Pattern Does Not Equal Process: What Does Patch Occupancy Really Tell Us about Metapopulation Dynamics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patch occupancy surveys are commonly used to parameterize metapopulation models. If isolation predicts patch occupancy, this is generally attributed to a balance between distance-dependent recolonization and spatially independent extinctions. We investigated whether similar patterns could also be generated by a process of spatially correlated extinctions following a unique colonization event (analogous to nonequilibrium processes in island biogeography). We simulated effects of spatially correlated extinctions on patterns of patch occupancy among pikas (Ochotona princeps) at Bodie, California, using randomly located extinction disks to represent the likely effects of predation. Our simulations produced similar patterns to those cited as evidence of balanced metapopulation dynamics. Simulations using a variety of disk sizes and patch configurations confirmed that our results are potentially applicable to a broad range of species and sites. Analyses of the observed patterns of patch occupancy at Bodie revealed little evidence of rescue effects and strong evidence that most recolonizations are ephemeral in nature. Persistence will be overestimated if static or declining patterns of patch occupancy are mistakenly attributed to dynamically stable metapopulation processes. Consequently, simple patch occupancy surveys should not be considered as substitutes for detailed experimental tests of hypothesized population processes, particularly when conservation concerns are involved.
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 | 0.004 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".