Question

For decades, the practice of conservation biology was profoundly shaped by the Clementsian paradigm, which conceptualized ecological communities as highly integrated, deterministic superorganisms predictably progressing toward a stable "climax" state. Under this framework, the optimal conservation strategy was to preserve or restore an ecosystem to its historic equilibrium. The subsequent ascendance of the Gleasonian individualistic concept—which posits that plant and animal communities are transient, coincidental assemblages of species responding independently to continuous environmental gradients—prompted a radical revision of conservation goals. Driven by the Gleasonian view, many contemporary conservationists have abandoned the pursuit of static preservation in favor of maintaining general ecosystem function and resilience, often treating specific species compositions as largely incidental.

Recently, however, a contingent of paleoecologists has challenged the practical application of orthodox Gleasonianism in conservation. By analyzing palynological records spanning the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs, these researchers concede that, over geological timescales, individualistic species migration is indeed the rule rather than the exception. Nevertheless, they emphasize that the specific multispecies assemblages characterizing the Holocene have demonstrated a statistically non-random persistence, surviving prolonged periods of climatic oscillation intact. To these paleoecologists, this resilience indicates a degree of co-evolutionary dependency and ecological integration that purely individualistic models fail to capture. While firmly rejecting the teleological rigidity of the Clementsian climax, these researchers argue that the historical continuity of certain assemblages warrants recognizing them as more than mere stochastic aggregations, suggesting that conservation triage should actively prioritize these deeply established historical associations.

Based on the passage, the contingent of paleoecologists mentioned in the second paragraph would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements regarding contemporary conservation strategies?