Initial abundance and stochasticity influence competitive outcome in communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting competitive outcomes in communities frequently involves inferences based on deterministic population models since these provide clear criteria for exclusion (e.g. R* rule) or long-term coexistence (e.g. mutual invasibility). However, incorporating stochasticity into population- or community-level processes into models is necessary if the goal is to explain variation in natural systems, which are inherently stochastic. Similarly, in systems with demographic or environmental stochasticity, weaker competitors have the potential to exclude superior competitors, contributing to what is known as 'competitive indeterminacy'. The importance of such effects for natural communities is unknown, in part because it is difficult to demonstrate that multiple forms of stochasticity are present in these communities. Moreover, the effects of multiple forms of stochasticity on competitive outcomes are largely untested, even in theory. Here, we address these issues by examining the role of stochasticity in replicated communities of flour beetles (Tribolium sp.). To do so, we developed a set of two-species stochastic Ricker models incorporating four distinct forms of stochasticity: environmental stochasticity, demographic stochasticity, demographic heterogeneity and stochastic sex determination. By fitting models to experimental data, and simulating fit models to examine long- term behaviour, we found that both the duration of transient coexistence and the degree of competitive indeterminacy were sensitive to the forms of stochasticity included in our models. These findings suggest the current estimates of extinction risk, coexistence and time until competitive exclusion in communities may not be accurate when based on models that exclude relevant forms of stochasticity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".