I'm not a member of the site, I'm unwilling to discuss, and would rather leave said discussions to those with more knowledge than I in the subject...
But I guess I can start with saying something on the talk page... perhaps someone here will pick up the torch and give this a go.
Ecology not only as a science but as a concept is recent, and its interpretation is varied amongst people.
I'd assume it to be worthy of delving into how back in the day, people believed in the equilibrium of nature, in that "Balance of Nature" theory. After a while, people'd finally understood that it was an archaic, simple notion, and discredited it, rightfully so. As such, the science of ecology had advanced, but the public's perception of what was taught hasn't.
Since people often give their reasoning in argumentation concerning wildlife preservation, environmentalism and even consumerist culture much alleged stability from the old notion of nature's apparent homeostasis, as opposed to nature's actual dynamism, I think it's just on the safe side to pop more in the RW article about ecology than its mere dictionary definition.
I've sadly exhausted my knowledge and memory on the subject, but some environmentalist woo on the news reminded me of the subject, and I lament the fact that RW could find more nooks and crannies wherein it can post knowledge on the subject.
I'd still rather leave it to people with proper backed up knowledge on ecology and biology. I'm not worthy.
The only other source/medium that comes to my mind on this subject is some Adam Curtis documentary. I think it was called "Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts".
It'll probably be a horribly boring set of digging up old research by you lot, but I guess it's what RW is all about: Debunking nonsense, discrediting outdated falsehoods. And the scientific community had a lot of that to do within ecology. — Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)