Dynamic energy budget theory and population ecology: lessons from <i>Daphnia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic energy budget (DEB) theory offers a perspective on population ecology whose starting point is energy utilization by, and homeostasis within, individual organisms. It is natural to ask what it adds to the existing large body of individual-based ecological theory. We approach this question pragmatically--through detailed study of the individual physiology and population dynamics of the zooplankter Daphnia and its algal food. Standard DEB theory uses several state variables to characterize the state of an individual organism, thereby making the transition to population dynamics technically challenging, while ecologists demand maximally simple models that can be used in multi-scale modelling. We demonstrate that simpler representations of individual bioenergetics with a single state variable (size), and two life stages (juveniles and adults), contain sufficient detail on mass and energy budgets to yield good fits to data on growth, maturation and reproduction of individual Daphnia in response to food availability. The same simple representations of bioenergetics describe some features of Daphnia mortality, including enhanced mortality at low food that is not explicitly incorporated in the standard DEB model. Size-structured, population models incorporating this additional mortality component resolve some long-standing questions on stability and population cycles in Daphnia. We conclude that a bioenergetic model serving solely as a 'regression' connecting organismal performance to the history of its environment can rest on simpler representations than those of standard DEB. But there are associated costs with such pragmatism, notably loss of connection to theory describing interspecific variation in physiological rates. The latter is an important issue, as the type of detailed study reported here can only be performed for a handful of species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".