Calibrating the data logger…
The purpose of this study was to test how accurately the Maximum Entropy Theory of Ecology (METE) will predict the Species Area Relationships (SAR) and Species Abundance Distributions (SAD) of plants and SAD of insects in disturbed (warmed) and undisturbed (control) sites in the “Warming Meadow” at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL). Based on METE’s prediction that empirical SAR data should fall along a curve known as the “universal scale collapse” curve, I hypothesized that METE would be valid for undisturbed sites and invalid for disturbed sites, an inference supported by past experiments conducted at RMBL. I also expected the empirical plant and insect data for control plots to fit METE’s prediction. Contrary to my hypotheses, statistical analysis indicated that empirical SAR curves for warmed plots (mean distance x= .044) lay closer to the theoretical curve than the control plots’ curves (mean distance x= .106). Similarly, Chi-squared goodness-of-fit test statistics for SAD indicated that for both plants and insects, only one warmed and one control plot showed a significant fit to the theory. Ultimately, the study’s conclusion either indicates a failure of theory or a failure of experimental setup. Possible explanations for why METE appears to predict the SAR and SAD accurately for disturbed and undisturbed plots include the relatively moderate level of warming (2.0°C), a short time period of warming (21 years), or a new species composition equilibrium reached by the ecosystem.
Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.