THE IMPACT OF HABITAT SELECTION ON THE SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY OF RESOURCES IN VARYING ENVIRONMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article used a series of simple models to examine the population dynamics of two independently reproducing resource populations in spatially distinct patches, when the resources are eaten by a fixed consumer population that moves adaptively between the patches. The models assumed that each resource (patch) experienced a potentially different set of environmental influences on its growth rate. The models also assumed that consumer distribution shifted more rapidly toward the more rewarding patch as the difference in resource intake rates between the patches increased. In most cases, the time-average of spatial heterogeneity of resource densities is greatest for intermediate rates of consumer movement. The average resource densities and consumer fitness are also frequently maximal when movement rates are intermediate. Intermediate movement rates allow enough of a lag in consumer redistribution that resources periodically escape overexploitation. Resource densities and heterogeneity may increase by a large factor as the rate of consumer movement (or the sensitivity of consumer movement to differences in intake rates) increases. These findings were used to discuss the potential effects of predators that interfere with habitat selection by their prey. Such predators may have positive or negative effects on the density of their prey and of their prey's resources. Predators may also either increase or decrease the spatial heterogeneity of resource densities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".