Abstract
We have demonstrated that information on relative species abundance (RSA) cannot, without additional information, be used to discriminate among biological explanations for different RSA patterns1; but Chave et al. claim that our conclusion is premature2. Here we show that their analysis was not carried out in a consistent manner and that density dependence gives an equally valid mechanistic explanation for RSA patterns in addition to, and independently of, dispersal limitation.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
18 May 2006
The y-axis in the top panel of Fig. 1 is now correctly labelled from 0 to 20, rather than from 0.9 to 1.3.
References
Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., He, F., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. Nature 438, 658–661 (2005).
Chave, J., Alonso, D. & Etienne, R. S. Nature 441, doi:10.1038/nature04826 (2006).
Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. Nature 424, 1035–1037 (2003).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Volkov, I., Banavar, J., He, F. et al. Comparing models of species abundance (Reply). Nature 441, E1–E2 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04827
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04827
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
