The case for ecological neutral theory

  • James Rosindell*
  • , Stephen P. Hubbell
  • , Fangliang He
  • , Luke J. Harmon
  • , Rampal S. Etienne
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

251 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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)203-208
Number of pages6
JournalTrends in Ecology and Evolution
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The case for ecological neutral theory'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this