: challenges and responses. Astrobiology 18, 12211242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Appearances of the term ‘astroecology’ and derivatives in the literature and definitions proposed by the authors

Figure 1

Table 2. Important concepts for the study of organismal dispersal, their usual definition and how they fit into astrobiology. The last column specifies the sources for the origin of the ideas as applied to astrobiology

Figure 2

Table 3. Population ecology models, suggested applications to astrobiology and an example of current usage of the model (for Earth-based ecology)

Figure 3

Figure 1. Hierarchical levels of ecology and study opportunities they might present for a self-aware astroecology.© Eucalyp via Canva.com | Designed by JM.