MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065695168 · doi:10.1086/661243

Simple Life-History Omnivory: Responses to Enrichment and Harvesting in Systems with Intraguild Predation

2011· article· en· W2065695168 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter A. Abrams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Chicago
KeywordsIntraguild predationPredationBiologyEcologyPredatorJuvenilePopulationAbundance (ecology)Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the nature of top-down and bottom-up effects and alternative states in systems characterized by life-history omnivory. The analysis is based on a three-species food web with intraguild predation (IGP). The top predator population has juvenile and adult stages, which consume the basal resource and the intermediate prey, respectively; the prey consumes only the resource. The per capita reproduction of the adult predators depends on their consumption rate of prey, while the maturation rate of the juvenile predators depends on their resource consumption rate. Enriching the resource can increase or decrease the abundances of one or both of the two consumer species; an increased density is more likely in the intermediate species than in the systems where IGP is not based on stage differences. Alternative states that have or lack the predator occur frequently, particularly when the prey population is capable of reducing the resource to very low densities. These results differ from those of several other recent models of life-history omnivory. They suggest that life-history omnivory may be one of the primary reasons why exploited populations undergo sudden collapses and why collapsed populations fail to recover in spite of large reductions in the exploitation rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.154 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207