Demographic stochasticity alters expected outcomes in experimental and simulated non‐neutral communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory has shown that the effects of demographic stochasticity on communities may depend on the magnitude of fitness differences between species. In particular, it has been suggested that demographic stochasticity has the potential to significantly alter competitive outcomes when fitness differences are small (nearly neutral), but that it has negligible effects when fitness differences are large (highly non‐neutral). Here we test such theory experimentally and extend it to examine how demographic stochasticity affects exclusion frequency and mean densities of consumers in simple, but non‐neutral, consumer–resource communities. We used experimental microcosms of protists and rotifers feeding on a bacterial resource to test how varying absolute population sizes (a driver of demographic stochasticity) affected the probability of competitive exclusion of the weakest competitor. To explore whether demographic stochasticity could explain our experimental results, and to generalize beyond our experiment, we paired the experiment with a continuous‐time stochastic model of resource competition, which we simulated for 11 different fitness inequalities between competiting consumers. Consistent with theory, in both our experiments and our simulations we found that demographic stochasticity altered competitive outcomes in communities where fitness differences were small. However, we also found that demographic stochasticity alone could affect communities in other ways, even when fitness differences between competitors were large. Specifically, demographic stochasticity altered mean densities of both weak and strong competitors in experimental and simulated communities. These findings highlight how demographic stochasticity can change both competitive outcomes in non‐neutral communities and the processes underlying overall community dynamics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".