The article begins with the observation "living beings extend beyond themselves into their environments." Whether, or to what extent, that observation is justified, depends on specific facts of biology. Whether it is a useful observation to make depends, I think, on whether it helps people discuss and understand biology, and, in particular, whether it is fruitful in opening up the way to further insights. If it does prove to be generally useful, language and its usage will adapt, just as language always does, and the fact that this has not happened here suggests that it not useful enough as a distinct concept to lead to a change in language.

I would guess that is because either the phenomena offered in support of the suggestion are not general enough, or that they are so diverse that they have little else in common, or that the observation that organisms interact with their environment is so trivially and generally true that it goes without saying.

There is no right answer here - the underlying biology is the same regardless of how you describe it - and one could argue endlessly whether one or the other is the optimal way of looking at things, but I think actual usage is the ultimate answer to that question; the wisdom of the crowds (of biologists) will prevail.