1: \documentclass[floatfix,showkeys,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}
2: %\usepackage{natbib}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Predicting the species abundance distribution using a model food web}
9:
10: \author{Craig R. Powell}
11: \email{craig.powell@manchester.ac.uk}
12: \affiliation{Theoretical Physics Group, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK}
13:
14: \author{Alan J. McKane}
15: \email{alan.mckane@manchester.ac.uk}
16: \affiliation{Theoretical Physics Group, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK}
17:
18:
19: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
20: % but any date may be explicitly specified
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: A large number of models of the species abundance distribution (SAD)
24: have been proposed, many of which are generically similar to the
25: log-normal distribution, from which they are often indistinguishable
26: when describing a given data set. Ecological data sets are
27: necessarily incomplete samples of an ecosystem, subject to
28: statistical noise, and cannot readily be combined to yield a closer
29: approximation to the underlying distribution. In this paper we use
30: empirical data obtained from an ecosystem model to study the predicted
31: SAD in detail, resolving features which can distinguish between models
32: but which are poorly seen in field data. We find that the power-law
33: normal distribution is superior to both the log-normal and
34: logit-normal distributions, and that the data can improve on even this
35: at the high-population cut-off.
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \pacs{87.23.Cc}
39:
40: \keywords{ecological diversity; trophic distribution; ecological community model}
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45: \label{intro}
46: The species abundance distribution (SAD) is one of the most widely
47: studied descriptions of an ecological community. To determine it, the
48: number of species in a given community which have $n$ observed
49: individuals is plotted against $n$. The shape of this plot has been
50: investigated by a great many empiricists and theorists over the years,
51: beginning with the classic work of \citet{fis43} and \citet{pre48}.
52: Reviews of the subject \citep{whi65,may75,gra87,mar03,mcg07} reveal
53: the large number of mechanisms that have been proposed to explain the
54: observed SAD. Many of these mechanisms predict the essential aspects
55: of the observations, that is, a few very abundant species and many
56: rare species. As a consequence it has become very difficult to
57: falsify proposed mechanisms from empirical data, which has led to the
58: authors of the most recent multi-author review \citep{mcg07} to
59: contrast the development of the analysis of SADs with ``a healthy
60: scientific field'' in which ``theoretical, empirical and statistical
61: developments [...] advance roughly in parallel''.
62:
63: In this paper we suggest a way forward which is in effect intermediate
64: between the theoretical and empirical approaches. We measure the SAD
65: in an established model which constructs an ecological community as
66: a set of predator-prey interactions \citep{dro01}. The model itself
67: was originally created so that many of its key properties were
68: emergent and not put in by hand. So, for instance, trophic levels
69: emerge from the nature of the predator-prey interactions; species are
70: not labelled as ``plants'', ``herbivores'' or ``carnivores'' a
71: priori. This contrasts with traditional theoretical approaches which
72: either postulate a mechanism, or if a model community is put forward
73: it is usually rather simple, with the form of the SAD following from
74: one of the fundamental aspects of the theory. Conversely,
75: measurements taken in the field will of necessity include numerous
76: influences involving climate, terrain, location etc., which are not
77: present in the model we use to measure SADs. Thus the SADs we measure
78: will be free of these external influences, but still be determined by
79: influences which are too complex to easily characterise. This
80: approach will also allow us to measure SADs for a multi-trophic level
81: community whereas, so far as we are aware, all other predictions for
82: SADs have been for communities of trophically similar species.
83:
84: The model we will be using (called the Webworld model) has been
85: developed over a number of years \citep{cal98,dro01,dro04,qui05}. In
86: it, species are defined in terms of traits (phenotypic and behavioural
87: characteristics), and it is the nature of the interactions between
88: these traits which define the nature of interactions between species.
89: This community is built up from a small number of species through a
90: speciation mechanism which creates a new species with a novel set of
91: features. Resources are distributed through a quite elaborate set of
92: equations governing population dynamics with adaptive foraging.
93: Overviews of the model are given in review articles
94: \citep{dro03,mck05,mck06}, and more briefly in section~\ref{Sec:model}.
95: In section 3 we outline the method of our analysis, in
96: section 4 we describe the results obtained and we conclude with a review
97: of the results in section 5.
98:
99: \section{Model description}
100: \label{Sec:model}
101: The Webworld model consists of a set of species, each defined by its
102: unique combination of ten different features. The features are chosen
103: from a set of $L$ possible features determined at the start of the
104: simulation, at which point two species are created. One of these is
105: the environment species, which has a fixed population for all time and
106: is the ultimate source of energy for all species in the food web. The
107: other initial species is the common ancestor of all species encountered
108: during a simulation run.
109:
110: The dynamics of the Webworld model occur on three separated
111: time-scales. The longest of these is the evolutionary time-scale, on
112: which new species are added as mutated versions of extant species.
113: Specifically to the implementation of Webworld, a species is selected
114: at random without regard to its population, except that this must be
115: non-zero. One individual of that species is then used to found a new
116: species identity, sharing all features but one with the parent
117: species. The remaining feature is selected to avoid repetition either
118: of the same feature within one species or the same set of features
119: between species, but is otherwise selected at random. The newly introduced
120: species is then subject to the same population dynamics as all other
121: species, which is the dynamical process that occurs on the
122: intermediate time-scale.
123:
124: Population dynamics occurs by balance of energy; energy is gained
125: through ``predation'', which in the case of feeding on the environment
126: species we interpret as autotrophy. Each species $i$ changes its
127: population $n_i$ according to the balance equation
128: \begin{equation}
129: \dot n_i=\lambda\sum_jg_{ij}n_j - \sum_jg_{ji}n_i - dn_i,
130: \label{eq:popdyn}
131: \end{equation}
132: where $g_{ij}$ is the functional response, the dependence of the rate
133: of energy consumption by species $i$ on the population of species
134: $j$. The factor of $\lambda=0.1$ introduces an ecological efficiency
135: whereby the energy lost to species $j$ is greater than that gained by
136: its predator $i$. Thus the first term on the right hand side of
137: Eq.~(\ref{eq:popdyn}) is the energy income of species $i$ summed
138: across all prey species, while the second term is the energy loss
139: summed across all predators. If species $a$ does not feed on species
140: $b$ then $g_{ab}=0$, and hence this does not contribute to either
141: sum. The final term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:popdyn}) is the loss of energy
142: from species $i$ due to death of its constituent individuals at rate
143: $d$ per individual; the expected lifespan of an individual is
144: therefore $1/d$, which for simplicity we take to be the same across
145: all species. Death appears in our model purely as an energy
146: loss term and cannot be made an evolvable quantity, since it has a
147: preferred value of zero.
148:
149: The shortest time-scale in the Webworld model reflects the choice of
150: foraging strategy by individuals of each species. The functional
151: response for Eq.~(\ref{eq:popdyn}) is given by
152: \begin{equation}
153: g_{ij} = \frac{f_{ij}S_{ij}}{bn_j+\sum_k\alpha_{ik}f_{kj}S_{kj}n_k}n_i,
154: \label{eq:functionalResponse}
155: \end{equation}
156: where $f_{ij}$ is the fraction of its time species $i$ spends feeding
157: on prey species $j$, which is the quantity to be optimised in order to
158: maximise $\sum_jg_{ij}n_j$. $S_{ij}$ and $\alpha_{ij}$ are constants
159: defined by relating the features of species $i$ and $j$, $S$
160: indicating the ability of $i$ to feed on $j$, and $\alpha$ relating to
161: the degree of inter-specific competition. To prohibit mutual
162: predation the matrix $S$ is made anti-symmetric, thus
163: $S_{ij}=-S_{ji}$, and the shortest possible feeding loop involves
164: three species. Matrix $\alpha$ is symmetric, with maximum competition
165: $\alpha_{ii}=1$ between members of the same species, and minimum
166: competition 0.5 between highly-different species. By calculating $S$
167: and $\alpha$ based on a set of features largely conserved during
168: speciation we ensure that each newly-founded species has similar
169: abilities to its parent species, with which it is also in strong
170: competition, and in particular the dynamics of two identical species,
171: were they allowed, would be indistinguishable from the dynamics of
172: pooling them as one species.
173:
174: In \citet{dro01} an evolutionarily stable strategy was shown to exist
175: for foraging, which can be found by iteratively solving
176: Eq.~(\ref{eq:functionalResponse}) with the condition that
177: \begin{equation}
178: f_{ij}=\frac{g_{ij}}{\sum_kg_{ik}}.
179: \end{equation}
180:
181: The result of the repeated application of these dynamics is the
182: gradual construction of a complex food web. Species are removed if
183: their population falls below 1, and the fixed population of the
184: environment species, $R$, as such determines the expected number of
185: species present in the food web at any time, though there is a
186: continual turnover of species and consequent fluctuation in any given
187: food web measure. After running the model for a large number of
188: evolutionary time steps, there is no systematic change in quantities
189: such as the number of concurrent species, and the food web structure
190: appears to have matured. It is on such webs that we examine the
191: species abundance distribution.
192:
193: \section{Method}
194: Using the Webworld model discussed in the previous section we generate
195: sets of communities for which the ensemble species abundance
196: distribution (SAD) can be examined in detail. Because we use the same
197: set of possible features and the same environment species in each
198: case, we assume that the underlying SAD does not alter between model
199: realisations. In this case it is possible to pool the resultant
200: communities in order to determine the SAD with improved statistical
201: noise. Details of the computational approach are given in
202: section~\ref{Sec:Computational}. In section~\ref{Sec:Fitting} we
203: discuss the functions which we fit to the data, and the optimisation
204: criteria of the fitting. In section~\ref{Sec:Generalisation} we
205: discuss the problems of generalising fits to include communities
206: differing in size or trophic level.
207:
208: \subsection{Comparative models}
209: \label{Sec:Computational}
210: Although the Webworld model can simulate ecological communities in
211: reasonable time, to create large complex communities takes
212: considerable computation, and to generate enough simulations to get
213: good statistics across a broad range of parameter space is difficult.
214: We therefore perform the first examination on a variant of Webworld in
215: which all species feed exclusively on the environment. Because all
216: species are basal, the relative populations are determined by the
217: relative ability, $S$, and competition, $\alpha$, terms between
218: existing species, which are selected by evolution in the same way as
219: in the full model. By avoiding a large part of the computational
220: effort we are able to generate large numbers of webs for comparison,
221: and in the results presented here gather statistics from a set of one
222: hundred model runs for each value of resources, $R$. In
223: section~\ref{Sec:Results} we focus on the fitting of food webs with
224: resources $10^3$, $10^4$, $10^5$ and $10^6$, but simulations were
225: performed for numerous other values of $R$ within this range to show
226: that interpolation of the results is reasonable. The minimum value of
227: $R$ results in communities with few species, which become
228: correspondingly harder to characterise in terms of an SAD. Larger
229: values of $R$ become increasingly computationally expensive. Rather
230: than attempting to extend the range of $R$ to larger values, we
231: created a total of 900 basal communities at $R=10^6$ for more detailed
232: analysis of the tails of the distribution. Because the common
233: theoretical SADs have been selected based on reproduction of the modal
234: peak, and are poorly constrained by observations, the tails offer the
235: largest differences between candidate SADs. Due to the much larger
236: computational complexity of the full Webworld model, we have only a
237: sample of ten comparable food webs for large $R$ from which to deduce
238: trophic SADs.
239:
240: \subsection{Fitting method}
241: \label{Sec:Fitting}
242: As can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:basalPDF}, the probability
243: distribution function (p.d.f.) of species abundance has a rather noisy
244: histogram even for the largest collection of independent communities
245: we were able to assemble with the available computer time. Fitting a
246: distribution function to such histograms is problematic for several
247: reasons. The noise makes it difficult to algorithmically optimise the
248: fitting function, and hence can obscure differences in the strength of
249: different functional forms. More importantly, the apparently optimal
250: parameters and associated fitness will depend on the arbitrary choice
251: of bin width and position, since changing these parameters can
252: significantly alter the distribution of noise between the bins.
253: Furthermore, the distribution function underlying the observed SAD is
254: likely to have a functional form other than our approximations, and in
255: general may be significantly more complicated than we can extract from
256: data so long as the noise remains. Rather than obtaining a function
257: which closely matches the value of the p.d.f. for most population
258: sizes, but which omits important features, we prefer to recover a
259: smoothed version of the distribution function which correctly predicts
260: the total number of species. As a consequence of these considerations
261: we fit the integrated version of the fitting function to the empirical
262: cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.), whose value at a given
263: population $N$ is the measured number of species with $n_i<N$. This
264: definition matches the type of p.d.f. used by \cite{may75} whose
265: integral is the expected number of species. P.d.f.s may also be
266: defined such that the area enclosed is unity. To illustrate the
267: fitting procedure we present plots of the measured and fitted c.d.f.s
268: in addition to the p.d.f.s, and indicate the goodness-of-fit by
269: plotting the residuals of the c.d.f., that is, the difference between
270: the integrated fitting function and the measured c.d.f.
271:
272: The strongest condition that we impose on each fitting function is
273: that it should correctly predict the number of species more abundant
274: than the least abundant species observed. Below this population the
275: distribution may be terminated by a veil line, but we do not allow any
276: such consideration for populations above the most abundant species
277: observed. Subject to this condition we optimise the parameters of
278: each theoretical distribution function, $f\!\left(\ln N\right)$, by
279: minimising a quantity analogous to $\chi^2$. One such statistic is
280: the Cram\'er-von Mises test \citep{bai91}, defined as
281: \begin{equation}
282: CM=\frac1{12S}+\frac1{S}\sum_{i=1}^S\left(i-0.5-\hat f\!\left(n_i\right)
283: \right)^2,
284: \end{equation}
285: where $\hat f\!\left(n_i\right)$ is the predicted number of species
286: less abundant than $n_i$, subject to the veil line at $n_1$, and $S$
287: is the number of species observed. Although this is readily
288: generalised to an ensemble of SADs, it attributes most weight to the
289: peak of the distribution at the expense of fitting the tails, and we
290: instead minimise the quantity
291: \begin{equation}
292: k^2=\int_{\ln n_1}^{\ln N_{\rm max}}\left(
293: C\!\left(N\right)-\hat f\!\left(N\right)
294: \right)^2{\rm d}\ln N,
295: \end{equation}
296: where $C\!\left(N\right)$ is the observed number of species less
297: abundant than $N$. For many distributions $N_{\rm
298: max}\rightarrow\infty$, but functions such as the logit-normal
299: distribution are parametrised by the total number of individuals
300: observed, $J$, in which case $N_{\rm max}=J$. Unlike the Cram\'er-von
301: Mises statistic, $k^2$ places equal weight in all intervals of $\ln
302: N$. Given that the theoretical distribution almost certainly differs
303: from the distribution underlying the data, this tends to avoid
304: problematic regions, such as ranges of $N$ in which few species are
305: observed, but where the empirical and theoretical c.d.f.s differ. The
306: tails of the distribution often behave in this manner. Having
307: identified optimal fitting parameters by minimising $k^2$, we follow
308: the advice of \cite{mcg07} that ``claim[s] of a superior fit must be
309: robust by being superior on multiple measures'' by evaluating the
310: Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic \citep{hay02} for each theoretical
311: distribution. Defined for a single realisation as
312: \begin{equation}
313: d=S^{-1/2}{\rm max}_i\left\{\left|i-1-\hat f\!\left(n_i\right)\right|,
314: \left|i-\hat f\!\left(n_i\right)\right|\right\},
315: \label{Eq:KS}
316: \end{equation}
317: $d$ corresponds to the greatest deviation between the empirical and
318: theoretical c.d.f.s. This must occur at one of the observed species,
319: which correspond to steps in the empirical c.d.f. It is necessary to
320: evaluate the difference between the empirical and theoretical
321: c.d.f. both immediately before and after the step, and hence the
322: `maximum' operator in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:KS}) contains two terms for each
323: observation $i$. Although the values of $d$ obtained imply rejection
324: of the theoretical distributions given the amount of data available,
325: we use $d$ as a measure of the relative goodness-of-fit to distinguish
326: between theoretical distributions. Other measures of goodness-of-fit
327: tend to relate to binned data rather than the c.d.f., and provide
328: correspondingly weaker evidence \citep{mcg03}.
329:
330: \begin{figure}
331: \centering
332: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
333: \caption{The fitted species abundance distribution for basal
334: communities with resources $R=1000$, 10\,000, 100\,000 and
335: 1\,000\,000. The histogram indicates the data in bins of width 0.1
336: in $\ln N$. The solid curves indicate optimal log-normal fits,
337: the dotted lines optimal logit-normal fits, and the dashed lines
338: optimal power-law normal fits. Distributions to the right
339: correspond to increasing $R$.
340: }
341: \label{fig:basalPDF}
342: \end{figure}
343: Although the log-normal distribution has been criticised as
344: inappropriate for application to SADs \citep{wil05}, it is a commonly
345: examined form of the SAD and we therefore adopt it as one of the
346: theoretical SADs we fit to the data. We also consider the
347: logit-normal distribution preferred by \citet{wil05}. Whereas the
348: log-normal distribution appears as a normal distribution when plotted
349: against a logarithmic population-axis, the logit-normal has a normal
350: distribution when plotted against a logit population axis. Our
351: analysis will consistently use the logarithmic axis both for plotting
352: and for the integration of $k^2$, so while the log-normal distribution
353: has the form
354: \begin{equation}
355: P\!\left(\ln N\right){\rm d}\ln N=A\exp\left\{-\frac{\left(\ln
356: N-\ln\mu\right)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right\}{\rm d}\ln N,
357: \end{equation}
358: with the fitting parameters $A$, $\mu$ and $\sigma$, the logit-normal
359: distribution includes an extra factor, giving
360: \begin{equation}
361: P\!\left(\ln N\right)=A\frac{J}{J-N}
362: \exp\left\{-\frac{\left(\ln\frac{N}{J-N}
363: -\ln\frac{\mu}{J-\mu}\right)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right\}.
364: \end{equation}
365: We also consider a third fitting function, the power-law normal
366: distribution, which appears normal against a power-law population
367: axis. Transformed to a logarithmic axis, this has the functional form
368: \begin{equation}
369: P\!\left(\ln N\right)=A\alpha
370: N^\alpha\exp\left\{-\frac{\left(N^\alpha-\mu^\alpha\right)^2}
371: {2\sigma^2}\right\},
372: \label{Eq:PowerLawNormaldlnN}
373: \end{equation}
374: where $\alpha$ is the power-law index. We do not consider the
375: log-series distribution since our data are with few exceptions peaked
376: at large $N$, whereas the p.d.f. of the log-series distribution
377: decreases from $N=1$ even when drawn against a logarithmic
378: population-axis. The broken stick distribution \citep{mag88} was found to be
379: similar in form to the observed distribution, but inferior to the
380: log-normal in all cases.
381:
382: \subsection{Comparison of food webs}
383: \label{Sec:Generalisation}
384: \begin{figure}
385: \centering
386: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
387: \caption{The fitted cumulative species abundance distribution for
388: basal communities with resources $R=1000$, 10\,000, 100\,000 and
389: 1\,000\,000. The solid line shows the data, the dotted line marks
390: the log-normal distribution, and the dashed line the power-law
391: normal distribution.
392: Distributions to the right correspond to increasing $R$.
393: }
394: \label{fig:basalCDF}
395: \end{figure}
396: Since we are applying the same distribution function with different
397: parameters to basal food webs of different sizes, and to the SADs of
398: different trophic levels within a single community, in the ideal case
399: a parametrisation of the fitting coefficients in terms of resources,
400: $R$, and trophic level, $l$, would be found. Because small values of
401: $R$ correspond to food webs with fewer species, complications arise in
402: weighting the contribution to goodness-of-fit from differently sized
403: webs, and we do not in this paper attempt to simultaneously fit webs
404: of different sizes. By examination of the best-fitting parameters for
405: each web we can determine the dependence of parameters on $R$ except
406: in one case; the power-law index $\alpha$ of the power-law normal
407: distribution. For most values of $R$ the goodness-of-fit depends
408: quite weakly on this parameter, and the optimal value of $\alpha$ is
409: poorly constrained for any one web. Since we were unable to identify
410: a systematic trend or strongly constrain the value of $\alpha$, we
411: chose $\alpha=0.2$ as a constant value consistent with the optimised
412: parameters, and fixed this value for all results presented here.
413:
414: \section{Results}
415: \label{Sec:Results}
416: In section~\ref{Sec:Basal} we present the results of the fitting
417: procedure for the basal communities. These should give the least
418: complicated species abundance distributions (SADs), since all species
419: feed on a single resource and are in direct competition with each
420: other. In comparison, the trophic communities examined in
421: section~\ref{Sec:Trophic} feed on multiple food sources themselves
422: distributed in abundance, and compete with different subsets of the
423: other species. In section~\ref{Sec:Tails} we make use of the large
424: number of simulation runs which can be performed to make a detailed
425: examination of the low- and high-population tails of the empirical
426: distribution, and compare this to the behaviour of the fitted
427: distributions.
428:
429: \subsection{Basal community}
430: \label{Sec:Basal}
431: \begin{figure}
432: \centering
433: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
434: \caption{The same data plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDF} shown as
435: residuals; the solid line corresponds to the empirical c.d.f. minus the
436: log-normal distribution, the dotted line to the data minus the
437: logit-normal distribution, and the dashed line to the data minus the
438: power-law normal distribution. Offsets of -0.5, -1.5 and -2.5 have been
439: applied to data for resources $R=10\,000$, 100\,000 and
440: 1\,000\,000 respectively.
441: }
442: \label{fig:basalCDFr}
443: \end{figure}
444: \begin{figure}
445: \centering
446: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4.eps}
447: \caption{Parameters of the power-law normal fit to the basal
448: community SAD for all values of resources examined. The solid
449: line passes through points marking the mean population, $\mu$ in
450: Eq.~(\ref{Eq:PowerLawNormaldlnN}); the dashed line marks the
451: standard deviation, $\sigma$. Squares mark the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
452: $d$ value, and stars mark the quantity $K$ described in the text.
453: }
454: \label{fig:basalFitPar}
455: \end{figure}
456: The results for this version of the model are the most complete in
457: that one hundred simulations runs were examined for each value of
458: resources $R$, and a large number of values of the continuous
459: parameter were examined. In Figures~\ref{fig:basalPDF} to
460: \ref{fig:basalCDFr} only four of these realisations are plotted,
461: corresponding to $R=10^3$, $10^4$, $10^5$ and $10^6$, which include
462: the two most extreme values of $R$ for which webs were calculated.
463: The general features of the SAD for these four values are typical, as
464: is the goodness of fit achieved by each of the three fitting functions
465: examined. It is clear from Figure~\ref{fig:basalPDF} that the
466: observed distribution is left-skewed (has an over-abundance of rarer
467: species), a characteristic absent from the log-normal distribution.
468: The logit-normal distribution does not have significantly improved
469: skew over the log-normal distribution, since the most abundant species
470: from any run has less than one quarter of the mean number of
471: individuals $J$, and the logit function is therefore well below its
472: asymptotic cut-off. \citet{wil05} note that in this limit the
473: logit-normal distribution approaches the log-normal. The power-law
474: normal distribution much more closely captures the smaller high-$N$
475: tail. The corresponding cumulative distribution functions (c.d.f.s)
476: are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDF}, where the logit-normal
477: distribution has been omitted for clarity. It can be seen, especially
478: for $R=10^6$, that the log-normal distribution underestimates the
479: cumulative number of species in both tails, which corresponds to the
480: skew of the p.d.f., and that even for one hundred realisations the
481: empirical c.d.f. is far from smooth. More instructive than the
482: c.d.f. are the residuals of this plot, that is, the difference between
483: the instantaneous value of the empirical c.d.f. and the fitting
484: function. These are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDFr} for all three
485: fitting functions. The integral of the square of this plot is our
486: goodness-of-fit measure $k^2$, and the maximum deviation from zero is
487: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov $d$-measure. Substantial structure can be seen
488: in the residuals, especially the central peak for each value of $R$
489: when examining the power-law normal distribution, which most closely
490: mimics the tails. Table~\ref{Tab:Fitting} records the values of $k^2$
491: and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov $d$ value for each fit, for fitting
492: parameters minimising $k^2$. Basal communities are labelled by the
493: value of resources, $R$, while trophic levels examined in
494: section~\ref{Sec:Trophic} are labelled according to the trophic level,
495: $l$. For the basal food webs the power-law normal fit always
496: outperforms both the logit-normal and log-normal distributions in
497: terms of $k^2$, and is only in one case inferior to the logit-normal
498: distribution as measured by $d$. A further comparison of the relative
499: merits of the theoretical distribution functions is given in
500: section~\ref{Sec:Tails}.
501:
502: In Figure~\ref{fig:basalFitPar} we plot the dependence of the
503: parameters of the power-law normal fit on $R$, as well as the two
504: goodness-of-fit indicators used. The solid line, marking the
505: population of the peak of the distribution, indicates the very near
506: linearity of the value of the peak of the distribution with $\ln R$.
507: The standard deviation of the distribution increases more rapidly than
508: linearly, as indicated by the dashed line. The value of $k^2$
509: increases with $\ln R$ for two reasons. Firstly, it is measured on
510: the full c.d.f. rather than the normalised distribution, and so tends
511: to increase as the square of the expected number of species, $S$.
512: Secondly, because it is an integrated measure, it tends to increase
513: with the width of the distribution, which we characterise by the
514: standard deviation of the log-normal distribution, $\sigma_{\rm LN}$.
515: It is more appropriate to use this measure than the standard deviation
516: of the power-law normal itself since the former corresponds naturally
517: to the width along the logarithmic population axis. In
518: Figure~\ref{fig:basalFitPar} we plot the quantity
519: \begin{equation}
520: K=\frac{1000k^2}{S^2\sigma_{\rm LN}},
521: \label{Eq:K}
522: \end{equation}
523: which compensates for these effects, and includes a factor of $1000$
524: to scale it appropriately for that plot. It can be seen that
525: intermediate values of $R$ are the best fitted, as measured by either
526: $K$ or the Kolmogorov-Smirnov $d$, perhaps due to relatively small
527: amounts of additional structure.
528:
529: \subsection{Trophic levels}
530: \label{Sec:Trophic}
531: \begin{figure}
532: \centering
533: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5.eps}
534: \caption{Histograms mark the observed species abundance distribution
535: for the four trophic levels found in the ten Webworld communities
536: examined. Trophic levels two and four are marked by dotted and
537: dashed lines respectively. Solid curves mark the optimal
538: log-normal fits to each trophic level, and dashed lines the
539: optimal power-law normal fits.
540: }
541: \label{fig:trophicPDF}
542: \end{figure}
543: \begin{figure}
544: \centering
545: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6.eps}
546: \caption{The cumulative species abundance distribution for
547: Webworld communities corresponding to the four observed trophic
548: levels. Higher trophic levels are to the left of lower levels,
549: having smaller typical populations. Optimal log-normal fits are
550: marked by dotted lines, and optimal power-law normal fits by
551: dashed lines.
552: }
553: \label{fig:trophicCDF}
554: \end{figure}
555: Having established that the power-law normal distribution describes
556: the SAD reasonably well for basal communities, we apply it to
557: individual trophic levels of full Webworld communities to determine
558: the relevant fitting parameters. Due to the small number of food webs
559: available, and the small number of species in each trophic level for
560: any one web, it is inappropriate to seek deviations from this
561: distribution with the data available, although we find that the
562: power-law normal distribution is adequate, and superior in all cases
563: to the log-normal distribution, having smaller values of both $k^2$
564: and $d$. As indicated by the values given in table~\ref{Tab:Fitting},
565: the logit-normal distribution marginally improves upon the power-law
566: normal distribution for trophic levels 1 and 3, but is significantly
567: inferior to the power-law normal for trophic level 2. For trophic
568: level 1, the typical number of species observed per web in the data
569: examined was only 5.9, the most abundant species being nearly half the
570: total population of its trophic level. For trophic level 3 the lower
571: tail of the distribution was truncated, and although here the
572: logit-normal distribution performed better than the power-law normal,
573: it is not clear that the logit-normal is able to adequately reproduce
574: the whole SAD. Although four trophic levels were found in the
575: empirical data, a very small number of species were found in trophic
576: level 4. It can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:trophicPDF} that the
577: distribution function of this level is little more than the
578: high-population tail of the distribution function, and no reliable
579: results can be obtained by its analysis.
580:
581: For comprehension of the empirical distribution being fitted we
582: reproduce, in Figure~\ref{fig:trophicCDF}, the cumulative distribution
583: function constructed from the simulation data along with the optimal
584: log-normal and power-law normal fits. It can be seen clearly from
585: this figure that the distribution of the second trophic level, which
586: has the largest number of species in total, is closest in form the
587: those of the basal communities. The distribution of trophic level
588: three, to its left, passes the veil line before a significant fraction
589: of the low-population tail has been exposed, but is otherwise in good
590: agreement with the basal community distributions. The lowest trophic
591: level, however, seems relatively truncated, resulting in a much
592: sharper cutoff at large $N$ than is reproduced by either the
593: log-normal or power-law normal distributions. The cause of this may
594: relate to the presence of predators, who can be expected to
595: preferentially target the most abundant prey, but additional data are
596: required to investigate this hypothesis. The residuals of the
597: c.d.f. fits are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:trophicCDFr}; it is possible
598: that similar structure in these is present to that seen for the basal
599: communities in Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDFr}, but the degree of noise is
600: greater.
601:
602: In Figure~\ref{fig:trophicFit} the mean and standard deviation of the
603: power-law normal distribution are plotted as a function of trophic
604: level. While the standard deviation appears to decline linearly with
605: trophic level, the distribution mean may decrease more slowly.
606: However, if the results for trophic level four are misleading due to
607: \begin{figure}
608: \centering
609: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7.eps}
610: \caption{The same data plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:trophicCDF} shown as
611: residuals; the solid line corresponds to the empirical c.d.f. minus the
612: log-normal distribution, the dotted line to the data minus the
613: logit-normal distribution, and the dashed line to the data minus the
614: power-law normal distribution. Offsets of -1.0, -2.0 and -2.5 have been
615: applied to data for trophic levels 2, 3 and 4 respectively. No
616: logit-normal fit was obtained for trophic level 4 due to the
617: absence of a positive optimal mean.
618: }
619: \label{fig:trophicCDFr}
620: \end{figure}
621: the extremely high position of the veil line, and the distribution of
622: basal species is possibly altered through predation as discussed, the
623: reliability of these results is limited. The quantity $K$, defined in
624: Eq.~(\ref{Eq:K}), is much better for trophic levels two and three
625: than for either the basal or fourth trophic level, although only
626: marginal improvements in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov $d$ value can be seen.
627:
628: \subsection{Distribution tails}
629: \label{Sec:Tails}
630: \begin{figure}
631: \centering
632: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8.eps}
633: \caption{
634: Parameters of the power-law normal fit to the trophic community SAD
635: for all values of resources examined. The solid line passes
636: through points marking the mean value of $N$. The lower dashed line
637: marks the standard deviation, while the upper dashed line multiplies
638: this quantity by 10 for clarity. Squares mark the
639: Kolmogorov-Smirnov $d$ value. Stars mark the quantity $K$ defined
640: in the text.
641: }
642: \label{fig:trophicFit}
643: \end{figure}
644: An advantage of examining computationally derived communities of
645: species is that extremely large data sets can be constructed with
646: relative ease, subject only to the availability of computer time. In
647: addition, the Webworld model produces complete ecological communities,
648: and the sampling effects associated with field data are avoidable. As
649: such it is much more feasible to examine the form taken by the tails
650: of the distribution function, which \citet{mcg07} note are subject to
651: noisy data, but which often contain the main differences between
652: theoretical distributions.
653:
654: To construct a high-quality empirical SAD whose tails could be
655: examined, nine hundred simulation runs were performed for the basal
656: community with $R=10^6$. The low-population tail of this distribution
657: is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:lowTail}, where the logarithm of the binned
658: species abundance has been taken to expose the tail. The fact that a
659: linear regression to this data (not shown) produces a good fit for
660: $\ln N<7$ implies that in this regime a power-law fit,
661: \begin{equation}
662: P\!\left(\ln N\right)\propto N^a,
663: \end{equation}
664: with $a\sim 4/3$, is obeyed. The power-law normal distribution is
665: able to reproduce this form reasonably well, while both the log-normal
666: and logit-normal distributions significantly underestimate the
667: number of species present.
668:
669: The distribution tail for large populations is shown in
670: Figure~\ref{fig:highTail}. Here bins have been chosen to be uniform
671: in width in population, rather than uniform in $\ln N$, in order to
672: resolve the tail. The result is that a different version of the
673: distribution is shown,
674: \begin{equation}
675: P\!\left(N\right){\rm d}N=\frac{P\!\left(\ln N\right)}{N}{\rm d}N,
676: \end{equation}
677: which, when integrated with respect to $N$, gives the c.d.f. Note
678: that in order to highlight the form of the decay, the population axis
679: has been stretched to a power-law. The regression line, plotted as a
680: dash-dot line, indicates that the high-population tail has the form
681: \begin{equation}
682: P\!\left(N\right){\rm d}N\propto
683: \exp\left\{-\left(\frac{N}{7140}\right)^{1.4116}\right\}{\rm d}N.
684: \end{equation}
685: As can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:highTail}, this form of the decay
686: declines more rapidly with $N$ than any of the log-normal,
687: logit-normal or power-law normal distributions examined.
688:
689: Having established probable forms for the low- and high-population
690: tails by regression to Figures~\ref{fig:lowTail} and
691: \ref{fig:highTail}, we combine these into a distribution which has the
692: minimum value of the two tail-fitting functions for all $N$. In
693: addition to the dashed line marking the empirical c.d.f., identical to
694: that shown in Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDF}, this fit is shown in
695: Figure~\ref{fig:tails} in two forms. The lower plot is the
696: c.d.f. integrated from zero species at $N=0$, and the upper curve is
697: integrated down from the observed number of species so as to converge
698: with the empirical distribution at large $N$. The fact that the
699: latter curve is above the former indicates that the combined
700: distribution underestimates the total number of species, implying that
701: it under-predicts the p.d.f. near the peak, to which it was not
702: fitted. Figure~\ref{fig:tails} therefore also plots the residuals of
703: the tail-fitting distribution as a histogram. There appear to be at
704: least three peaks in the residuals, making it difficult to identify a
705: plausible general form. Since we do not have unrelated basal food
706: webs to examine, in particular to establish what parameters of the
707: tail distributions are generic and whether the residuals show a common
708: pattern, it is not appropriate to draw further conclusions about the
709: central part of the distribution. We are also unable to ascribe a
710: goodness-of-fit to the tail-based distribution due to its inability to
711: reproduce the peak of the distribution.
712: \begin{figure}
713: \centering
714: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig9.eps}
715: \caption{
716: The small population tail of the basal community p.d.f. for resources
717: $R=10^6$. The p.d.f. is described in the text. The solid, dotted and
718: dashed curves mark the log-normal, logit-normal and power-law normal
719: fits to Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDF} respectively.
720: }
721: \label{fig:lowTail}
722: \end{figure}
723:
724: \section{Conclusions}
725: \label{Sec:Conclusions}
726: \begin{figure}
727: \centering
728: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10.eps}
729: \caption{The high population tail of the basal community p.d.f. for
730: resources $R=10^6$. The $x$-axis is linear in $N^{1.4116}$, which
731: was found to be the power-law index minimising the $\chi^2$ of the
732: regression line, but has been marked with corresponding values of
733: $N$ for clarity. The histogram marks the value of
734: $P\!\left(N\right)$, the population density in bins of equal width
735: in $N$. The solid, dotted and dashed curves mark the log-normal,
736: logit-normal and power-law normal fits to
737: Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDF} respectively. The dash-dotted line
738: indicates the best-fitting regression for $N>2000$.
739: }
740: \label{fig:highTail}
741: \end{figure}
742: We have investigated the form of the species abundance distribution
743: empirically derived from simulation results of the Webworld food web
744: model. This model was created to examine patterns of food web
745: assembly, and the form of the species abundance distribution (SAD) was
746: not a factor in its construction. Rather, the use of population
747: dynamics to establish the success of particular species and feeding
748: strategies within the community lead naturally to variation in the
749: abundance of species which appears similar to the SADs identified from
750: real ecosystems. By investigating the empirical SAD from the
751: simulations in the same manner as data from real ecosystems we are
752: able to characterise not only the peak of the distribution, which is
753: frequently observed to have a form similar to the log-normal
754: distribution, but to examine in detail parts of the distribution
755: difficult to obtain data on from field studies. We agree with the
756: conclusion of \citet{wil05} that the logit-normal distribution fits
757: better, but with particular reference to the tails of the distribution
758: find that the power-law normal distribution function is better still.
759: In particular, the log-normal and logit-normal distributions predict
760: that the number of species with population $N$ falls more rapidly with
761: decreasing $N$ than we obtain from our simulation results, which the
762: power-law normal distribution matches very well in this tail.
763:
764: The presence of structure in Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDFr} suggests that
765: a more complicated function is needed to properly reproduce the
766: observed SAD, but we have not been able to examine the reproducibility
767: of this remaining structure. All the food webs examined were created
768: for the same set of possible features and the same environment
769: species. To fully explore the results even for a single value of $R$
770: would require the use of food webs constructed for `worlds' with
771: different environment species and feature sets. In undertaking such a
772: programme it would first be necessary to establish whether such
773: parameters as the mean and variance of the fitted distribution
774: changed, or more generally to construct the meta-distribution of a
775: large number of Webworld `worlds' and test, using the
776: Kolmogorov-Smirnov $d$ value, whether the empirical distribution
777: constructed from webs of a single family was consistent with the
778: meta-distribution.
779:
780: We find that the power-law normal distribution identified as well
781: describing the SAD of a basal community is also successful in
782: describing individual trophic levels of a food web. It is
783: particularly descriptive of the second trophic level, which can be
784: seen in Figures~\ref{fig:trophicPDF} and \ref{fig:trophicCDF} to be
785: the most completely realised by our empirical data. The higher
786: trophic levels can also be expected to be well-fitted by the power-law
787: normal distribution, although the truncation of the distribution at
788: low populations results in the log-normal and logit-normal
789: descriptions also being adequate. The empirical distribution of the
790: lowest trophic level is more sharply truncated at high populations
791: than seen for other communities, the reason for which would require
792: substantial additional investigation. Unlike the case of examining
793: basal communities at different values of $R$, only a small number of
794: trophic levels are ever possible, and hence the relation between them
795: is harder to quantify. While it would be possible to construct
796: meta-distributions from larger numbers of food webs, it is more
797: feasible to first examine the agreement between the meta-distributions
798: of basal communities and the constituent distributions. If there is
799: good agreement, the agreement between the meta-distribution and the
800: trophic distributions should be examined. If not, then a very large
801: number of communities need to be evolved in the same environment in
802: order to study the relation between trophic levels, potentially also
803: examining the effect of different values of $R$. The main problem in
804: investigating the SAD of numerically modelled ecosystems is the
805: extensive computer time required to provide data.
806:
807: The SADs constructed for this paper are complete not only in the sense
808: that they contain all individuals present in the sample area, but also
809: in that they do not feature immigrant or transient species, which can
810: contribute to the low-population tail without representing a viable
811: population. While features such as immigration from surrounding
812: communities can easily be incorporated into our model, as can finite
813: population effects, their exclusion demonstrates the existence of an
814: extensive low-population tail to the distribution even for a closed
815: ecosystem. This contrasts with the proposal by \citet{mag03} that the
816: low-population tail is a log-series distribution of ``occasional''
817: species added to a core log-normal distribution. Although we do not
818: agree with \citet{mcg03a} that left-skew is purely an effect of
819: sampling, it may be the case that the left-skew of incomplete
820: samples does not reflect the underlying distribution.
821: \begin{figure}
822: \centering
823: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig11.eps}
824: \caption{
825: The c.d.f. for the basal community with resources $R=10^6$, as shown
826: in Figure~\ref{fig:basalCDF}, is shown as a dashed line. The
827: solid lines mark the c.d.f. constructed from fits to the tails as
828: described in the text. The histogram marks the residuals of the
829: p.d.f. of this fit.
830: }
831: \label{fig:tails}
832: \end{figure}
833:
834: \citet{mcg07} observe that most proposed SADs are similar to one
835: another except in the tails, which is precisely the region which field
836: observations are least able to address due to paucity of data. This
837: issue can be addressed by the use of any model which can produce
838: multiple independent realisations of its dynamics from which a
839: composite SAD can be constructed, but this process can only be used to
840: inform the analyses which should be performed on ecological data,
841: since it is not known a priori that any given model accurately
842: reproduces the real SAD. A virtue of the Webworld model is that is
843: produces a plausible SAD without any such consideration having been
844: used during the model design, being based rather on plausible
845: ecological rules.
846:
847: \section*{Acknowledgements}
848: The authors thank Carlos A. Lugo for providing additional simulation
849: data. This work was supported by EPSRC under grant GR/T11784.
850:
851: \begin{thebibliography}{21}
852: \providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
853:
854: \bibitem[{{Fisher} \textit{et~al.}(1943){Fisher}, {Corbet}, \&
855: {Williams}}]{fis43}
856: \textsc{{Fisher}, R.~A., {Corbet}, A.~S., {Williams}, C.}, 1943; \textit{The
857: relationship between the number of species and the number of individuals in a
858: random sample from an animal population}.
859: \newblock J. Animal Ecology \textbf{12} 42
860:
861: \bibitem[{{Preston}(1948)}]{pre48}
862: \textsc{{Preston}, F.~W.}, 1948; \textit{The commonness and rarity of species}.
863: \newblock Ecology \textbf{29} 254
864:
865: \bibitem[{{Gray}(1987)}]{gra87}
866: \textsc{{Gray}, J.~S.}, 1987; \textit{Species-abundance patterns}.
867: \newblock In {O}rganization of {C}ommunities {P}ast and {P}resent (J.~H.~R.
868: {Gee}, P.~S. {Giller}, eds.) (Blackwell Science, Oxford), 53--68
869:
870: \bibitem[{{Marquet} \textit{et~al.}(2003){Marquet}, {Fern\'andez}, \&
871: {Cofre}}]{mar03}
872: \textsc{{Marquet}, P.~A., {Fern\'andez}, J.~A., {Cofre}, H.}, 2003;
873: \textit{Breaking the stick in space: of niche models, metacommunities and
874: patterns in the relative abundance of species}.
875: \newblock In {M}acroecology: {C}oncepts and {C}onsequences (T.~M. {Blackburn},
876: K.~J. {Gaston}, eds.) (Blackwell Science, Oxford), 64--86
877:
878: \bibitem[{{May}(1975)}]{may75}
879: \textsc{{May}, R.~M.}, 1975; \textit{Patterns of species abundance and
880: diversity}.
881: \newblock In {Ecology and evolution of communities} (M.~L. {Cody}, J.~M.
882: {Diamond}, eds.) (Belknap Press, Harvard), 81--120
883:
884: \bibitem[{{McGill} \textit{et~al.}(2007){McGill}, {Etienne}, {Gray}, {Alonso},
885: {Anderson}, {Benecha}, {Dornelas}, {Enquist}, {Green}, {He}, {Hurlbert},
886: {Magurran}, {Marquet}, {Maurer}, {Ostling}, {Soykan}, {Ugland}, \&
887: {White}}]{mcg07}
888: \textsc{{McGill}, B.~J., {Etienne}, R.~S., {Gray}, J.~S., {Alonso}, D.,
889: {Anderson}, M.~J., {Benecha}, H.~K., {Dornelas}, M., {Enquist}, B.~J.,
890: {Green}, J.~L., {He}, F., {Hurlbert}, A.~H., {Magurran}, A.~E., {Marquet},
891: P.~A., {Maurer}, B.~A., {Ostling}, A., {Soykan}, C.~U., {Ugland}, K.~I.,
892: {White}, E.~P.}, 2007; \textit{Species abundance distributions: moving beyond
893: single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework}.
894: \newblock Ecology Letters \textbf{10} 995
895:
896: \bibitem[{{Whittaker}(1965)}]{whi65}
897: \textsc{{Whittaker}, R.~H.}, 1965; \textit{Dominance and diversity in land
898: plant communities}.
899: \newblock Science \textbf{147} 250
900:
901: \bibitem[{{Drossel} \textit{et~al.}(2001){Drossel}, {Higgs}, \&
902: {McKane}}]{dro01}
903: \textsc{{Drossel}, B., {Higgs}, P.~G., {McKane}, A.~J.}, 2001; \textit{The
904: influence of predator-prey population dynamics on the long term evolution of
905: food web structure}.
906: \newblock J. Theor. Biol. \textbf{208} 91
907:
908: \bibitem[{{Caldarelli} \textit{et~al.}(1998){Caldarelli}, {Higgs}, \&
909: {McKane}}]{cal98}
910: \textsc{{Caldarelli}, G., {Higgs}, P.~G., {McKane}, A.~J.}, 1998;
911: \textit{Modelling coevolution in multispecies communities}.
912: \newblock J. Theor. Biol. \textbf{193} 345
913:
914: \bibitem[{{Drossel} \textit{et~al.}(2004){Drossel}, {McKane}, \&
915: {Quince}}]{dro04}
916: \textsc{{Drossel}, B., {McKane}, A.~J., {Quince}, C.}, 2004; \textit{The impact
917: of nonlinear functional responses on the long-term evolution of food web
918: structure}.
919: \newblock J. Theor. Biol. \textbf{229} 539
920:
921: \bibitem[{{Quince} \textit{et~al.}(2005){Quince}, {Higgs}, \& {McKane}}]{qui05}
922: \textsc{{Quince}, C., {Higgs}, P.~G., {McKane}, A.~J.}, 2005;
923: \textit{Topological structure and interaction strengths in model food webs}.
924: \newblock Ecol. Model. \textbf{187} 389
925:
926: \bibitem[{{Drossel} \& {McKane}(2003)}]{dro03}
927: \textsc{{Drossel}, B., {McKane}, A.~J.}, 2003; \textit{Modelling food webs}.
928: \newblock In Handbook of {G}raphs and {N}etworks ({S. Bornholdt and H.G.
929: Schuster}, ed.) (Wiley-VCH), 218--247
930:
931: \bibitem[{{McKane} \& {Drossel}(2005)}]{mck05}
932: \textsc{{McKane}, A.~J., {Drossel}, B.}, 2005; \textit{Modelling evolving food
933: webs}.
934: \newblock In {D}ynamical {F}ood {W}ebs (P.~C. de~Ruiter, V.~Wolters, J.~C.
935: Moore, eds.) (Elsevier, Singapore), 74--88
936:
937: \bibitem[{{McKane} \& {Drossel}(2006)}]{mck06}
938: \textsc{{McKane}, A.~J., {Drossel}, B.}, 2006; \textit{Models of food web
939: evolution}.
940: \newblock In {E}cological {N}etworks: {L}inking {S}tructure to {D}ynamics in
941: {F}ood {W}ebs (Oxford University Press), 223--243
942:
943: \bibitem[{{Bain} \& {Engelhardt}(1991)}]{bai91}
944: \textsc{{Bain}, L.~J., {Engelhardt}, M.}, 1991; Introduction to {P}robability
945: and {M}athematical {S}tatistics (Duxbury)
946:
947: \bibitem[{{Hayter}(2002)}]{hay02}
948: \textsc{{Hayter}, A.~J.}, 2002; Probability and {S}tatistics for {E}ngineers
949: and {S}cientists (Duxbury), 2nd edn.
950:
951: \bibitem[{{McGill}(2003{\natexlab{\textit{a}}})}]{mcg03}
952: \textsc{{McGill}, B.~J.}, 2003{\natexlab{\textit{a}}}; \textit{Strong and weak
953: tests of macroecological theory}.
954: \newblock Oikos \textbf{102} 679
955:
956: \bibitem[{{Williamson} \& {Gaston}(2005)}]{wil05}
957: \textsc{{Williamson}, M., {Gaston}, K.~J.}, 2005; \textit{The lognormal
958: distribution is not an appropriate null hypothesis for the species adundance
959: distribution}.
960: \newblock J. Animal Ecology \textbf{74} 409
961:
962: \bibitem[{{Magurran}(1988)}]{mag88}
963: \textsc{{Magurran}, A.~E.}, 1988; Ecological diversity and its measurement
964: (Cambridge University Press)
965:
966: \bibitem[{{Magurran}(2003)}]{mag03}
967: \textsc{{Magurran}, A.~E.}, 2003; \textit{Explaining the excess of rare species
968: in natural species abundance distributions}.
969: \newblock Nature \textbf{422} 714
970:
971: \bibitem[{{McGill}(2003{\natexlab{\textit{b}}})}]{mcg03a}
972: \textsc{{McGill}, B.~J.}, 2003{\natexlab{\textit{b}}}; \textit{Does Mother
973: Nature really prefer rare species or are log-left-skewed SADs a sampling
974: artefact?}
975: \newblock Ecology Letters \textbf{6} 766
976:
977: \end{thebibliography}
978:
979: \newpage
980:
981: \begin{table}
982: \caption{Comparison of measures of goodness-of-fit for the log-normal,
983: logit-normal and power-law normal distributions to basal community SADs
984: and trophic SADs.
985: }
986: \centering
987: \label{Tab:Fitting}
988: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
989: \hline\noalign{\smallskip}
990: Community & Species & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$k^2$} \\[3pt]
991: & $S$ & Log & Logit & Power-law \\[3pt]
992: $R=10^3$ & 11.22 & 0.0599 & 0.0390 & 0.0314 \\
993: $R=10^4$ & 18.15 & 0.2333 & 0.1571 & 0.1175 \\
994: $R=10^5$ & 25.42 & 0.8820 & 0.6296 & 0.1676 \\
995: $R=10^6$ & 30.16 & 1.5759 & 1.1752 & 0.4708 \\
996: $l=1$ & 5.9 & 0.1532 & 0.0902 & 0.0877 \\
997: $l=2$ & 18.1 & 0.7972 & 0.5328 & 0.1480 \\
998: $l=3$ & 14.0 & 0.2111 & 0.1126 & 0.1093 \\
999: \hline\noalign{\smallskip}
1000: Community & Species & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Kolmogorov-Smirnov $d$} \\[3pt]
1001: & $S$ & Log & Logit & Power-law \\[3pt]
1002: $R=10^3$ & 11.22 & 1.0648 & 1.1094 & 0.9990 \\
1003: $R=10^4$ & 18.15 & 1.3244 & 1.0409 & 1.1660 \\
1004: $R=10^5$ & 25.42 & 1.4826 & 1.3669 & 0.9919 \\
1005: $R=10^6$ & 30.16 & 2.0255 & 1.7661 & 1.6167 \\
1006: $l=1$ & 5.9 & 1.8391 & 1.5798 & 1.5934 \\
1007: $l=2$ & 18.1 & 2.0051 & 1.7753 & 1.1430 \\
1008: $l=3$ & 14.0 & 1.8270 & 1.4797 & 1.5241 \\
1009: \hline\noalign{\smallskip}
1010: \end{tabular}
1011: \end{table}
1012:
1013: \end{document}
1014:
1015: