Density‐ and resource‐dependent movement characteristics in a rotifer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Theory predicts that consumers can increase their energy intake by spending more time within resource‐rich areas and/or by avoiding areas where local competitor densities are high. A consumer whose movements are described by a simple random walk can achieve these objectives by adjusting its turn frequency and/or speed. We recorded movements, as series of steps, by 180 individual rotifers ( B rachionus calyciflorus ) in glass capillary tubes to test the influence of resource density, competitor density and their statistical interaction on movement parameters. Four treatments contrasted opposing levels of algae (resource) and conspecific density in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Our results indicate that density‐ and resource‐dependent behaviours act through different mechanisms to shape patterns of rotifer movement. Turn frequency increased up to twofold in resource‐rich treatments, depending on the presence or absence of competitors. In contrast, swimming speed was 50% greater in the presence of competitors under all treatments, but was only slightly depressed by the presence of resources alone. We show how these two different movement mechanisms may be integrated into predictions of consumer population spread as resource and competitor densities vary. We discuss implications of the contrasting and complementary nature of these different movement mechanisms and their possible adaptations to different environmental stimuli.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".