Is this what Arthur Tansley had in mind with the ecosystem concept?

A friend sent me this article about a "sports ecosystem".  It seems those Toronto Blue Jays � long accustomed to loserdom (I didn't even know that was a word) � are doing trades that will make them a World Series contender.

I don't follow baseball much, so to me the piece was interesting as an example of the apparently infinite malleability of the "ecosystem" concept.  Arthur Tansley coined the term in 1935.  Today, it comes up 52,500,000 times on Google.  Wikipedia defines ecosystem as a "community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (things like air, water and mineral soil), interacting as a system. These biotic and abiotic components are regarded as linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows".  And that's more or less the concept historians of ecology use when tracing its history.

But the "ecosystem" term has now left ecology far behind.  Take "business ecosystem": that term apparently originated through explicit analogy with ecological ecosystems � complete with mentions of predators, prey, organisms, niche, symbiosis and coevolution.  Since then the term has apparently expanded far beyond, to include any complex system involving people.  (I once saw a furniture ad: new tables and chairs could transform your "office ecosystem".)

There must be an interesting story here.  A fair bit has been written about the transfer of biological metaphors into society, but I wonder if anyone has examined this circulation of the ecosystem into wider realms?