Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T23:19:11.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - A macroecological approach to the equilibrial vs. nonequilibrial debate using bird populations and communities

from Part II - Nonequilibrium and Equilibrium in Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

Klaus Rohde
Affiliation:
University of New England, Australia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The debate about whether ecological systems behave in an equilibrial or nonequilibrial fashion is a thread that runs through the entire history of ecology. The debate between Clements’s super-organism (Clements, 1936) vs. Gleason’s individualistic assortment (Gleason, 1926) is one of the earliest well-known examples. The density-dependent (Nicholson & Bailey, 1935) vs. density-independent (Davidson & Andrewartha, 1948) regulation debate was very explicitly about equilibrial vs. nonequilibrial forces. This debate was so intense and long-lasting that a peace-making conference was called at Cold Spring Harbor (Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology (22nd), 1957). One could argue that the MacArthurian development of community ecology (MacArthur, 1968) and the subsequent backlash against it were also in this vein. The heated debate about null-models (Connor & Simberloff, 1979; Diamond, 1975) was basically sparked by a bold assertion of a specific version of the nonequilibrial view (namely complete randomness) as a challenge to the then prevailing equilibrial viewpoint. Most recently, niche vs. neutral theory is a battle between two very specific versions of the equilibrial and nonequilibrial theories respectively. Thus although the specific debate seems to mutate every couple of decades, the dominant points of contention in ecology have all had an underlying theme of equilibrial vs. nonequilibrial concepts at the center for close to 100 years now.

The noted historian of ecology, Sharon Kingsland, follows this recurring debate and interprets it as a battle of modelers, who like to find regular patterns, vs. field ecologists, who experience the variation in nature, (Kingsland, 1995). But I think this is perhaps imprecise. It is true that many of the earliest models introduced into ecology such as the Verlhulst-Pearl logistic equation (Verhulst, 1838) and the Lotka-Volterra competition equations (Lotka, 1925; Volterra, 1927) were highly deterministic, strong equilibrium, differential equation models. However, probabilistic, nonequilibrial models have been known in ecology and evolution at least since the 1920s (Arrhenius, 1921; Yule, 1924).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrhenius, O. (1921). Species and area. The Journal of Ecology, 9, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. (2000). The distribution of abundance in neutral communities.The American Naturalist, 155, 606–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, A. J., & McKane, A. J. (2012). Stochastic formulation of ecological models and their applications. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 337–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J., Bedrick, E., Ernest, S., Cartron, J., & Kelly, J. (2004). Constraints on negative relationships: mathematical causes and ecological consequences. In Tapper, M. L. & Lele, S. R. (Eds.), The Nature of Scientific Evidence: Statistical, Philosophical, and Empirical Considerations (pp. 298–323). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, F. E. (1936). Nature and structure of the Climax. Journal of Ecology, 24, 252–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology (22nd symposium) (1957). Population Studies: Animal Ecology and Demography. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Labs.Google Scholar
Connor, E. F., & Simberloff, D. (1979). The assembly of communities: chance or competition. Ecology, 60, 1132–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. K. (2010). Stationarity is dead – long live transformation: five principles for climate change adaptation law. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 34, 9–75.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., & Andrewartha, H. G. (1948). The influence of rainfall, evaporation, and atmospheric temperature on the fluctuations in the size of a natural populatin of Thrips imaginis. Journal of Animal Ecology, 17, 200–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devictor, V., van Swaay, C., Brereton, T., et al. (2012). Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nature Climate Change, 2, 121–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, J. M. (1975). Assembly of species communities. In Cody, M. L. & Diamond, J. M. (Eds.), Ecology and Evolution of Communities (pp. 342–444). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ernest, S. K. M., Brown, J. H., Thibault, K. M., White, E. P., & Goheen, J. R. (2008). Zero sum, the niche, and metacommunities: long‐term dynamics of community assembly. The American Naturalist, 172, E257–E269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etienne, R. S. (2005). A new sampling formula for neutral biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 8, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etienne, R. S., & Olff, H. (2004). A novel genealogical approach to neutral biodiversity theory. Ecology Letters, 7, 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gause, G. F. (1934). The Struggle for Existence. Dover 1971 reprint of 1934. New York: Williams & Wilkins.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleason, H. A. (1926). The individualistic concept of the plant association. Torrey Botanical Club, 53, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, S. M., Cushing, J. M., Costantino, R. F., et al. (1998). Phase switching in population cycles. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 2229–2234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlahan, J. E., Currie, D. J., Cottenie, K., et al. (2007). Compensatory dynamics are rare in natural ecological communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 3273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubbell, S. P. (2001). A Unified Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kingsland, S. E. (1995). Modelling Nature: Episodes in the History of Population Ecology (2nd edn). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lehman, C. L., & Tilman, D. (2000). Biodiversity, stability, and productivity in competitive communities.The American Naturalist, 156, 534–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lotka, A. J. (1925). Elements of Mathematical Biology. New York: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. (1968). The theory of the niche. In Lewontin, R. (Ed.), Population Biology and Evolution (pp. 159–176). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
May, R. M. (1971). Stability in multispecies community models. Mathematical Bioioscience, 12, 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, B., & Collins, C. (2003). A unified theory for macroecology based on spatial patterns of abundance. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 5, 469–492.Google Scholar
McGill, B. J. (2011). Species abundance distributions. In Magurran, A. E. & McGill, B. J. (Eds.), Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment (pp. 105–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGill, B. J., Etienne, R. S., Gray, J. S., et al. (2007). Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework. Ecology Letters, 10, 995–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKane, A. J., Alonso, D., & Sole, R. V. (2004). Analytic solution of Hubbell’s model of local community dynamics. Theoretical Population Biology, 65, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McQuarrie, D. A., & Allan, D. (2000). Statistical Mechanics. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books.Google Scholar
Mikkelson, G., McGill, B., Beaulieu, S., & Beukema, P. (2011). Multiple links between species diversity and temporal stability in bird communities across North America. Evolutionary Ecological Research, 13, 361–372.Google Scholar
Milly, P. C. D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., et al. (2008). Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science, 319, 573–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholson, A. J., & Bailey, V. A. (1935). The balance of animal populations I. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London, 3, 551–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (2001). Breeding Bird Survey FTP site. Available at: .
Pimm, S. L. (1984). The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature, 307, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, E., Kaitala, V., Fowler, M. S., et al. (2008). Detecting compensatory dynamics in competitive communities under environmental forcing. Oikos, 117, 1907–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughgarden, J. (1979). Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. R., Hines, J. E., Gough, G., Thomas, I., & Peterjohn, B. G. (1997). The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Laurel, MD: USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.Google Scholar
Sibley, D. A. (2000). National Audobon Society. The Sibley Guide to Birds. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Veech, J. A. (2006). A probability-based analysis of temporal and spatial co-occurrence in grassland birds. Journal of Biogeography, 33, 2145–2153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhulst, P. F. (1838). Notice sur la loi que la population suit dans son accroissement. Correspondance Mathematique et Physique, 10, 113–121.Google Scholar
Volterra, V. (1927). Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d’individui in specie animali conviventi. Mem. R. Accad. Naz. dei Lincei. Ser. VI, vol. 2. (Volterra, V. (1926). Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature, 118, 558–560).Google Scholar
Yule, G. U. (1924). A mathematical theory of evolution based on the conclusions of Dr J C Willis. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 213, 21–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×