Harvesting creates ecological traps: consequences of invisible mortality risks in predator–prey metacommunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of two-patch predator-prey metacommunities are used to explore how the global predator population changes in response to additional mortality in one of the patches. This could describe the dynamics of a predator in an environment that includes a refuge area where that predator is protected and a spatially distinct ("risky") area where it is harvested. The predator's movement is based on its perceived fitness in the two patches, but the risk from the additional mortality is potentially undetectable; this often occurs when the mortality is from human harvesting or from a novel type of top predator. Increases in undetected mortality in the risky area can produce an abrupt collapse of either the refuge population or of the entire predator population when the mortality rate exceeds a threshold level. This is due to the attraction of the risky patch, which has abundant prey due to its high predator mortality. Extinction of the refuge predator population does not occur when the refuge patch has a higher maximum per capita predator growth rate than the exploited patch because the refuge is then more attractive when the predator is rare. The possibility of abrupt extinction of one or both patches from high densities in response to a small increase in harvest is often associated with alternative states. In such cases, large reductions in mortality may be needed to avoid extinction in a collapsing predator population, or to reestablish an extinct population. Our analysis provides a potential explanation for sudden collapses of harvested populations, and it argues for more consideration of adaptive movement in designing protected areas.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".