Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conservation biologists have reported growing evidence of food‐web interactions as causes of species endangerment. Apparent competition is an indirect interaction among prey species mediated by a shared predator, and has been increasingly linked to declines of prey species across taxa. We review theoretical and empirical studies of apparent competition, with specific attention to the mechanisms of asymmetry among apparently competing prey species. Asymmetry is theoretically driven by niche overlap, species fitness traits, spatial heterogeneity and generalist predator behavior. In real‐world systems, human‐induced changes to ecosystems such as habitat alteration and introduced species may be ultimate sources of species endangerment. However, apparent competition is shown to be a proximate mechanism when resultant changes introduce or subsidize abundant primary prey for predator populations. Demonstration of apparent competition is difficult due to the indirect relationships between prey and predator species and the potential for concurrent exploitative competition or other community effects. However, general conclusions are drawn concerning the characteristics of prey and predator species likely to exhibit asymmetric apparent competition, and the options for recovering endangered species. While short‐term management may be required to avoid imminent extinction in systems demonstrating apparent competition, we propose adaptive conservation efforts directed at long‐term recovery.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".