Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the idea that predation rates are functions of the ratio of prey density to predator density, known as ratio dependence, is reviewed and updated. When the term was introduced in 1989, it was already known that higher predator abundance often reduced an individual predator's average intake rate of prey. However, the idea that this effect was a universally applicable inverse proportionality was new. That idea was widely criticized in many articles in the early 1990s, and many of these criticisms have never been addressed. Nevertheless, ratio dependence seems to be gaining in popularity and is the subject of a recent monograph by the originators. This article revisits the most important objections to this theory, and assesses to what extent they have been answered by the theory's proponents. In this process, several new objections are raised. The counterarguments begin with the lack of a plausible, generally applicable mechanism that could produce ratio dependence. They include the fact that ratio dependence is a special case of predator-density effects, which, in turn, are only one of many non-prey species effects that influence the consumption rate of a particular prey. The proclaimed simplicity advantage of ratio dependence is at best small and is outweighed by its disadvantages; it predicts biologically implausible phenomena, and cannot easily be extended to describe multi-species systems, trait-mediated interactions, coevolution, and a number of other important ecological phenomena. Any potential small simplicity advantage disappears with corrections to remove unrealistic low-density dynamics caused by ratio dependence. The frequent occurrence of strong predator dependence does not make ratio dependence a better 'default' model of predation than prey dependence, and empirical studies of the full range of non-prey species effects on the consumption rates of predators are needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".