The ideal free distribution as an evolutionarily stable state in density‐dependent population games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In classical games that have been applied to ecology, individual fitness is either density independent or population density is fixed. This article focuses on the habitat selection game where fitness depends on the population density that evolves over time. This model assumes that changes in animal distribution operate on a fast time scale when compared to demographic processes. Of particular interest is whether it is true, as one might expect, that resident phenotypes who use density‐dependent optimal foraging strategies are evolutionarily stable with respect to invasions by mutant strategies. In fact, we show that evolutionary stability does not require that residents use the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) at every population density; rather it is the combined resident–mutant system that must be at an evolutionary stable state. That is, the separation of time scales assumption between behavioral and ecological processes does not imply that these processes are independent. When only consumer population dynamics in several habitats are considered (i. e. when resources do not undergo population dynamics), we show that the existence of optimal foragers forces the resident‐mutant system to approach carrying capacity in each habitat even though the mutants do not die out. Thus, the ideal free distribution (IFD) for the single‐species habitat selection game becomes an evolutionarily stable state that describes a mixture of resident and mutant phenotypes rather than a strategy adopted by all individuals in the system. Also discussed is how these results are affected when animal distribution and demographic processes act on the same time scale.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".