The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A niche for neutrality
Open accessAbstract
Ecologists now recognize that controversy over the relative importance of niches and neutrality cannot be resolved by analyzing species abundance patterns. Here, we use classical coexistence theory to reframe the debate in terms of stabilizing mechanisms (niches) and fitness equivalence (neutrality). The neutral model is a special case where stabilizing mechanisms are absent and species have equivalent fitness. Instead of asking whether niches or neutral processes structure communities, we advocate determining the degree to which observed diversity reflects strong stabilizing mechanisms overcoming large fitness differences or weak stabilization operating on species of similar fitness. To answer this question, we propose combining data on per capita growth rates with models to: (i) quantify the strength of stabilizing processes; (ii) quantify fitness inequality and compare it with stabilization; and (iii) manipulate frequency dependence in growth to test the consequences of stabilization and fitness equivalence for coexistence.
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
Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity
Chesson, P. (2000) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343 · Cited by 6,645
Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems.
Tilman, D., Wedin, D., & Knops, J. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/379718a0 · Cited by 2,803
Perturbation Experiments in Community Ecology: Theory and Practice
Bender, E. A., Case, T. J., & Gilpin, M. E. (1984) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1939452 · Cited by 1,245
Cited by
Rethinking Community Assembly through the Lens of Coexistence Theory
HilleRisLambers, J., Adler, P. B., Harpole, W. S., Levine, J. M., & Mayfield, M. M. (2012) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160411 · Cited by 1,448
Self-citationApplication of a Neutral Community Model To Assess Structuring of the Human Lung Microbiome
Venkataraman, A., Bassis, C. M., Beck, J. M., Young, V. B., Curtis, J. L., Huffnagle, G. B., & Schmidt, T. M. (2015) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.02284-14 · Cited by 428
The geography and ecology of plant speciation: range overlap and niche divergence in sister species
Anacker, B. L., & Strauss, S. Y. (2014) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2980 · Cited by 307
Successional dynamics in Neotropical forests are as uncertain as they are predictable
Norden, N., Angarita, H. A., Bongers, F., Martínez-Ramos, M., Granzow-de la Cerda, I., van Breugel, M., Lebrija-Trejos, E., Meave, J. A., Vandermeer, J., Williamson, G. B., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1500403112 · Cited by 293
Understanding the value of plant diversity for ecosystem functioning through niche theory
Turnbull, L. A., Isbell, F., Purves, D. W., Loreau, M., & Hector, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0536 · Cited by 149
Metadata
- Authors
- Adler, P. B., HilleRisLambers, J., & Levine, J. M.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 95-104
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2162474783
- Cited by
- 1,059
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 17.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.
