A nearly neutral model of biodiversity

Ecology

Volumn 89, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 248-258

  Zhou, Shu Rong ^a,b   Zhang, Da Yong ^a  

^a BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b LANZHOU UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Coexistence; Competitive asymmetries; Dispersal limitation; Metacommunity; Nearly neutral model; Species diversity

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; BIODIVERSITY; COEXISTENCE; COMPETITIVE ABILITY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; FECUNDITY; SPECIES DIVERSITY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EVOLUTION; FERTILITY; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; POPULATION GROWTH; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; EVOLUTION; FERTILITY; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; POPULATION GROWTH; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 40449092822     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/06-1817.1     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Adler, P. B. 2004. Neutral models fail to reproduce observed species-area and species-time relationships in Kansas grasslands. Ecology 85:1265-1272.
2. Adler, P. B., J. HilleRisLambers, and J. M. Levine. 2007. A niche for neutrality. Ecology Letters 10:95-104.
3. Alonso, D., R. S. Etienne, and A. J. McKane. 2006. The merits of neutral theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:451-457.
4. Bell, G. 2000. The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. American Naturalist 155:606-617.
5. Bell, G. 2001. Neutral macroecology. Science 293:2413-2418.
6. Bell, G. 2003. The interpretation of biological surveys. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270:2531-2542.
7. Cardinale, B., D. S. Srivastava, J. M. Duffy, J. P. Wright, A. L. Downing, M. Sankaran, and C. Jouseau. 2006. Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:989-992.
8. Chase, J. M. 2005. Towards a really unified theory for metacommunities. Functional Ecology 19:182-186.
9. Chave, J. 2004. Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:241-253.
10. Chave, J., H. C. Muller-Landau, and S. A. Levin. 2002. Comparing classical community models: Theoretical consequences for patterns of diversity. American Naturalist 159:1-23.
11. Chesson, P. 2000. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:343-366.
12. Clark, J. S., and J. S. McLachlan. 2003. Stability of forest biodiversity. Nature 423:635-638.
13. Condit, R., et al. 2002. Beta-diversity in tropical forest trees. Science 295:666-669.
14. Enquist, B. J., J. Sanderson, and M. D. Weiser. 2002. Modeling macroscopic patterns in ecology. Science 295:1835-1836.
15. Etienne, R. S. 2005. A new sampling formula for neutral biodiversity. Ecology Letters 8:253-260.
16. Fargione, J., C. S. Brown, and D. Tilman. 2003. Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 100:8916-8920.
17. Fuentes, M. 2004. Slight differences among individuals and the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Theoretical Population Biology 66:199-203.
18. Gaston, K. J., and S. L. Chown. 2005. Neutrality and the niche. Functional Ecology 19:1-6.
19. Gewin, V. 2006. Beyond neutrality: ecology finds its niche. PLoS Biology 4:1306-1310.
20. Gilbert, B., W. K. Lauenroth, E. G. Leigh, Jr., and H. E. M. Nascimento. 2006. Can neutral theory predict the responses of Amazonian tree communities to forest fragmentation? American Naturalist 168:304-317.
21. Gilbert, B., and M. J. Lechowicz. 2004. Neutrality, niches, and dispersal in a temperate forest understory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 101:7651-7656.
22. Gravel, D. C. D., M. Beaudet Canham, and C. Messier. 2006. Reconciling niche and neutrality: the continuum hypothesis. Ecology Letters 9:399-409.
23. Harpole, W. S., and D. Tilman. 2006. Non-neutral patterns of species abundance in grassland communities. Ecology Letters 9:15-23.
24. Holt, R. D. 2004. Implications of system openness for local community structure and ecosystem function. Pages 96-114 in G. A. Polis, M. E. Power, and G. Huxel, editors. Foods webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
25. Holt, R. D. 2006. Emergent neutrality. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:531-533.
26. Holyoak, M., M. Loreau, and D. Strong. 2006. Neutral community ecology. Ecology 87:1368-1369.
27. Hu, X. S., F. L. He, and S. P. Hubbell. 2006. Neutral theory in macroecology and population genetics. Oikos 113:548-556.
28. Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
29. Hubbell, S. P. 2005. Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Functional Ecology 19:166-172.
30. Hubbell, S. P. 2006. Neutral theory and the evolution of ecological equivalence. Ecology 87:1387-1398.
31. Hurtt, G. C., and S. W. Pacala. 1995. The consequences of recruitment limitation: reconciling chance, history and competitive differences between plants. Journal of Theoretical Biology 176:1-12.
32. Huston, M. A. 1997. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449-460.
33. Hutchinson. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals? American Naturalist 104:501-528.
34. Kinzig, A., S. Pacala, and D. Tilman. 2002. The functional consequences of biodiversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
35. Leibold, M. A., and M. A. McPeek. 2006. Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology. Ecology 87:1399-1410.
36. Leigh, E. G., Jr., P. Davidar, C. W. Dick, J.-P. Puyravaud, J. Terborgh, H. ter Steege, and S. J. Wright. 2004. Why do some tropical forests have so many species of trees? Biotropica 36:447-473.
37. Loreau, M. 2004. Does functional redundancy exist? Oikos 104:606-611.
38. Loreau, M., and N. Mouquet. 1999. Immigration and the maintenance of local species diversity. American Naturalist 154:427-440.
39. Loreau, M., S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti. 2002. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
40. May, R. M. 1975. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. Pages 81-120 in M. L. Cody and J. M. Diamond, editors. Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
41. McGill, B. J. 2003. A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 422:881-885.
42. McGill, B. J., B. A. Maurer, and M. D. Weiser. 2006. Empirical evaluation of neutral theory. Ecology 87:1411-1423.
43. Nee, S. 2005. The neutral theory of biodiversity; do the numbers add up? Functional Ecology 19:173-176.
44. Norris, S. 2003. Neutral theory: a new, unified model for ecology. BioScience 53:124-129.
45. Ohta, T. 2002. Near-neutrality in evolution of genes and gene regulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 99:16134-16137.
46. Ohta, T., and J. H. Gillespie. 1996. Development of neutral and nearly neutral theories. Theoretical Population Biology 49:128-142.
47. Pacala, S. W., and D. Tilman. 1993. Limiting similarity in mechanistic and spatial models of plant competition in heterogeneous environments. American Naturalist 143:222-257.
48. Purves, D. W., and S. W. Pacala. 2005. Ecological drift in niche-structured communities: neutral patterns does not imply neutral process. Pages 107-138 in D. Burslem, M. A. Pinard, and S. E. Hartley, editors. Biotic interactions in the tropics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
49. Ricklefs, R. E. 2003. A comment on Hubbell's zero-sum ecological drift model. Oikos 100:185-192.
50. Ricklefs, R. E. 2006. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity: Do the numbers add up? Ecology 87:1424-1431.
51. Swaine, M. D., D. Lieberman, and F. E. Putz. 1987. The dynamics of tree populations in tropical forest: a review. Journal of Tropical Ecology 3:359-367.
52. Tilman, D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2-16.
53. Volkov, I., J. R. Banavar, F. He, S. P. Hubbell, and A. Maritan. 2005. Density dependence explains tree species abundance and diversity in tropical forests. Nature 438:658-661.
54. Volkov, I., J. R. Banavar, S. P. Hubbell, and A. Maritan. 2003. Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature 424:1035-1037.
55. Walker, S. C. 2007. When and why do non-neutral metacommunities appear neutral? Theoretical Population Biology 71:318-331.
56. Walker, S. C., and H. Cyr. 2007. Testing the standard neutral model of biodiversity in lake communities. Oikos 116:143-155.
57. Whitfield, J. 2002. Ecology: neutrality versus the niche. Nature 417:480-481.
58. Wootton, J. T. 2005. Field parameterization and experimental test of the neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 433:309-312.
59. Yu, D. W., J. W. Terborgh, and M. D. Potts. 1998. Can high tree species richness be explained by Hubbell's null model? Ecology Letters 1:193-199.
60. Zhang, D. Y., and K. Lin. 1997. The effects of competitive asymmetry on the rate of competitive displacement: how robust is Hubbell's community drift model? Journal of Theoretical Biology 188:361-367.
61. Zillio, T., and R. Condit. 2007. The impact of neutrality, niche differentiation and species input on diversity and abundance distributions. Oikos 116:931-940.