  Ecological patterns arise from the interplay of many different processes, and
yet the emergence of consistent phenomena across a diverse range of ecological
systems suggests that many patterns may in part be determined by statistical or
numerical constraints. Differentiating the extent to which patterns in a given
system are determined statistically, and where it requires explicit ecological
processes, has been difficult. We tackled this challenge by directly comparing
models from a constraint-based theory, the Maximum Entropy Theory of Ecology
(METE) and models from a process-based theory, the size-structured neutral
theory (SSNT). Models from both theories were capable of characterizing the
distribution of individuals among species and the distribution of body size
among individuals across 76 forest communities. However, the SSNT models
consistently yielded higher overall likelihood, as well as more realistic
characterizations of the relationship between species abundance and average
body size of conspecific individuals. This suggests that the details of the
biological processes contain additional information for understanding community
structure that are not fully captured by the METE constraints in these systems.
Our approach provides a first step towards differentiating between process- and
constraint-based models of ecological systems and a general methodology for
comparing ecological models that make predictions for multiple patterns.
