Skip to main content
Log in

The remarkable discreteness of being

  • Published:
Journal of Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Life is a discrete, stochastic phenomenon: for a biological organism, the time of the two most important events of its life (reproduction and death) is random and these events change the number of individuals of the species by single units. These facts can have surprising, counterintuitive consequences. I review here three examples where these facts play, or could play, important roles: the spatial distribution of species, the structuring of biodiversity and the (Darwinian) evolution of altruistic behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boomsma J, Beekman M, Cornwallis C, Griffin A, Holman L, Hughes W, Keller L, Oldroyd B and Ratnieks F 2011 Only full-sibling families evolved eusociality. Nature 471 E4–E5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butlin R, Galindo J and Grahame J 2008 Review. Sympatric, parapatric or allopatric: the most important way to classify speciation? Philos. Tras. R. Soc. London Ser. Biol. Sci. 363 2997–3007

  • Condit R, Pitman N, Leigh E, Chave J, Terborgh J, Foster R, Núñez P, Aguilar S, Valencia R, Villa G, Muller-Landau H, Losos E, et al. 2002 Beta diversity in tropical forest trees. Science 288 1414–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson C and Surette M 2008 Individuality in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Genet. 42 253–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugatkin LA 2006 The altruism eaquation: Seven scientists search for the origins of goodness (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrett R and S Levin 1994 The importance of being discrete (and spatial). Theor. Population Biol. 46 363–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Etienne R 2005 A new samping formula for biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 8 253–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewens W 2004 Mathematical population genetics volume I, 2nd edition (Springer-Verlag)

  • Fisher R 1999 The genetical theory of natural selection, a complete variorum edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster K, Shaulsky G, Strassmann J, Queller D and Thompson C 2004 Pleiotropy as a mechanism to stabilize cooperation. Nature 431 693–696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gore J, Youk H and van Oudenaarden A 2009 Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast. Nature 459 253–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould S and Lewontin R 1979 The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205 581–598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton W 1964a J The genetical evolution of social behaviour I. J. Theor. Biol. 7 1–16

  • Hamilton W 1964b The genetical evolution of social behaviour II . J. Theor. Biol. 7 17–52

  • Hanski I and Gaggiotti O 2004 Ecology, genetics and evolution of metapopulations (Academic Press)

  • Hanski I and Gilpin M 1997 Metapopulation Biology (Academic Press Inc)

  • Hardin G 1960 The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131 1292–1297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houchmandzadeh B 2002 Clustering of diffusing organisms. Phys. Rev. E 66 052902

    Google Scholar 

  • Houchmandzadeh B 2008 Neutral clustering in a simple experimental ecological community. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 078103

    Google Scholar 

  • Houchmandzadeh B 2009 Theory of neutral clustering for growing populations. Phys. Rev. E 80 051920

    Google Scholar 

  • Houchmandzadeh B and Mihalcescu I 2011 Fluctuations importance and control in biological systems. Europhys. News 42 36–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Houchmandzadeh B and Vallade M 2003 Analytical solution of a neutral model of biodiversity. Phys. Rev. E 68 061912

    Google Scholar 

  • Houchmandzadeh B and Vallade M 2010 Alternative to the diffusion equation in population genetics. Phys. Rev. E 82 051913

    Google Scholar 

  • Houchmandzadeh B and Vallade M 2012 Selection for altruism through random drift in variable size populations. BMC Evol. Biol. 12 61

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu X-S, He F and Hubbell S 2006 Neutral theory in macroecology and population. Oikos 113 548–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbel S 2001 The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

  • Jabot F and Chave J 2011 Analyzing tropical forest tree species abundance distributions using a nonneutral model and through approximate Bayesian inference. Am. Nat. 178 E37–E47

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessin R 2001 Dictyostelium: evolution, cell biology and the development of multicellularity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura M 1962 On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population. Genetics 47 713–719

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura M 1983 The neutral theory of molecular evolution (Cambridge University Press)

  • Lewontin R 1970 The units of selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. System. 1 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino M 2006 Biogeography (US: Sinauer Associates Inc)

  • MacArthur R and Wilson E 1963 An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17 373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH and Wilson EO 1967 The theory of island biogeography (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Malécot G 1948 Les mathématiques de l’hérédité (Paris: Masson)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E 1942 Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist (New York: Columbia University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • McGill B, Maurer B and Weiser M 2006 Empirical evaluation of neutral theory. Ecology 87 1411–1423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moran P 1962 The statistical processes of evolutionary theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

  • Novick A and Weiner M 1957 Enzyme induction as an all-or-none phenomenon. PNAS 43 553–566

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, MA (2006a) Evolutionary dynamics: Exploring the equations of life (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak M 2006b Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314 1560–1563

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak M, Tarnita C and Wilson E 2010 The evolution of eusociality. Nature 466 1057–1062

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley M 2007 Nature reviews. Microbiology 5 647–651

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Okubo A and Levin S 2002 Diffusion and ecological problems: Modern perspectives 2nd edition (Springer: New York)

  • Patwa Z and Wahl L 2008 The fixation probability of beneficial mutations. J. R. Soc. Interface 5 1279–1289

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Price G 1970 Selection and covariance. Nature 227 520–521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosindell J, Hubbell S and Etienne R 2011 The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26 340–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Strassmann J, Page R, Robinson G and Seeley T 2011 Kin selection and eusociality. Nature 471 E5–E6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor L, Woiwod I and Perry J 1978 The density dependence of spatial behaviour and the rarity of randomness. J. Anim. Ecol. 47 383–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traulsen A, Sengupta A and Nowak M 2005 Stochastic evolutionary dynamics on two levels. J. Theor. Biol. 235 393–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallade M and Houchmandzadeh B 2003 Analytical solution of a neutral model of biodiversity. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 68 61902

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallade M and Houchmandzadeh B 2006 Species abundance distribution and population dynamics in a two-community model of neutral ecology. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 74 51914

    Google Scholar 

  • Visick K and Ruby E 2006 Vibrio fischeri and its host: it takes two to tango. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 9 632–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkov I, Banavar J, Hubbell S and Maritan A 2003 Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature 424 1035–1037

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West S and Buckling A 2003 Cooperation, virulence and siderophore production in bacterial parasites. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270 37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams G 1966 Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press)

  • Williamson M, Gaston K and Lonsdale W 2008 The species–area relationship does not have an asymptote! J. Biogeogr. 28 827–830

    Google Scholar 

  • Young W, Roberts A and Stuhne G 2001 Reproductive pair correlations and the clustering of organisms. Nature 412 328–331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bahram Houchmandzadeh.

Additional information

[Houchmandzadeh B 2014 The remarkable discreteness of being. J. Biosci. 39 1–10] DOI 10.1007/s12038-013-9350-7

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Stochastic modelling

A deterministic behaviour is perfectly predictable: knowing that at time t a system (for example, a projectile) is in a state x (from example, its position), we know its position x′ + x at a time t + t′. This knowledge is modelled by a function x ′ = f(x, t, t ′) and completely characterizes the temporal dynamics of this particular system. For many laws, it is sufficient to know the function f for a very short (infinitesimal) time increment t′, dt. The evolution of the system for the small increment x′ = dx is then often obtained as dx = f (x, t)dt and is called a differential equation. It is enough to add these short increments to determine the state of the system for any long time.

A stochastic behaviour is only partially predictable: knowing the system is in a state x at time t, we cannot predict its state at a later time t + t′; but we can only give a probability P(x′) that it will be at x + x′ at this time. The function P(x′) can be experimentally measured by making a large number of measurement: let N similar systems at time t be in the state x, and we measure their state x + x′ at time t + t′, then make a normalized histogram of all this measurements, which is a function P(x ′ |x, t, t ′). Again, if we know this function for very short time t′, we can know the probability function for longer times by summing up the short-term evolution. This is, for example, how meteorology works: knowing the evolution of probabilities on time scales of seconds, we can predict that, for example, there is 70% chance that tomorrow will be rainy and 30% that it will be sunny.

For many stochastic systems (called Markov chains), it is enough to know the temporal evolution of probabilities for infinitesimal time increments t′ = dt, written as

$$ P\left(x^{\prime}\left|x,t, dt\right.\right)=W\left(x^{\prime}\left|x,t\right.\right) dt $$

where the function W is called the transition rate. Equations (2), (3) and (4), and (8) and (9) are examples of such transition rates. W ±(n) are shorthand for W(±1|n), i.e. the probability (per unit of time) that the system (here number of individuals of a given type) will be in state n + 1 at time t + dt, knowing that it is in state n at time t. The knowledge of these short time transition rates allows for the determination of probabilities at long times, through an evolution equation called the Master equation when the states are discrete.

It not always easy to solve a Master equation. A crude approximation, called mean field, is to write a deterministic equation for the evolution of the mean increment 〈dx〉 during a short time dt, in the form of

$$ \left\langle dx\right\rangle =f\left(x,t\right) dt $$

and then use deterministic procedure to predict the mean state of the system at long times. The function f(x,t) is readily obtained from the transition rates W(x′|x,t). Mean field approximation can be useful or misleading, depending on the stochastic nature of the system.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Houchmandzadeh, B. The remarkable discreteness of being. J Biosci 39, 249–258 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-013-9350-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-013-9350-7

Keywords

Navigation