Rotifer population spread in relation to food, density and predation risk in an experimental system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Despite the popular use of diffusion models to predict the spatial spread of populations over time, we currently know little about how diffusion rates change with the state of the environment or the internal condition of individuals. To address this gap in our understanding, we measured rates of spread for many populations of the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus in a suite of well-replicated experiments. 2. In one set of experiments, we manipulated food availability and population density along a continuous range of densities. In a second set, we manipulated the internal state of entire populations via food deprivation and exposure to predator kairomones. 3. Across replicate populations, diffusion rates were positively correlated with conspecific density. Diffusion rates were negatively correlated with food availability, especially when conspecific density was high. Diffusion rates of food-deprived populations or those exposed to predation risk were lower than controls. 4. Our results provide direct experimental evidence that rates of population spread are conditional on population density, food availability, body condition and predation risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".