Tests of density dependence using indices of relative abundance in a deer population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major question in animal ecology is explaining the causes of population fluctuations. Consensus about the most reliable method to detect density dependence (DD) or environmental effects from time‐series data, however, has not yet been achieved. Times series analyses have been used with indices of relative abundance in numerous studies, although these indices are rarely validated. Here, we used three different time series of relative abundance (number of deer seen per hunter per day, hunting success and proportion of males in the harvest) to explore direct and delayed DD in a white‐tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus population on Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada. Three mathematical approaches were tested: linear models, autoregressive (AR) models, and total DD in life history. Tests of DD using different indices of abundance on the same population should lead to similar results if all indices exhibit similar behaviour. Indices of relative abundance correlated with each other, although sometimes weakly, such that we obtained similar DD estimates with each index using detrended non‐stationary series. In most time series, linear regression of N t−1 and N t and AR models did not detect DD, while we obtained strong evidence for DD from the life‐history approach. This meant that contrasting conclusions about the role of density dependence within this population were reached depending on which method was used. We conclude that the method that incorporates most biological realism, the life‐history approach, provided a different result than classical interpretation of autoregressive coefficients. Only the life‐history interpretation supported our a priori belief that density dependence operating through competition for food regulates the Anticosti deer population. Phenomenological analysis aiming to investigate changes in abundance should be carefully conducted as the use of inappropriate indices or methods could lead to inappropriate conclusions or management strategies. Preferably, the method used should match the time scale of the population sampling regime and species life history.
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 | 0.000 | 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".