Extending the quasi-neutral concept

In caricature, the equilibrium paradigm of community ecology states that plant communities are stable entities consisting of competing species - and that such species coexist because each has its “niche”. This paradigm, in its extreme, has been dead for some time. Nevertheless, it has yet to be replaced by a credible “non” — equilibrium paradigm. The quasi-neutral concept of plant communities, proposed by Kristjan Zobel,Folia Geobot. 36: 3–8, 2001, possesses some of the key ingredients of a nonequilibrium theory of diversity. It recognizes that there are inescapable relationships between diversity at different scales, that similarity can influence the rate of competitive exclusion, that successional change is typically associated with changes in life form, and that rarefaction (i.e. “sampling artifacts”) can have strong effects on fine-scale diversity. However, the current formulation of the quasi-neutral concept is incomplete in that it relies on an unrealistic definition of community, it assumes that random sampling means that species richness at one scale will be linearly related to richness at finer scales, it ignores the possibility of fine-scale processes producing broader-scale patterns, and it avoids the subject of fine-scale environmental heterogeneity. But the most serious limitation of the quasi-neutral concept is that similarity of species alone is not sufficient to allow indefinite coexistence. I present the results of a simple simulation to demonstrate that: (1) identical species will eventually be lost from communities due to stochastic “drift”, (2) slight variations in reproductive rates accelerate this loss, but (3) adding a miniscule “cost of commonness” to the model allows the indefinite coexistence of species. I conclude that the quasi-neutral model cannot work without some kind of trade-off.