This is so because our paper deals with a theory which is at the core of the classical discipline of ecology as the scientific study of the distribution and abundance of species and their biotic and abiotic causes.

“Our paper deals with theory that is meant to understand the spatio-temporal distribution of biodiversity.”

Neutral theory explores the theoretical consequences of assuming that communities are evolutionarily shaped by random speciation and ecologically assembled by random dispersal and random ecological drift. Communities evolve in space and time as a result of a complicated balance among three elements: randomness, natural selection, and abiotic constraints.

For years, most ecologists have studied how these three elements interact to explain the natural world. However, randomness is the only factor that neutral theory takes into consideration. This has made neutral theory very controversial. This hot controversy and the fact that we highlight the merits of such a theory may also explain why our paper is highly cited.

As we say in our paper: "Science should aim at finding the minimal set of processes that can satisfactorily explain observed phenomena." Speciation, birth, death, and immigration are very basic processes all species and individuals undergo.

Neutral theory applies to communities of similar species and studies how these basic elements generate the distribution of biodiversity we observe under the assumption that all these processes are only driven by chance. Our work suggests that this theory may provide a solid starting point for a further synthesis in community ecology between the three elements I have mentioned above.

Is randomness an essential constructive force in shaping ecological communities? Or is it a simple reflection of our ignorance, our inability to measure and describe the exact cause-effect relationships determining species abundance distributions across space and time?

Our paper deals with a theory that explores the constructive role of chance in ecosystems and suggests that such a theory can be taken as a starting point for further investigation of precisely the relative role of chance and necessity in the natural world.

As a graduate student in Barcelona, I devoted my time to the theoretical study of the stochastic nature of ecological interactions. By the time Stephen P. Hubbell of the University of Georgia published his book entitled: The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (MPB-32) in 2001, I was working on several random-driven models for ecological communities.

When I read that book, I understood that most of the models described there were amenable to a great deal of analysis by using a stochastic approach, with which I was quite familiar. Very soon, the application of those methods to neutral models generated straightforward results.

I have always been interested in developing approaches to integrate theory and data. Developing quantitative theory for ecology and evolution is my passion. Now that I am a member of the Conservation and Community Ecology Group at the University of Groningen, in the near future, I will focus my research on bridging the gap between theory and data in this field.

Along the way, I hope to develop other scientific interests as well. I am very interested in the evolution and maintenance of cooperation, as it occurs in social ecology, economy, and society.

  Are there any social or political implications for your research?

Our paper deals with a theory which is meant to understand the spatio-temporal distribution of biodiversity. For centuries, humanity’s relentless expansion all over the planet has resulted in the shrinkage of natural habitats and the decline of biodiversity.

The implications of such a rapid decline are not well understood. As biologists, while we track an increasing rate of species loss, we also urge others to accept the primary importance of biodiversity, in the hope of averting this declining trend.