A tale of two cycles – distinguishing quasi‐cycles and limit cycles in finite predator–prey populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodic predator – prey dynamics in constant environments are usually taken as indicative of deterministic limit cycles. It is known, however, that demographic stochasticity in finite populations can also give rise to regular population cycles, even when the corresponding deterministic models predict a stable equilibrium. Specifically, such quasi‐cycles are expected in stochastic versions of deterministic models exhibiting equilibrium dynamics with weakly damped oscillations. The existence of quasi‐cycles substantially expands the scope for natural patterns of periodic population oscillations caused by ecological interactions, thereby complicating the conclusive interpretation of such patterns. Here we show how to distinguish between quasi‐cycles and noisy limit cycles based on observing changing population sizes in predator – prey populations. We start by confirming that both types of cycle can occur in the individual‐based version of a widely used class of deterministic predator – prey model. We then show that it is feasible and straightforward to accurately distinguish between the two types of cycle through the combined analysis of autocorrelations and marginal distributions of population sizes. Finally, by confronting these results with real ecological time series, we demonstrate that by using our methods even short and imperfect time series allow quasi‐cycles and limit cycles to be distinguished reliably.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".