Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity

Nature volume 422, pages 881–885 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

One of the fundamental questions of ecology is what controls biodiversity. Recent theory suggests that biodiversity is controlled predominantly by neutral drift of species abundances1,2,3,4. This theory has generated considerable controversy5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, because it claims that many mechanisms that have long been studied by ecologists (such as niches) have little involvement in structuring communities. The theory predicts that the species abundance distribution within a community should follow a zero-sum multinomial distribution (ZSM), but this has not, so far, been rigorously tested. Specifically, it remains to be shown that the ZSM fits the data significantly better than reasonable null models. Here I test whether the ZSM fits several empirical data sets better than the lognormal distribution. It does not. Not only does the ZSM fail to fit empirical data better than the lognormal distribution 95% of the time, it also fails to fit empirical data better even a majority of the time. This means that there is no evidence that the ZSM predicts abundances better than the much more parsimonious null hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Approach to equilibrium of a local community.
Figure 2: Deviations from observed abundances depends on the stopping rule.
Figure 3: Comparing the fitted and actual BCI data.

References

  1. Hubbell, S. P. A Unified Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hubbell, S. P. Tree dispersion, abundance and diversity in a tropical dry forest. Science 203, 1299–1309 (1979)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hubbell, S. P. & Foster, R. B. in Community Ecology (eds Diamond, J. & Case, T.) 314–328 (Harper & Row, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bell, G. Neutral macroecology. Science 293, 2413–2418 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. de Mazancourt, C. Consequences of community drift. Science 293, 1772 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Enquist, B. J., Sanderson, J. & Weiser, M. D. Modeling macroscopic patterns in ecology. Science 295, 1835–1837 (2002)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Levine, J. M. Species diversity and relative abundance in metacommunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 99–100 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Abrams, P. A. A world without competition. Nature 412, 858–859 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark, A. Macroecology comes of age. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 352–353 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Condit, R. et al. Beta-diversity in tropical forest trees. Science 295, 666–669 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Terborgh, J., Foster, R. B. & Nunez, P. V. Tropical tree communities: a test of the nonequilibrium hypothesis. Ecology 77, 561–567 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yu, D. W., Terborgh, J. & Potts, M. D. Can high tree species richness be explained by Hubbell's null model? Ecol. Lett. 1, 193–199 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Price, J., Droege, S. & Price, A. The Summer Atlas of North American Birds (Academic, San Diego, 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robbins, C. S., Bystrak, D. & Geissler, P. H. The Breeding Bird Survey: Its First Fifteen Years, 1965–1979 (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC, 1986)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sauer, J. R., Hines, J. E. & Fallon, J. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2000 Version 2001.2 (USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, 2001); available at 〈ftp://pwrcftpr.er.usgs.gov/mp/bbs/DataFiles/〉

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pyke, C. R., Condit, R., Aguilar, S. & Lao, S. Floristic composition across a climatic gradient in a neotropical lowland forest. J. Veg. Sci. 12, 553–566 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Burslem, D., Whitmore, T. & Brown, G. Short-term effects of cyclone impact and long-term recovery of tropical rain forest on Kolombangara, Solomon Islands. J. Ecol. 88, 1063–1078 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Laurance, W., Ferreira, L., Rankin-De Merona, J. & Laurance, S. Rain forest fragmentation and the dynamics of Amazonian tree communities. Ecology 79, 2032–2040 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaston, K. J. & Blackburn, T. M. Pattern and Process in Macroecology (Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, 2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Tokeshi, M. Species abundance patterns and community structure. Adv. Ecol. Res. 24, 111–186 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pielou, E. C. Mathematical Ecology (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Harte, J., Kinzig, A. P. & Green, J. Self-similarity in the distribution and abundance of species. Science 284, 334–336 (1999)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dewdney, A. K. A dynamical model of communities and a new species-abundance distribution. Biol. Bull. 198, 152–165 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kimura, M. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1983)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. McGill, B. J. Strong and weak tests of macroecological theory. Oikos (in the press)

  26. Grimmett, G. R. & Stirzaker, D. R. Probability and Random Processes (Clarendon, Oxford, UK, 1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. May, R. M. in Ecology and Evolution of Communities (eds Cody, M. L. & Diamond, J. M.) 81–120 (Belknap, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hilborn, R. & Mangel, M. The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data (eds Levin, S. A. & Horn, H. S.) (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank the numerous volunteers who spent many hours collecting the BBS data, and the professionals at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, who have put the data into an accessible, high-quality format, as well as those who collected and published the enormously valuable BCI data set. I also thank M. Rosenzweig, B. Enquist and the students in their laboratories for stimulating my thinking in this area. The National Science Foundation provided funding for this research. B. Walsh was a useful sounding board on statistics. Finally, I thank S. Marx, M. Weiser, D. Faulk and W. Turner for suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper, especially M. Weiser for his clarity on the importance of stopping rules, and S. Marx for greatly increasing the clarity of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721, USA

    Brian J. McGill

Authors
  1. Brian J. McGill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian J. McGill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGill, B. A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 422, 881–885 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01583

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01583

This article is cited by

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.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing