The original article with this name was published in *Journal
of Ecology* **84,** 293-295 (1996). Since this article seems
to have caused some confusion, I explain here briefly its main
points, and comment on some criticism. In this article I suggested
that humped species richness against biomass will be produced
as an artefact of fixed quadrat size even without any ecological
interactions. Hence the name 'no-interactions' model.

First I will briefly explain the assumptions of no-interaction model
and how they produce the hump. Then I comment on some misconceptions
about the no-interaction model, and tell why I call it an artefact.
The key point here is that 'no-interaction' model does not mean
that you should not study interactions: On the contrary, instead
of circular species richness - biomass observations, you should
focus on interactions and on ecologically meaningful parameters.
A more technical chapter deals with fitting no-interaction and alternative models.
In addition, there is a special analysis
of one case that Grime (*Journal of Ecoogy. ***85,** 97-98;
1997) interprets to support his views, and I interpret to support
the no-interaction model.

After publishing the article, I have written a simple simulation program for generating vegetation stands. This is a bit more realistic than the original heuristic reasoning in deriving the no-interaction model. The same hump artefact is found even with these more complex and realistic models, but the results give hope to find better ways of describing richness.

[ assumptions ] [ misconceptions ] [ simulations ] [ what to do? ] [ fitting ] [ case study ]

*29/4/97*