How ecosystems recover from pulse perturbations: A theory of short- to long-term responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantifying stability properties of ecosystems is an important problem in ecology. A common approach is based on the recovery from pulse perturbations, and posits that the faster ecosystems return to their pre-perturbation state, the more stable they are. In theoretical studies the recovery dynamics are often collapsed into a single quantity: the long-term rate of return, called asymptotic resilience. However, empirical studies typically measure the recovery dynamics at much shorter time scales. In this paper we explain why asymptotic resilience is rarely representative of the short-term recovery. First, we show that, in contrast to asymptotic resilience, short-term return rates depend on features of the perturbation, in particular on the way its intensity is distributed over species. We argue that empirically relevant predictions can be obtained by considering the median response over a set of perturbations, for which we provide explicit formulas. Next, we show that the recovery dynamics are controlled through time by different species: abundant species tend to govern the short-term recovery, while rare species often dominate the long-term recovery. This shift from abundant to rare species typically causes short-term return rates to be unrelated to asymptotic resilience. Finally, we discuss how these findings might help to better connect empirical observations and theoretical predictions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".