Predator‐free space, functional responses and biological invasions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Predator–prey interactions are mediated by the structural complexity of habitats, but disentangling the many facets of structure that contribute to this mediation remains elusive. In a world replete with altered landscapes and biological invasions, determining how structure mediates the interactions between predators and novel prey will contribute to our understanding of invasions and predator–prey dynamics in general. Here, using simplified experimental arenas, we manipulate predator‐free space, whilst holding surface area and volume constant, to quantify the effects on predator–prey interactions between two resident gammarid predators and an invasive prey, the Ponto‐Caspian corophiid Chelicorophium curvispinum . Systematically increasing predator‐free space alters the functional responses (the relationship between prey density and consumption rate) of the amphipod predators by reducing attack rates and lengthening handling times. Crucially, functional response shape also changes subtly from destabilizing T ype II towards stabilizing T ype III , such that small increases in predator‐free space to result in significant reductions in prey consumption at low prey densities. Habitats with superficially similar structural complexity can have considerably divergent consequences for prey population stability in general and, particularly, for invasive prey establishing at low densities in novel habitats.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".