MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798825301 · doi:10.1101/313239

The mechanics of predator-prey interactions: first principles of physics predict predator-prey size ratios

2018· preprint· en· W2798825301 on OpenAlexafffund
Sébastien M. J. Portalier, Gregor F. Fussmann, Michel Loreau, Mehdi Cherif

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPredationPredatorFood webEcologyFood chainStructuringNicheEcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Robust predictions of predator-prey interactions are fundamental for the understanding of food webs, their structure, dynamics, resistance to species loss and invasions and role in ecosystem functioning. Most current food web models are empirically based. Thus, they are sensitive to the quality of the data, and ineffective in predicting non-described and disturbed food webs. There is a need for mechanistic models that predict the occurrence of a predator-prey interaction based on the traits of organisms and the properties of their environment. Here, we present such a model that focuses on the predation act itself. We built a Newtonian, mechanical model for the processes of searching, capture and handling of a prey item by a predator. Associated with general metabolic laws, we predict the net energy gain from predation for pairs of predator and prey species depending on their body sizes. Predicted interactions match well with data from the most extensive predator-prey database, and overall model accuracy is greater than the niche model. Our model shows that it is possible to accurately predict the structure of food webs using only a few ecomechanical traits. It underlines the importance of physical constraints in structuring food webs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207