Giliarov A M
Zh Obshch Biol. 2010 Sep-Oct;71(5):386-401.
The recent renewal of interest in community structure was strongly stimulated by the concept of neutrality, a new view on the problem of species coexistence. In contrast to traditional approach claiming that species competing for common resources should occupy different ecological niches, the neutrality concept assumes that species can coexist if they are ecologically identical, i.e., they have similar specific (per individual) rate of population growth, probability of extinction and the rate of colonization of free space. The analysis of recent literature, full of contradictory opinions on the ideas of neutrality and niche, can be resulted in form of following questions: (1) What do we suggest when we say that "species coexist"? (2) How can we explain the usual pattern of species relative abundances in a community, the so-called "hollow curve" (the distribution of numbers of species arranged in classes of abundance)? (3) Do rare species have some advantages in comparison with abundant species? (4) Can the mechanisms implied by neutrality concept and traditional niche approach work simultaneously in the same community? Trying to answer these questions we should: (1) refuse the demand of indefinite coexistence of species although this condition was considered as necessary in classical mathematical models of competition; (2) accept that community structure depends not only on ecological processes (species dispersal, competition and others) but also on the evolutionary ones (speciation) that determine the pool of species; (3) accept that rare species have some advantages as compared with the most abundant species; (4) accept that in any real community species can coexist either occupying the different niches or approaching ecological similarity. Despite considerable progress achieved in understanding of general principles of community organization, we still don't know how to answer the question "Why are there so many kinds of animals?" that was posed by Hutchinson 50 years ago.
中性理论这一关于物种共存问题的新观点,有力地激发了人们近期对群落结构的再度关注。与传统观点认为竞争共同资源的物种应占据不同生态位相反,中性理论认为,如果物种在生态上相同,即它们具有相似的特定(个体水平)种群增长率、灭绝概率和自由空间的定殖率,那么这些物种就能共存。对近期文献的分析充斥着关于中性理论和生态位观点的相互矛盾的看法,由此可引出以下问题:(1)当我们说“物种共存”时意味着什么?(2)我们如何解释群落中物种相对丰度的常见模式,即所谓的“空心曲线”(按丰度等级排列的物种数量分布)?(3)与常见物种相比,稀有物种是否具有某些优势?(4)中性理论和传统生态位方法所隐含的机制能否在同一群落中同时起作用?为了回答这些问题,我们应该:(1)摒弃物种无限期共存的要求,尽管这一条件在经典的竞争数学模型中被视为必要条件;(2)承认群落结构不仅取决于生态过程(物种扩散、竞争等),还取决于决定物种库的进化过程(物种形成);(3)承认与最常见的物种相比,稀有物种具有某些优势;(4)承认在任何真实的群落中,物种可以通过占据不同的生态位或接近生态相似性来实现共存。尽管在理解群落组织的一般原则方面取得了相当大的进展,但我们仍然不知道如何回答哈钦森在50年前提出的问题“为什么有这么多种动物?”