Coexistence of Cycling and Dispersing Consumer Species: Armstrong and McGehee in Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two competing consumer species may coexist using a single homogeneous resource when the more efficient consumer--the one having the lowest equilibrium resource density--has a more nonlinear functional response that generates consumer-resource cycles. We extend this model of nonequilibrium coexistence, as proposed by Armstrong and McGehee, by putting the interaction into a spatial context using two frameworks: a spatially explicit individual-based model and a spatially implicit metapopulation model. We find that Armstrong and McGehee's mechanism of coexistence can operate in a spatial context. However, individual-based simulations suggest that decreased dispersal restricts coexistence in most cases, whereas differential equation models of metapopulations suggest that a low rate of dispersal between subpopulations often increases the coexistence region. This difference arises in part because of two potentially opposing effects on coexistence due to the asynchrony in the temporal dynamics at different locations. Asynchrony implies that the less efficient species is more likely to be favored in some spatial locations at any given time, which broadens the conditions for coexistence. On the other hand, asynchrony and dispersal can also reduce the amplitude of local population cycles, which restricts coexistence. The relative influence of these two effects depends on details of the population dynamics and the representation of space. Our results also demonstrate that coexistence via the Armstrong-McGehee mechanism can occur even when there is little variation in the global densities of either the consumers or the resource, suggesting that empirical studies of the mechanisms should measure densities on several spatial scales.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".