Leigh E G
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama.
J Evol Biol. 2007 Nov;20(6):2075-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01410.x.
To resolve a panselectionist paradox, the population geneticist Kimura invented a neutral theory, where each gene is equally likely to enter the next generation whatever its allelic type. To learn what could be explained without invoking Darwinian adaptive divergence, Hubbell devised a similar neutral theory for forest ecology, assuming each tree is equally likely to reproduce whatever its species. In both theories, some predictions worked; neither theory proved universally true. Simple assumptions allow neutral theorists to treat many subjects still immune to more realistic theory. Ecologists exploit far fewer of these possibilities than population geneticists, focussing instead on species abundance distributions, where their predictions work best, but most closely match non-neutral predictions. Neutral theory cannot explain adaptive divergence or ecosystem function, which ecologists must understand. By addressing new topics and predicting changes in time, however, ecological neutral theory can provide probing null hypotheses and stimulate more realistic theory.
为了解决泛选择主义的悖论,群体遗传学家木村资生提出了中性理论,即无论基因的等位类型如何,每个基因进入下一代的可能性都是相等的。为了了解在不援引达尔文适应性分化的情况下可以解释什么,哈贝尔为森林生态学设计了一个类似的中性理论,假设每棵树无论其物种如何,繁殖的可能性都是相等的。在这两种理论中,一些预测是有效的;但没有一种理论被证明是普遍正确的。简单的假设使中性理论家能够处理许多仍不受更现实理论影响的主题。生态学家利用这些可能性的程度远低于群体遗传学家,而是专注于物种丰度分布,在那里他们的预测效果最佳,但与非中性预测最为接近。中性理论无法解释适应性分化或生态系统功能,而生态学家必须了解这些。然而,通过探讨新的主题并预测随时间的变化,生态中性理论可以提供具有启发性的零假设,并刺激产生更现实的理论。