Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 180

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Theories and Models of Species Abundance

Hughes, R. G.·1986·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Three theories of explanation for the observed patterns of species abundance in samples from animal and plant communities are reviewed. These are the nichepreemption hypothesis associated with the log-series distribution, the theory based on the central-limit theorem to explain the truncated lognormal distribution, and the explanations associated with a recently published model of community dynamics. The relative performance of the log-series, lognormal, and dynamics models in predicting the species abundance in 222 samples from a wide range of communities is examined. The log-series provides the best prediction of only 4% of the samples, because there were either too few rare species or, more usually, the common species were too abundant. Only 28% of samples, those with a mode in the species-abundance distribution, may be described by a truncated lognormal, but even in these cases the lognormal parameters cannot reasonably be used to predict the abundance of species in the whole community. The species abundance in 94% of the samples may be explained by one of the predictions of the dynamics model. For most samples, the model predicts a concave dominance-diversity curve with a large number of rare species, but indicates that there may be a smaller proportion of rare species in communities where population growth is less restricted by competition or mortality. It is concluded that the theories associated with the log-series and lognormal models, which have been criticized previously for a lack of ecological realism, provide unsatisfactory explanations for species abundance because they are conceptually unsound and the models on which they are based rarely provide a satisfactory description of samples. This conclusion undermines the use of the diversity index $\alpha$ associated with these models. The dynamics model predicts the species-abundance pattern of most samples with greater accuracy and provides an explanation of species abundance based on recognized and testable ecological principles.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/284611

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Metadata

Authors
Hughes, R. G.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
1986-12
Volume
128
Issue
6
Pages
879-899
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W1996796956
Cited by
180
References
1
FWCI
3.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Theories and Models of Species Abundance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284611
The paper
Hughes, R. G. (1986). Theories and Models of Species Abundance. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284611

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.