Invasion theory and biological control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in the mathematical theory of invasion dynamics have much to offer to biological control. Here we synthesize several results concerning the spatiotemporal dynamics that occur when a biocontrol agent spreads into a population of an invading pest species. We outline conditions under which specialist and generalist predators can influence the density and rate of spatial spread of the pest, including the rather stringent conditions under which a specialist predator can successfully reverse a pest invasion. We next discuss the connections between long distance dispersal and invasive spread, emphasizing the different consequences of fast spreading pests and predators. Recent theory has considered the effects of population stage‐structure on invasion dynamics, and we discuss how population demography affects the biological control of invading pests. Because low population densities generally characterize early stages of an invasion, we discuss the lessons invasion theory teaches concerning the detectability of invasions. Stochasticity and density‐dependent dynamics are common features of many real invasions, influencing both the spatial character (e.g. patchiness) of pest invasions and the success of biocontrol agents. We conclude by outlining theoretical results delineating how stochastic effects and complex dynamics generated by density dependence can facilitate or impede biological pest control.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".