The case for ecological neutral theory

dc.contributor.authorRosindell, James
dc.contributor.authorHubbell, Stephen P.
dc.contributor.authorHe, Fangliang
dc.contributor.authorHarmon, Luke J.
dc.contributor.authorEtienne, Rampal S.
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-03T13:37:26Z
dc.date.available2012-07-03T13:37:26Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.description.abstractEcological 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.
dc.format.extent203–208
dc.identifier0169-5347
dc.identifier.citationRosindell, James, Hubbell, Stephen P., He, Fangliang, Harmon, Luke J., and Etienne, Rampal S. 2012. "<a href="https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/18581">The case for ecological neutral theory</a>." <em>Trends in Ecology & Evolution</em>, 27, (4) 203–208. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004</a>.
dc.identifier.issn0169-5347
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10088/18581
dc.relation.ispartofTrends in Ecology & Evolution 27 (4)
dc.titleThe case for ecological neutral theory
dc.typearticle
sro.description.unitSTRI
sro.identifier.doi10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.004
sro.identifier.itemID110216
sro.identifier.refworksID77175
sro.identifier.urlhttps://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/18581

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
stri_Rosindell_et_al_2012.pdf
Size:
206.37 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format