Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T11:22:17.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography and Stephen Jay Gould

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Stephen P. Hubbell
Stephen P. Hubbell*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Unit 0948, APO AA 34002-0948. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Neutral theory in ecology is based on the symmetry assumption that ecologically similar species in a community can be treated as demographically equivalent on a per capita basis—equivalent in birth and death rates, in rates of dispersal, and even in the probability of speciating. Although only a first approximation, the symmetry assumption allows the development of a quantitative neutral theory of relative species abundance and dynamic null hypotheses for the assembly of communities in ecological time and for phylogeny and phylogeography in evolutionary time. Although Steve Gould was not a neutralist, he made use of ideas of symmetry and of null models in his science, both of which are fundamental to neutral theory in ecology. Here I give a brief overview of the current status of neural theory in ecology and phylogeny and, where relevant, connect these newer ideas to Gould's work. In particular, I focus on modes of speciation under neutrality, particularly peripheral isolate speciation, and their implications for relative species abundance and species life spans. Gould was one of the pioneers in the study of neutral models of phylogeny, but the modern theory suggests that at least some of the conclusions from these early neutral models were premature. Modern neutral theory is a remarkably rich source of new ideas to test in ecology and paleobiology, the potential of which has only begun to be realized.

Type
Generating Diversity
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 31 , Issue S2 , 2005 , pp. 122 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Bell, G. 2000. The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. American Naturalist 155:606–617.Google Scholar
Bell, G. 2001. Neutral macroecology. Science 201:2413–2417.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. B., Grenier, J. K., and Weatherbee, S. D. 2001. From DNA to diversity: molecular genetics and the evolution of animal design. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Chase, J. M., and Leibold, M. A. 2003. Ecological niches: lining classical and contemporary approaches. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Chave, J. 2004. Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:241–253.Google Scholar
Coyne, J. A., and Orr, H. A. 2004. Speciation. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Davidson, E. 2001. Genomic regulatory systems. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Pp. 82–115in Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Gould, S. J. 1988. Punctuated equilibrium prevails. Nature 332:211–212.Google Scholar
Etienne, R. S., and Olff, H. 2004. A novel genealogical approach to neutral biodiversity theory. Ecology Letters 7:170–175.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., Corbet, A. S., and Williams, C. B. 1943. The relation between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. Journal of Animal Ecology 12:42–58.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1981. The mismeasure of man. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., Raup, D. M., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1977. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology 3:23–40.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. D. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Houchmandzadeh, B., and Vallade, M. 2003. Clustering in neutral ecology. Physical Review E 68:Art. No. 061912.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001a. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001b. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography: a synopsis of the theory and some challenges ahead. Pp. 393–411in Silvertown, J. and Antonovics, J., eds. Integrating ecology and evolution in a spatial context. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2003. Modes of speciation and the lifespans of species under neutrality: a response to the comment of Robert E. Ricklefs. Oikos 100:193–199.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2005. Neutral theory in ecology and the evolution of functional equivalence. Ecology (in press).Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P., and Lake, J. 2003. The neutral theory of biogeography and biodiversity: and beyond. Pp. 45–63in Blackburn, T. and Gaston, K., eds. Macroecology: concepts and consequences. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P., and Borda-de-Água, L. 2004. The unified neutral theory of biogeography and biogeography: reply. Ecology 85:3175–3178.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1995. Extinctions in the fossil record. Pp. 25–44in Lawton, J. H. and May, R. M., eds. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2001. Lesson from the past: evolutionary impacts of mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:5393–5398.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2002. Survival without recovery after mass extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:8139–8144.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Roy, K. 2003. Geographical ranges and speciation in fossil and living molluscs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270:401–406.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C. 1995. Constancy and change in the life of the sea. Pp. 45–54in Lawton, J. H. and May, R. M., eds. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2001. Preservation of species abundance in marine death assemblages. Science 294:1091–1094.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O. 1963. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373–387.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McKane, A. J., Alonso, D., and Sole, R. V. 2004. Analytic solution of Hubbell's model of local community dynamics. Theoretical Population Biology 65:67–73.Google Scholar
Nee, S., May, R. M., and Harvey, P. H. 1994. The reconstructed evolutionary process. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 344:305–311.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. F., and Holland, S. M. 1997. Patterns of turnover in Middle to Upper Ordovician brachiopods of the eastern United States: a test of coordinated stasis. Paleobiology 23:420–443.Google Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1948. The commonness, and rarity, of species. Ecology 29:254–283.Google Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1960. Time and space variation of species. Ecology 41:611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology 81:525–542.Google Scholar
Richter-Dyn, N., and Goel, S. S. 1972. On the extinction of a colonizing species. Theoretical Population Biology 3:406–433.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. 2003. A comment on Hubbell's zero-sum ecological drift model. Oikos 100:187–193.Google Scholar
Yule, G. U. 1925. A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr. J. C. Willis, F. R. S. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 213:21–87.Google Scholar
Vallade, M., and Houchmandzadeh, B. 2003. Analytical solution of a neutral model of biodiversity. Physical Review E 68:Art. No. 061902.Google Scholar
Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., Hubbell, S. P., and Maritan, A. 2003. Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature 424:1035–1037.Google Scholar