Limiting similarity of competitive species and demographic stochasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The limiting similarity of competitive species and its relationship with the competitive exclusion principle is still one of the most important concepts in ecology. In the 1970s, May [R. M. May, Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems (Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1973)] developed a concise theoretical framework to investigate the limiting similarity of competitive species. His theoretical results show that no limiting similarity threshold of competitive species can be identified in the deterministic model system whereby species more similar than this threshold never coexist. Theoretically, for competitive species coexisting in an unvarying environment, deterministic interspecific interactions and demographic stochasticity can be considered two sides of a coin. To investigate how the "tension" between these two forces affects the coexistence of competing species, a simple two-species competitive system based only on May's model system is transformed into an equivalent replicator equation. The effect of demographic stochasticity on the system stability is measured by the expected drift of the Lyapunov function. Our main results show that the limiting similarity of competitive species should not be considered to be an absolute measure. Specifically, very similar competitive species should be able to coexist in an environment with a high productivity level but big differences between competitive species should be necessary in an ecosystem with a low productivity level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".