MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914832332 · doi:10.1111/ele.13205

Spatio‐temporal dynamics of density‐dependent dispersal during a population colonisation

2019· letter· en· W2914832332 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastiano De Bona, Matthieu Bruneaux, Alexander E. G. Lee, David N. Reznick, Paul Bentzen, Andrés López‐Sepulcre

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersAcademy of FinlandSuomen KulttuurirahastoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiological dispersalColonisationEcologyDensity dependenceCompetition (biology)Population densityHabitatPopulationBiologyColonizationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting population colonisations requires understanding how spatio-temporal changes in density affect dispersal. Density can inform on fitness prospects, acting as a cue for either habitat quality, or competition over resources. However, when escaping competition, high local density should only increase emigration if lower-density patches are available elsewhere. Few empirical studies on dispersal have considered the effects of density at the local and landscape scale simultaneously. To explore this, we analyze 5 years of individual-based data from an experimental introduction of wild guppies Poecilia reticulata. Natal dispersal showed a decrease in local density dependence as density at the landscape level increased. Landscape density did not affect dispersal among adults, but local density-dependent dispersal switched from negative (conspecific attraction) to positive (conspecific avoidance), as the colonisation progressed. This study demonstrates that densities at various scales interact to determine dispersal, and suggests that dispersal trade-offs differ across life stages.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207