Spatial Competition: Roughening of an Experimental Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited dispersal distance generates spatial aggregation. Intraspecific interactions are then concentrated within clusters, and between-species interactions occur near cluster boundaries. Spread of a locally dispersing invader can become motion of an interface between the invading and resident species, and spatial competition will produce variation in the extent of invasive advance along the interface. Kinetic roughening theory offers a framework for quantifying the development of these fluctuations, which may structure the interface as a self-affine fractal, and so induce a series of temporal and spatial scaling relationships. For most clonal plants, advance should become spatially correlated along the interface, and width of the interface (where invader and resident compete directly) should increase as a power function of time. Once roughening equilibrates, interface width and the relative location of the most advanced invader should each scale with interface length. We tested these predictions by letting white clover (Trifolium repens) invade ryegrass (Lolium perenne). The spatial correlation of clover growth developed as anticipated by kinetic roughening theory, and both interface width and the most advanced invader's lead scaled with front length. However, the scaling exponents differed from those predicted by recent simulation studies, likely due to clover's growth morphology.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".