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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity
Huston, M. (1979) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283366 · Cited by 3,390
Cited by
Computational Improvements Reveal Great Bacterial Diversity and High Metal Toxicity in Soil
Gans, J., Wolinsky, M., & Dunbar, J. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1112665 · Cited by 1,207
Metadata
- Authors
- Hughes, R. G.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- 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.