Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 433–442 | Cite as

The impact of species-neutral stage structure on macroecological patterns

  • Rafael D’AndreaEmail author
  • James P. O’Dwyer


Despite its radical assumption of ecological equivalence between species, neutral biodiversity theory can often provide good fits to species abundance distributions observed in nature. Major criticisms of neutral theory have focused on interspecific differences, which are in conflict with ecological equivalence. However, neutrality in nature is also broken by differences between conspecific individuals at different life stages, which in many communities may vastly exceed interspecific differences between individuals at similar stages. These within-species asymmetries have not been fully explored in species-neutral models, and it is not known whether demographic stage structure affects macroecological patterns in neutral theory. Here, we present a two-stage neutral model where fecundity and mortality change as an individual transitions from one stage to the other. We explore several qualitatively different scenarios, and compare numerically obtained species abundance distributions to the predictions of unstructured neutral theory. We find that abundance distributions are generally robust to this kind of stage structure, but significant departures from unstructured predictions occur if adults have sufficiently low fecundity and mortality. In addition, we show that the cumulative number of births per species, which is distributed as a power law with a 3/2 exponent, is invariant even when the abundance distribution departs from unstructured model predictions. Our findings potentially explain power law-like abundance distributions in organisms with strong demographic structure, such as eusocial insects and humans, and partially rehabilitate species abundance distributions from past criticisms as to their inability to distinguish between biological mechanisms.


Species abundance distribution Demographic structure Stage structure Progeny distribution Neutral biodiversity theory 



The authors thank Evan Siemann and David Tilman for generously agreeing to our use of their data in this paper. The data are available at JOD acknowledges the Simons Foundation Grant # 376199, McDonnell Foundation Grant # 220020439, and Templeton World Charity Foundation Grant # TWCF0079/AB47.

Supplementary material

12080_2017_340_MOESM1_ESM.tex (12 kb)
(TEX 11.9 KB)


  1. Alonso D, Ostling A, Etienne RS (2008) The implicit assumption of symmetry and the species abundance distribution. Ecol Lett 11(2):93–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01127.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Buylla ER, Martinez-Ramos M (1992) Demography and allometry of cecropia obtusifolia, a neotropical pioneer tree - an evaluation of the Climax-Pioneer paradigm for tropical rain forests. J Ecol 80(2):275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G (2000) The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. Am Nat 155(5):606–617. doi: 10.1086/303345 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentley RA, Hahn MW, Shennan SJ (2004) Random drift and culture change. Proc Biol Sci / R Soc 271(1547):1443–1450. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chisholm RA, Pacala SW (2010) Niche and neutral models predict asymptotically equivalent species abundance distributions in high-diversity ecological communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(36):15,821–15,825. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1009387107.
  6. Clauset A, Rohilla Shalizi C, Newman J ME (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev 51(4):661–703. doi: 10.1214/13-AOAS710 arXiv:0706.1062v2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Condit R, Pitman N, EGL Jr, Villa G, Muller-landau HC, Losos E (2011) Beta-diversity in tropical forest trees. Science 666:2002. doi: 10.1126/science.1066854 Google Scholar
  8. D’Andrea R, Ostling A (2016) Challenges in linking trait patterns to niche differentiation. Oikos 125(10):1369–1385. doi: 10.1111/oik.02979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ernest SKM, Valone TJ, Brown JH (2009) Long-term monitoring and experimental manipulation of a Chihuahuan Desert ecosystem near Portal, Arizona, USA. Ecol 90(January):1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Etienne RS, Olff H (2005) Confronting different models of community structure to species-abundance data: a Bayesian model comparison. Ecol Lett 8(5):493–504. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00745.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Etienne RS, Alonso D, McKane AJ (2007) The zero-sum assumption in neutral biodiversity theory. J Theor Biol 248(3):522–536 . doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.06.010. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillespie CS (2015) Fitting heavy tailed distributions: the {poweRlaw} package. J Stat Softw 64(2):1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haarstad J (2004) University of Minnesota Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve, Experiment 122.
  14. Hahn MW, Bentley RA (2003) Drift as a mechanism for cultural change: an example from baby names. Biol Lett 270(Suppl):S120–S123. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0045 Google Scholar
  15. Harcombe PA (1987) Tree life tables. BioScience 37(8):557–568. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.6.3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harte J (2003) Ecology: tail of death and resurrection. Nature 424(6952):1006–1007. doi: 10.1038/4241006a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  18. James PD (1992) The children of men. Harper & Harper, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. McGill BJ (2003) Strong and weak tests of macroecological theory. Oikos 102(3):679–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Dwyer JP, Chisholm RA (2014) A mean field model for competition: from neutral ecology to the Red Queen. Ecol Lett 17(8):961–969. doi: 10.1111/ele.12299 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Dwyer JP, Kandler A (2017) Novelty, popularity, and emergent neutrality: bias in the choice of baby names and lessons for analyzing cultural data. pp 1–40, arXiv:1702.08506v1
  22. O’Dwyer JP, Lake JK, Ostling A, Savage VM, Green JL (2009) An integrative framework for stochastic, size-structured community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(15):6170–6175 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.0813041106.
  23. Prado PI, Miranda MD, Chalom A (2016) SADS: maximum likelihood models for species abundance distributions
  24. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
  25. Rosindell J, Jansen PA, Etienne RS (2012) Age structure in neutral theory resolves inconsistencies related to reproductive-size threshold. J Plant Ecol 5(1):64–71. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtr034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruokolainen L, Ranta E, Kaitala V, Fowler MS (2009) When can we distinguish between neutral and non-neutral processes in community dynamics under ecological drift? Ecology Lett 12(9):909–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01346.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Siemann E, Tilman D, Haarstad J (1999) Abundance, diversity and body size: patterns from a grassland arthropod community UR -./documents_pdf/siemann_1999.pdf. J Anim Ecol 68(4):824–835. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00326.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vergnon R, Dulvy NK, Freckleton RP (2009) Niches versus neutrality: uncovering the drivers of diversity in a species-rich community. Ecology Lett 12(10):1079–1090. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01364.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Volkov I, Banavar JR, Hubbell SP, Maritan A (2003) Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature 424(6952): 1035–1037. doi: 10.1038/nature01883. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. White EP, Thibault KM, Xiao X (2012) Characterizing species abundance distributions across taxa and ecosystems using a simple maximum entropy model. Ecol 93(8):1772–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of IllinoisUrbana-ChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations