Structural sensitivity in the functional responses of predator-prey models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mathematical modeling, several different functional forms can often be used to fit a data set equally well, especially if the data is sparse. In such cases, these mathematically different but similar looking functional forms are typically considered interchangeable. Recent work, however, shows that similar functional responses may nonetheless result in significantly different bifurcation points for the Rosenzweig-MacArthur predator-prey system. Since the bifurcation behaviours include destabilising oscillations, predicting the occurrence of such behaviours is clearly important. Ecologically, different bifurcation behaviours mean that different predictions may be obtained from the models. These predictions can range from stable coexistence to the extinction of both species, so obtaining more accurate predictions is also clearly important for conservationists. Mathematically, this difference in bifurcation structure given similar functional responses is called structural sensitivity. We extend the existing work to find that the Leslie-Gower-May predator-prey system is also structurally sensitive to the functional response. Using the Rosenzweig-MacArthur and Leslie-Gower-May models, we then aim to determine if there is some way to obtain a functional description of data such that our model is not structurally sensitive. We first add stochasticity to the functional responses and find that better similarity of the resulting bifurcation structures is achieved. Then, we analyze the functional responses using two different methods to determine which part of each function contributes most to the observed bifurcation behaviour. We find that prey densities around the coexistence steady state are most important in defining the functional response. Lastly, we propose a procedure for ecologists and mathematical modelers to increase the accuracy of model predictions in predator-prey systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".