Premium
Scaling issues of neutral theory reveal violations of ecological equivalence for dominant Amazonian tree species
Author(s) -
Pos Edwin,
Guevara Juan Ernesto,
Molino JeanFrançois,
Sabatier Daniel,
Bánki Olaf S.,
Pitman Nigel C.A.,
Mogollón Hugo F.,
GarcíaVillacorta Roosevelt,
Neill David,
Phillips Oliver L.,
Cerón Carlos,
Ríos Paredes Marcos,
Núñez Vargas Percy,
Dávila Nállarett,
Fiore Anthony Di,
RivasTorres Gonzalo,
ThomasCaesar Raquel,
Vriesendorp Corine,
Young Kenneth R.,
Tirado Milton,
Wang Ophelia,
Sierra Rodrigo,
Mesones Italo,
Zagt Roderick,
Vasquez Rodolfo,
Ahuite Reategui Manuel A.,
Palacios Cuenca Walter,
Valderrama Sandoval Elvis H.,
ter Steege Hans
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
ecology letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.852
H-Index - 265
eISSN - 1461-0248
pISSN - 1461-023X
DOI - 10.1111/ele.13264
Subject(s) - neutral theory of molecular evolution , amazonian , ecology , dominance (genetics) , niche , null model , spatial ecology , scaling , biology , mathematics , amazon rainforest , biochemistry , gene , geometry
Abstract Neutral models are often used as null models, testing the relative importance of niche versus neutral processes in shaping diversity. Most versions, however, focus only on regional scale predictions and neglect local level contributions. Recently, a new formulation of spatial neutral theory was published showing an incompatibility between regional and local scale fits where especially the number of rare species was dramatically under‐predicted. Using a forward in time semi‐spatially explicit neutral model and a unique large‐scale Amazonian tree inventory data set, we show that neutral theory not only underestimates the number of rare species but also fails in predicting the excessive dominance of species on both regional and local levels. We show that although there are clear relationships between species composition, spatial and environmental distances, there is also a clear differentiation between species able to attain dominance with and without restriction to specific habitats. We conclude therefore that the apparent dominance of these species is real, and that their excessive abundance can be attributed to fitness differences in different ways, a clear violation of the ecological equivalence assumption of neutral theory.