The case for ecological neutral theory

James Rosindell; Stephen P. Hubbell; Fangliang He; Luke J. Harmon; Rampal S. Etienne

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004

The case for ecological neutral theory

James Rosindell^*
, Stephen P. Hubbell
, Fangliang He
, Luke J. Harmon
, Rampal S. Etienne

^*Corresponding author for this work

University of Leeds
University of Idaho
Imperial College London
University of California at Los Angeles
Smithsonian Institution
University of Alberta
Sun Yat-Sen University
University of Groningen

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

252 Scopus citations

Abstract

Ecological neutral theory has elicited strong opinions in recent years. Here, we review these opinions and strip away some unfortunate problems with semantics to reveal three major underlying questions. Only one of these relates to neutral theory and the importance of ecological drift, whereas the others involve the link between pattern and process, the tradeoff between simplicity and complexity in modeling, and the role of stochasticity and drift in ecology. We explain how neutral theory cannot be simultaneously used both as a null hypothesis and as an approximation. However, we also show how neutral theory always has a valuable use in one of these two roles, even though the real world is not neutral.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	203-208
Number of pages	6
Journal	Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Volume	27
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004
State	Published - Apr 2012
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004

Cite this

@article{e2cea72cb2e34eb6ba2325807f6decf1,

title = "The case for ecological neutral theory",

abstract = "Ecological neutral theory has elicited strong opinions in recent years. Here, we review these opinions and strip away some unfortunate problems with semantics to reveal three major underlying questions. Only one of these relates to neutral theory and the importance of ecological drift, whereas the others involve the link between pattern and process, the tradeoff between simplicity and complexity in modeling, and the role of stochasticity and drift in ecology. We explain how neutral theory cannot be simultaneously used both as a null hypothesis and as an approximation. However, we also show how neutral theory always has a valuable use in one of these two roles, even though the real world is not neutral.",

author = "James Rosindell and Hubbell, \{Stephen P.\} and Fangliang He and Harmon, \{Luke J.\} and Etienne, \{Rampal S.\}",

year = "2012",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004",

language = "英语",

volume = "27",

pages = "203--208",

journal = "Trends in Ecology and Evolution",

issn = "0169-5347",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The case for ecological neutral theory

AU - Rosindell, James

AU - Hubbell, Stephen P.

AU - He, Fangliang

AU - Harmon, Luke J.

AU - Etienne, Rampal S.

PY - 2012/4

Y1 - 2012/4

N2 - Ecological neutral theory has elicited strong opinions in recent years. Here, we review these opinions and strip away some unfortunate problems with semantics to reveal three major underlying questions. Only one of these relates to neutral theory and the importance of ecological drift, whereas the others involve the link between pattern and process, the tradeoff between simplicity and complexity in modeling, and the role of stochasticity and drift in ecology. We explain how neutral theory cannot be simultaneously used both as a null hypothesis and as an approximation. However, we also show how neutral theory always has a valuable use in one of these two roles, even though the real world is not neutral.

AB - Ecological neutral theory has elicited strong opinions in recent years. Here, we review these opinions and strip away some unfortunate problems with semantics to reveal three major underlying questions. Only one of these relates to neutral theory and the importance of ecological drift, whereas the others involve the link between pattern and process, the tradeoff between simplicity and complexity in modeling, and the role of stochasticity and drift in ecology. We explain how neutral theory cannot be simultaneously used both as a null hypothesis and as an approximation. However, we also show how neutral theory always has a valuable use in one of these two roles, even though the real world is not neutral.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84858623494

U2 - 10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004

DO - 10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004

M3 - 文献综述

C2 - 22341498

AN - SCOPUS:84858623494

SN - 0169-5347

VL - 27

SP - 203

EP - 208

JO - Trends in Ecology and Evolution

JF - Trends in Ecology and Evolution

IS - 4

ER -

The case for ecological neutral theory

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this