Population extinction and metapopulation synchrony: a reassessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchronous dynamics of populations reduces metapopulation persistence. Thus, determining sources of synchrony is important for understanding metapopulations and biodiversity patterns in response to environmental disturbance. Previously, we found that the experimental extinction of two contiguous subpopulations of the butterfly Parnassius smintheus , increased synchrony among nearby subpopulations relative to distant controls. We hypothesized that increased synchrony was caused by either 1) a Moran‐like effect where the loss of immigrants simultaneously reduced the abundance of surrounding subpopulations or 2) an increase in dispersal among subpopulations surrounding the extinction. Reestablishment following extinction allowed for discrimination of these hypotheses. Additional data and new analyses using 24‐years of population growth in 12 nearby and control subpopulations before, during and after the experimental extinction show that our initial result was wrong. The ‘increase' in synchrony seen during the extinction was due to synchrony being low among treatment subpopulations during the pre‐extinction period, rather than an increase due to the experimental extinction. Lower synchrony among treatment subpopulations prior to extinction may have been due to less dispersal among treatment than among control subpopulations during the pre‐extinction period. Population crashes inducing synchrony (a Moran effect) during the extinction and post‐extinction periods also appear to have had greater and more lasting effects on synchrony for treatment than control subpopulations. Theoretical models show that local population extinction can increase synchrony in metapopulations, particularly for tightly regulated populations, but further experiments are needed to test this hypothesis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".