Irregular population cycles driven by environmental stochasticity and saddle crawlbys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite considerable study of population cycles, the striking variability of cycle periods in many cyclic populations has received relatively little attention. Mathematical models of cyclic population dynamics have historically exhibited much greater regularity in cycle periods than many real populations, even when accounting for environmental stochasticity. We contend, however, that the recent focus on understanding the impact of long, transient but recurrent epochs within population oscillations points the way to a previously unrecognized means by which environmental stochasticity can create cycle period variation. Specifically, consumer–resource cycles that bring the populations near a saddle point (a combination of population sizes toward which the populations tend, before eventually transitioning to substantially different levels) may be subject to a slow passage effect that has been dubbed a ‘saddle crawlby'. In this study, we illustrate how stochasticity that generates variability in how close predator and prey populations come to saddles can result in substantial variability in the durations of crawlbys and, as a result, in the periods of population cycles. Our work suggests a new mechanistic hypothesis to explain an important factor in the irregular timing of population cycles and provides a basis for understanding when environmental stochasticity is, and is not, expected to generate cyclic dynamics with variability across periods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".