MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Environmental fluctuations can stabilize food web dynamics by increasing synchrony

2007· article· en· W2117007598 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Vasseur, Jeremy W. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood webAsynchrony (computer programming)Extinction (optical mineralogy)EcologyConstant (computer programming)Stability (learning theory)Asynchronous communicationPredationCompetition (biology)Range (aeronautics)Environmental scienceBiological systemBiologyStatistical physicsComputer sciencePhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural food webs are species-rich, but classical theory suggests that they should be unstable and extinction-prone. Asynchronous fluctuations in the densities of competing consumers can stabilize food web dynamics in constant environments. However, environmental fluctuations often synchronize dynamics in nature. Using the same 'diamond-shape' food web model first used to demonstrate the stabilizing effects of asynchrony in constant environments, we show that weak-to-moderate environmentally induced fluctuations in consumer mortality rates stabilize food webs while disrupting asynchrony. Synchrony actually promotes stability because: (i) synchronous declines in consumer density reduce the maximum abundance of top predators and (ii) resource competition quickly converts synchronous increases in consumer density into synchronous declines. These results are robust to details of food web topology and the implementation of environmental fluctuations. The fluctuation strengths that enhance stability are within the range experienced naturally by many species, suggesting that stabilization via environmental fluctuations is a realistic possibility.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations92
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207