Stability and persistence of food webs with omnivory: Is there a general pattern?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between omnivory and stability has been the subject of a longstanding debate in ecology. Early theory predicted that omnivory would decrease the probability of food webs being stable. While early empirical data appeared to support the prediction that omnivory should be rare, detailed study of food webs later revealed that omnivory is ubiquitous across ecosystems and taxa. Recent years have seen renewed interest in the omnivory‐stability debate, and advances in mechanistic non‐equilibrium models demonstrated that omnivory can both increase and decrease stability. Current efforts have therefore focused on identifying biological mechanisms that promote the persistence of food webs with omnivory. We synthesize recent evidence that omnivory often stabilizes food webs when it occurs as life‐history omnivory, when prey experience reduced predation rates due to refuges or adaptive antipredator defences, and when omnivores interfere with each other or feed adaptively. Empirical research has lagged behind theory and there remains a shortage of studies directly measuring the stability of diverse natural communities that vary in the number and strength of omnivorous interactions. Early microcosm experiments indicated a narrow range of conditions for the persistence of simple omnivorous modules, while studies of omnivory embedded within larger natural networks have demonstrated its stabilizing effects. These new findings alter our view of food web dynamics and show that rather than looking for a simple and general omnivory‐stability relationship, we should focus on identifying conditions under which omnivory is a stabilizing feature of more complex natural systems.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it