Assessing the spatial variability of density dependence in waterfowl populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population models commonly assume that the demographic parameters are spatially invariant, but there is considerable evidence that population growth rate ( r ) and the strength of density dependence (β) can vary over a species' range. To address this issue we developed a spatially explicit Gompertz population model based on the spatially varying coefficients approach to assess the spatial variation in population drivers. The model was fit to spatially stratified time series population estimates of the mallard Anas platyrhynchos in western North America. We included precipitation during the previous year and spring maximum temperature in the current year as environmental factors in the density dependent population model. Because density dependent models can give biased estimates for time series of abundance data, we fit a naïve model without informative priors and a model where we constrained the mean and variance of r to biologically realistic values that were derived via a comparative demography approach. In the naïve model, r and β were not separately identifiable and their values were overestimated, leading to unrealistic population growth. The naïve model also implied spatial variation in population r and the return time to equilibrium [1⁄(– β)] across the survey area. In contrast, in the informative model, r and the return time to equilibrium did not vary markedly among populations and were generally equal across populations. The effects of the climatic factors were similar across models. Population growth rates in the Prairie‐pothole region were positively correlated with precipitation, while in Alaska rates were positively correlated with spring temperature. Although it has been argued in the past that adding ecological realism could help avoid the pitfalls associated with density dependent models, our results demonstrate that imposing constraints on the population parameters is still the best course of action.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".