Insights from the study of complex systems for the ecology and evolution of animal populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of animals comprise many individuals, interacting in multiple contexts, and displaying heterogeneous behaviors. The interactions among individuals can often create population dynamics that are fundamentally deterministic yet display unpredictable dynamics. Animal populations can, therefore, be thought of as complex systems. Complex systems display properties such as nonlinearity and uncertainty and show emergent properties that cannot be explained by a simple sum of the interacting components. Any system where entities compete, cooperate, or interfere with one another may possess such qualities, making animal populations similar on many levels to complex systems. Some fields are already embracing elements of complexity to help understand the dynamics of animal populations, but a wider application of complexity science in ecology and evolution has not occurred. We review here how approaches from complexity science could be applied to the study of the interactions and behavior of individuals within animal populations and highlight how this way of thinking can enhance our understanding of population dynamics in animals. We focus on 8 key characteristics of complex systems: hierarchy, heterogeneity, self-organization, openness, adaptation, memory, nonlinearity, and uncertainty. For each topic we discuss how concepts from complexity theory are applicable in animal populations and emphasize the unique insights they provide. We finish by outlining outstanding questions or predictions to be evaluated using behavioral and ecological data. Our goal throughout this article is to familiarize animal ecologists with the basics of each of these concepts and highlight the new perspectives that they could bring to variety of subfields.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".