[2] In chapter 3, Ginzburg and Colyvan outline how their view of population dynamics differs from conventional accounts which assume exponential growth or decline.

[2][4] Ginzburg and Colyvan present results from experiments by Larry Slobodkin on the starvation of hydras which showed parabolic population decline as evidence for their theory.

[2][4] Chapter 4 details what Ginzburg and Colyvan call the maternal effect hypothesis which provides the mechanism for the inertial aspect of their theory of population dynamics.

[2] In chapter 6, Ginzburg and Colyvan further develop the ideas of accelerated death and maternal effects into a general theory of inertial population dynamics.

They suggest an equation for the time derivative of the growth rate (i.e. the acceleration in population change) which depends on just three parameters α, β, and rmax:

[3] Chapter 7 explores some of the practical consequences of Ginzburg and Colyvan's model, including for the management of fisheries and conservation of endangered species.

He also said that it was possible that "Ecological Orbits may well turn out to mark such a transition from what was considered unthinkable—namely a rigorous and nontrivial theory of population dynamics akin to a law of nature—to a real scientific achievement.

He said that he was left wondering whether "it [is] fair that this book be criticized for being merely derivative, or should the authors be applauded for bringing attention to ideas that have resisted incorporation in population modeling?"

He also felt that the analogy between population dynamics and classical mechanics was less strong than Ginzburg and Colyvan argue, saying that the data they present may be able to be explained by non-inertial models.

Nonetheless, he thought the writing style "was generally quite good" and that the book "should be of obvious interest to theoretical ecologists" whilst also being accessible to graduate students and advanced undergraduates.

However, he felt that the philosophical portion of the book focusing on whether ecology has laws was engaging in a "misguided" dispute and was "a bit tiresome".

He described Ginzburg "an eager and capable revolutionary" for his work in ecology and says that the philosophy in the book "should not scare away the prospective reader as it is presented in a very lighthearted way.

"[6] John Matthewson reviewed the book in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, describing it as brief but dense and deep in its exposition of scientific and philosophical issues.

Overall, he characterises these problems as "minor points given all that there is to enjoy in this book" and says that Ecological Orbits is "a fantastic example of what can result when scientists and philosophers collaborate.