MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091005934 · doi:10.1086/498432

Can Environmental Variation Generate Positive Indirect Effects in a Model of Shared Predation?

2005· article· en· W2091005934 on OpenAlexaff
Chad E. Brassil

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationPredatorIndirect effectBiologyCompetition (biology)Range (aeronautics)Per capitaPopulationEcologyDensity dependenceFunctional responseDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classic models of apparent competition predict negative indirect effects between prey with a shared enemy. If predator per capita growth rates are nonlinear, then endogenously generated periodic cycles are predicted to generate less negative or even positive indirect effects between prey. Here I determine how exogenous mechanisms such as environmental variation could modify indirect effects. I find that exogenous variation can have a broader range of effects on indirect interactions than endogenously generated cycles. Indirect effects are altered by environmental variation even in simple models for which the per capita growth rate of the predator species is a linear function of population densities. Temporal variation that affects the predator attack rate or the conversion efficiency can lead to large increases or decreases in the indirect effects between prey, dependent on how prey populations co-vary with the environmental variation. Positive indirect effects can occur when the period of environmental variation is close to the natural period of the biological system and shifts in subharmonic resonance occur with the addition of the second prey. Models that include nonlinear numerical responses generally lead to indirect effects that are sensitive to environmental variation in more parameters and across a wider range of frequencies.

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 score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207