Abstract
To understand why population growth rate is sometimes positive and sometimes negative, ecologists have adopted two main approaches. The most common approach is through the density paradigm by plotting population growth rate against population density. The second approach is through the mechanistic paradigm by plotting population growth rate against the relevant ecological processes affecting the population. The density paradigm is applied a posteriori, works sometimes but not always and is remarkably useless in solving management problems or in providing an understanding of why populations change in size. The mechanistic paradigm investigates the factors that supposedly drive density changes and is identical to Caughley's declining population paradigm of conservation biology. The assumption that we can uncover invariant relationships between population growth rate and some other variables is an article of faith. Numerous commercial fishery applications have failed to find the invariant relationships between stock and recruitment that are predicted by the density paradigm. Environmental variation is the rule, and non-equilibrial dynamics should force us to look for the mechanisms of population change. If multiple factors determine changes in population density, there can be no predictability in either of these paradigms and we will become environmental historians rather than scientists with useful generalizations for the population problems of this century. Defining our questions clearly and adopting an experimental approach with crisp alternative hypotheses and adequate controls will be essential to building useful generalizations for solving the practical problems of population management in fisheries, wildlife and conservation.