1. A Probabilistic Test of the Neutral Model C. M. Mutshinda 1, R.B. O’Hara 1, I.P. Woiwod 2 1 University of Helsinki, and 2 Rothamsted Research, UK.

2. Plan of the talk  Introduction  Model  Results  Conclusion  Suggestions

3. INTRODUCTION There is a long-standing interest in identifying the mechanisms underlying the dynamics of ecological communities The list of presumed mechanisms is still growing Existing theories can be subdivised in two categories: neutral and non-neutral models The debate between the two sides is still very much alive

4. Neutral models assume Ecological Equivalence of species, i.e. same demographic properties (birth death immigration speciation rates) for all individuals irrespective of species.  Consequence: Species richness and relative species abundance distributions (SAD) are assumed to be generated entirely by drift between species An ecological community is a group of trophically similar species that actually or potentially compete in a local area for the same or similar resources.

5. Non-neutral models consider that species may differ in their demographic properties, their competitive abilities or their responses to environmental fluctuations

6. The most documented version of neutral models is the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (UNTBB) developed by Hubbell in 2001. From now on, neutral theory refers to Hubbell's model

7. The UNTBB considers communities on two scales of communities:  Local Community Governed by birth, death, immigration (from a metacommunity) Dynamics taking place an ecological time scale.  Metacommunity Include an additional mechanism of speciation taking place on an evolutionary time scale.

8. Main Assumptions of the UNTBB:  Ecological Equivalence  Zero-Sum (ZS) assumption : constant community size (saturated communities)

9. Consequences of the assumptions  A typical SAD, the zero – sum multinomial (ZSM).  Relative Species Abundance entirely genarated by random Drift

10. Criticisms of the UNTBB: have concerned both assumptions  Ecological Equivalence (e.g. Mauer &Mc Gill 2004; Poulin 2004; Chase2005)  Zero-Sum assumption (e.g. Alder 2003; McGill 2003; Williamson & Gaston 2005 ) The critics of the ZSM have generally assumed equilibrium and have proceeded by comparing the fit of the ZSM to a theoretical distribution mainly the Lognormal

11.  how realistic the parameter estimates are  if the changes in the abundance of the species can be explained by the model with a realistic community size A sensible way of examining the neutral model would would consist of fitting the model to the data and assessing: However, over the last 30 years, ecologists have been moving away from equilibrium ideas (e.g. Wallington et al. 2005), but Hubbell leaps straight back in. A dynamical model such as the UNTBB can be examined without assuming equilibrium.

12. We Develop and fit a discrete-time neutral model identical to Hubbell's in all other aspects except that We relax the assumption of constant community size

13.  3 macro-moth (Lepidoptera) time series from the Rothamsted Insect Survey light-traps network in the UK: Geescroft I & II (from the Rothamsted farm in Hertfordshire) and Tregaron (from a Nature reserve in mid-Wales) Data

14. Geescroft I (352, 40); Geescroft II (319, 26); Tregaron (371, 28). Number of species and years:

15. THE MODEL Immigration rate at time t Relative abundance of sp. i at t-1 Process Model :community size at time t Nber of ind. of species i at time t

16. (time-scale separation)

17. Sampling Model Sampling rate (observed proportion) at time t

18. The same analyses were carried out on the geometrid (Geometridae) species alone which are known to respond in a similar way to light (Taylor and French 1974). Nber of geometrid species in the 3 datasets: 135, 127 & 135 respectively.

19. Model Fitting  Bayesian approach  Noninformative priors  We used MCMC via OpenBUGS to fit the model

20. RESULTS Fig. 1: Unrealistic Community sizes

21. Fig. 2: Unrealistic Sampling Rates The horizontal dashed line is drawn at height 1!

22. CONCLUSION The neutral model does not fit the data well as it would need parameter values that are impossible Thus, random drift alone cannot explain the variation in species abundances

23.  environmental stochasticity  Density-dependence  Species heterogeneity  Effects of species interactions Possible reasons for the excess of temporal variation: A number of important mechanisms are simply ignored. These include:

24. SUGGESTIONS The model can be extended to include the missing components, this will result in a complex model Ecological hypotheses such as neutral community structure can be examined from the results Complex models can be developed and fitted under the hierarchical Bayesian framework

25. We examined if parameters of such a model may be identifiable, we developed a dynamical model including environmental stochasticity and interaction coefficients The model was fitted to a dataset comprising 10 among the most abundant species at Geescroft I All the parameters turned out to be identifiable

26. NberScientific nameCommon name 1Selenia dentariaEarly Thorn 2Selenia tetralunariaPurple Thorn 3Apeira syringariaLilac beauty 4Odontopera bidentataScalloped Hazel 5Colotois pennariaFeathered Thorn 6Crocallis elinguariaScalloped oak 7Opistograptis luteolataBrimstone moth 8Ourapteryx sambucariaSwallow-tail 9Opocheima pilosariaPale brinbley beauty 10Lycia hispidariaBrindley beauty Scientific and common names of the 10 species

27. Process model : density-independent per capita growth rate of species i at time t, : per capita effect of species j on the growth of species i, : carrying capacity for species i, : number of species in the community

28. Sampling model Parameter model

29. Priors Model fitting by MCMC via OpenBUGS

30. , Results The posterior estimates of the interaction coefficients reveal a significant negative effect of the Opistograptis luteolata (species #7) on the reminder as illustrated in the following table Significant differences in species-specific environmental variances The results suggest a non-neutral community structure

31. Species12345678910 1-0.320.12-0.020.13 0.080.690.050.080.00 20.31-1.07-0.050.010.00-0.110.58-0.02-0.110.07 30.270.050.000.090.110.130.520.05 0.01 40.130.010.00-0.100.030.080.320.040.130.01 50.15-0.020.000.080.190.030.530.030.13-0.01 60.01-0.090.010.00-0.040.210.510.100.14-0.03 70.30.26-0.020.210.02-0.130.94-0.010.12-0.05 80.290.050.020.070.10 0.650.030.100.01 90.200.040.020.060.07 0.060.04 0.00 100.20.060.020.080.090.080.580.050.06-0.02 posterior means of the interaction coefficients

32. Remarks Real communities are typically much larger than 10 species. Hence, The dimensionality of the model may be too large Some interaction coefficients are almost zero or insignificant, it might be worth not estimating them Sensible ways of pulling the model's dimensionality down to a tractable level are needed, and this is where variable selection comes into play.

33. We are now working on Bayesian variable selection methods such as Gibbs Variable Selection, Stochastic Search Variable Selection or Reversible Jump MCMC to extend the applicability of the model to large community datasets. Work in Progress

34. THANK YOU

35. Alder, P. B. (2003) Neutral models fail to reproduce observed species-area and species- time relationships in Kansas grasslands Ecology 85(5), 1265-1272. Chase, J. M. (2005) Towards a really unified theory for metacommunities, Functional Ecology 19, 182-186. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B, Hal, Stern, H.S. & Rubin, D.B. 2003. Bayesian Data Analysis. Second Edition, Chapman& Hall. Hubbell, S.P. 2001. The unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography, Princeton University Press. Mauer, B.A. & McGill, B.J. 2004. Neutral and non-neutral macroecology. Basic & Applied Ecology 5, 413 – 422 McGill, B.J. 2003. A test of the unified neutral theory. Nature 422, 881-885. Poulin, R. 2004. Parasites and the neutral theory of biodiversity. Ecography 27,1: 119- 123. Wallington, T. J., Hobbs, R. & Moore, S.A. (2005) Implications of Current Ecological Thinking for Biodiversity Conservation: a Review of Salient Issues. Ecology and Society 10(1), 15. Williamson, M & Gaston, K.J. 2005. The lognormal is not an appropriate null hypothesis for the species- abundance distribution. Journal of Animal Ecology. Woiwod, I. P. & Harrington, R. 1994. Flying in the face of change: The Rothamsted Insect Survey. In Long- term Experiments in Agricultural and Ecological Sciences (ed. R. A. Leigh & A. E. Johnston), pp. 321-342. Wallingford: CAB International