A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity

One of the fundamental questions of ecology is what controls biodiversity. Recent theory suggests that biodiversity is controlled predominantly by neutral drift of species abundances. This theory has generated considerable controversy, because it claims that many mechanisms that have long been studied by ecologists (such as niches) have little involvement in structuring communities. The theory predicts that the species abundance distribution within a community should follow a zero-sum multinomial distribution (ZSM), but this has not, so far, been rigorously tested. Specifically, it remains to be shown that the ZSM fits the data significantly better than reasonable null models. Here I test whether the ZSM fits several empirical data sets better than the lognormal distribution. It does not. Not only does the ZSM fail to fit empirical data better than the lognormal distribution 95% of the time, it also fails to fit empirical data better even a majority of the time. This means that there is no evidence that the ZSM predicts abundances better than the much more parsimonious null hypothesis.

[1]  J. Diamond,et al.  Ecology and Evolution of Communities , 1976, Nature.

[2]  Stephen P. Hubbell,et al.  Tree Dispersion, Abundance, and Diversity in a Tropical Dry Forest , 1979, Science.

[3]  D. Bystrak,et al.  The north american breeding bird survey. , 1981 .

[4]  G. Grimmett,et al.  Probability and random processes , 2002 .

[5]  M. Kimura.  The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution: Introduction , 1983 .

[6]  C. S. Robbins,et al.  The breeding bird survey , 1986 .

[7]  C. S. Robbins,et al.  The Breeding Bird Survey: Its First Fifteen Years, 1965-1979 , 1987 .

[8]  Mutsunori Tokeshi,et al.  Species Abundance Patterns and Community Structure , 1993 .

[9]  J. Terborgh,et al.  Tropical Tree Communities: A Test of the Nonequilibrium Hypothesis , 1995 .

[10]  Sam Droege,et al.  The Summer Atlas of North American Birds , 1995 .

[11]  W. Link,et al.  The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis , 1997 .

[12]  Potts,et al.  Can high tree species richness be explained by Hubbell’s null model? , 1998 .

[13]  William F. Laurance,et al.  RAIN FOREST FRAGMENTATION AND THE DYNAMICS OF AMAZONIAN TREE COMMUNITIES , 1998 .

[14]  R. Freckleton,et al.  The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data , 1999 .

[15]  Kinzig,et al.  Self-similarity in the distribution and abundance of species , 1999, Science.

[16]  K. Gaston,et al.  Pattern and Process in Macroecology , 2000 .

[17]  A K Dewdney,et al.  A dynamical model of communities and a new species-abundance distribution. , 2000, The Biological bulletin.

[18]  T. Jukes,et al.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution. , 2000, Genetics.

[19]  D. Burslem,et al.  Short‐term effects of cyclone impact and long‐term recovery of tropical rain forest on Kolombangara, Solomon Islands , 2000 .

[20]  Richard Condit,et al.  Floristic composition across a climatic gradient in a neotropical lowland forest , 2001 .

[21]  G. Bell.  Neutral macroecology. , 2001, Science.

[22]  Peter A. Abrams,et al.  A world without competition , 2001, Nature.

[23]  C. Mazancourt.  Consequences of Community Drift , 2001 .

[24]  B. Enquist,et al.  Modeling Macroscopic Patterns in Ecology , 2002, Science.

[25]  A. Clarke.  Macroecology comes of age , 2002 .

[26]  Stephen P. Hubbell,et al.  Beta-Diversity in Tropical Forest Trees , 2002, Science.

[27]  Species diversity and relative abundance in metacommunities , 2002 .

[28]  Brian J. McGill,et al.  Strong and weak tests of macroecological theory , 2003 .