Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 229–240 | Cite as

Effects of predation and variation in species relative abundance on the parameters of neutral models

  • M. M. FullerEmail author
  • T. N. Romanuk
  • J. Kolasa
Article

Abstract

Hubbell (2001) proposes that random demographic processes (i.e., neutral dynamics) can explain observed levels of variation in the richness and abundance of species within and among communities. Hubbell’s neutral models have drawn attention because they reproduce several characteristic features of natural communities. But neutral models are criticized for ignoring nonrandom processes known to cause species densities to fluctuate. We parameterized neutral models using the population counts of 64 species of aquatic invertebrates collected from 49 discrete rock pools over a 13 year period. We used Hubbell ‘s numerical modeling approach to evaluate the effect of natural population fluctuations on the parameter settings. We also analyzed the effect of observed variation on the species proportional abundance predicted by neutral models. We find that observed levels of variation in abundance are much higher than predicted by neutral models, forcing estimates of the migration probability, m, and fundamental biodiversity parameter, θ, to fluctuate over time. Much of the observed variation is mediated by predator-prey interactions. Low predator densities are associated with fewer species and less even relative abundances of species, resulting in lower estimates of m and θ compared to periods of high predator densities. Our results show that by assuming an identical survival probability for all species, neutral models misrepresent substantial aspects of community dynamics.

Keywords

Aquatic invertebrates Community structure Metacommunity dynamics Neutral theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Allen, A.P., Li, B.-L. and Charnov, E.L. 2001. Population fluctuations, power laws and mixtures of lognormal distributions. Ecology Letters 4:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, G. 2000. The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. American Naturalist 155:606–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, G. 2001. Neutral macroecology. Science 293:2413–2418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohannan, B.J.M., and R.E. Lenski. 2000. The relative importance of competition and predation varies with productivity in a model community. American Naturalist 156:329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J.H., M.S.K. Ernest, J.M. Parody and J.P. Haskell. 2001. Regulation of diversity: maintenance of species richness in changing environments. Oecologia 126:321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caswell, H. 1976. Community structure: a neutral model analysis. Ecological Monographs 46:327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chase, J.M. 2005. Towards a really unified theory for metacommunities. Functional Ecology 19:182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chave, J.H. 2004. Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, J.S. and J.S. McLachlan. 2003. Stability of forest biodiversity. Nature 423:635–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Condit, R., P.S. Ashton, P. Baker, S. Bunyavejchewin, S. Gunatilleke, N. Gunatilleke, S.P. Hubbell, R.B. Foster, A. Itoh, J.V. LaFrankie, H.S. Lee, E. Losos, N. Manokaran, R. Sukumar and T. Yamakura. 2000. Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288:1414–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Condit, R., N. Pitman, E.G. Leigh, J. Chave, J. Terborgh, R. B. Foster, P. Nunez, S. Aguilar, R. Valencia, G. Villa, H. C. Muller-Landau, E. Losos and S.P. Hubbell. 2002. Beta-diversity in tropical forest trees. Science 295:666–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornell, H.V. and J.H. Lawton. 1992. Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities a theoretical perspective. J. Animal Ecology 61:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gotelli, N.J. and G.R. Graves. 1996. Null Models in Ecology. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  15. Hairston, N.G., F.E. Smith and L.R. Slobodkin. 1960. Community structure, population control, and competition. American Naturalist 89:421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hubbell, S.P. 2001. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  17. Hubbell, S.P. and R.B. Foster. 1986. Biology, chance, and history and the structure of tropical rain forest tree communities. In: J. Diamond and T. J. Case (eds.), Community Ecology. Harper and Row, New York. pp. 314–329.Google Scholar
  18. Kolasa, J., J.A. Drake, G.R. Huxel and C.L. Hewitt. 1996. Hierarchy underlies patterns of variability in species inhabiting natural microcosms. Oikos 77:259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolasa, J. and B.-L. Li. 2003. Removing the confounding effect of habitat specialization reveals stabilizing contribution of diversity to species variability. Biology Letters 270:198–201.Google Scholar
  20. McGill, B.J. 2003. A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 422:881–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menge, B.A. 1976. Organization of the New England rocky intertidal community: role of predation, competition, and environmental heterogeneity. Ecological Monographs 46:355–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morin, P.J. 1983. Predation, competition, and the composition of larval anuran guilds. Ecological Monographs 53:119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mouquet, N., G.S.E.E. Mulder, V.A.A. Jansen and M. Loreau. 2001. The properties of competitive communities with coupled local and regional dynamics. In: J. Clobert, E. Danchin, A.A. Dhondt and J.D. Nichols (eds.), Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 311–326.Google Scholar
  24. Paine, R.T. 1974. Intertidal community structure: experimental studies on the relationship between a dominant competitor and its principal predator. Oecologia 15:93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Rice, J.A. 1995. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, 2nd edition. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Romanuk, T.N. and J. Kolasa. 2002. Environmental variability alters the relationship between richness and variability of community abundances in aquatic rock pool microcosms. EcoScience 9:55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roughgarden, J. and J. Diamond. 1986. Overview: the role of species interactions in community ecology. In: J. Diamond and T. J. Case (eds.), Community Ecology. Harper and Row, New York. pp. 333–343.Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, L.R. 1961. Aggregation, variance, and the mean. Nature 189:732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Therriault, T.W. and J. Kolasa. 1999. Physical determinants of richness, diversity, evenness and abundance in natural aquatic microcosms. Hydrobiologia 412:123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thorp, J.H. and A.P. Covich. 2001. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  33. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  34. Volkov, I., Banavar, J.R., Hubbell, S.P., and A. Maritan. 2003. Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature 424:1035–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waltho, N. and J. Kolasa. 1994 Organization of instabilities in multispecies systems: a test of hierarchy theory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:1682–1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wellborn, G.A., D.K. Skelly and E.E. Werner. 1996. Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Sys. 27:337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2005

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Department of BiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  5. 5.Pacific Ecoinformatics and Computational Ecology LabBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations