Neutral and niche theory in community ecology: a framework for comparing model realism

IF 1.7 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Katie H. Morrow
{"title":"Neutral and niche theory in community ecology: a framework for comparing model realism","authors":"Katie H. Morrow","doi":"10.1007/s10539-024-09941-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ecological neutral theory has been controversial as an alternative to niche theory for explaining community structure. Neutral theory, which explains community structure in terms of ecological drift, is frequently charged with being unrealistic, but commentators have usually not provided an account of theory or model realism. In this paper, I propose a framework for comparing the “realism” or accuracy of alternative theories within a domain with respect to the extent to which the theories abstract and idealize. Using this framework I argue, contrary to most previous commentators, that neutral and niche theories are similarly realistic. Realism cannot provide a basis for accepting or rejecting either type of theory; instead, community ecologists should continue working with a plurality of models. While theoretical unification may become possible, we should treat a plurality of complementary, partial models as the expected situation within community ecology.</p>","PeriodicalId":55368,"journal":{"name":"Biology & Philosophy","volume":"218 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biology & Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-024-09941-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ecological neutral theory has been controversial as an alternative to niche theory for explaining community structure. Neutral theory, which explains community structure in terms of ecological drift, is frequently charged with being unrealistic, but commentators have usually not provided an account of theory or model realism. In this paper, I propose a framework for comparing the “realism” or accuracy of alternative theories within a domain with respect to the extent to which the theories abstract and idealize. Using this framework I argue, contrary to most previous commentators, that neutral and niche theories are similarly realistic. Realism cannot provide a basis for accepting or rejecting either type of theory; instead, community ecologists should continue working with a plurality of models. While theoretical unification may become possible, we should treat a plurality of complementary, partial models as the expected situation within community ecology.

群落生态学中的中性理论和生态位理论:比较模型现实性的框架
生态中性理论作为解释群落结构的生态位理论的替代理论一直备受争议。中性理论用生态漂移来解释群落结构,经常被指责为不切实际,但评论者通常没有对理论或模型的现实性做出说明。在本文中,我提出了一个框架,用于比较某一领域内其他理论的 "现实性 "或准确性,以及这些理论的抽象化和理想化程度。与之前的大多数评论家相反,我利用这一框架认为,中性理论和利基理论具有相似的现实性。现实主义不能为接受或拒绝任何一种理论提供依据;相反,群落生态学家应继续使用多种模型。虽然理论上的统一是可能的,但我们应将多种互补的、局部的模式视为群落生态学中的预期情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biology & Philosophy
Biology & Philosophy 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Recent decades have witnessed fascinating and controversial advances in the biological sciences. This journal answers the need for meta-theoretical analysis, both about the very nature of biology, as well as about its social implications. Biology and Philosophy is aimed at a broad readership, drawn from both the sciences and the humanities. The journal subscribes to no specific school of biology, nor of philosophy, and publishes work from authors of all persuasions and all disciplines. The editorial board reflects this attitude in its composition and its world-wide membership. Each issue of Biology and Philosophy carries one or more discussions or comparative reviews, permitting the in-depth study of important works and topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信