Patchy indirect effects of predation: predators contribute to landscape heterogeneity and ecosystem function via localized pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predators are widely recognized for their irreplaceable roles in influencing the abundance and traits of lower trophic levels. Predators also have irreplaceable roles in shaping community interactions and ecological processes via highly localized pathways (i.e. effects with well‐defined and measurable spatio–temporal boundaries), irrespective of their influence on prey density or behavior. We synthesized empirical and theoretical research describing how predators – particularly medium‐ and large‐sized carnivores – have indirect ecological effects confined to discrete landscape patches, processes we have termed ‘patchy indirect effects (PIEs) of predation'. Predators generate PIEs via three main localized pathways: generating and distributing prey carcasses, creating ecological hotspots by concentrating nutrients derived from prey, and killing ecosystem engineers that create patches. In each pathway, the indirect effects are limited to discrete areas with measurable spatial and temporal boundaries (i.e. patches). Our synthesis reveals the diverse and complex ways that predators indirectly affect other species via patches, ranging from mediating scavenger interactions to influencing parasite/disease transmission risk, and from altering ecosystem biogeochemistry to facilitating local biodiversity. We provide basic guidelines on how these effects can be quantified at the patch and landscape scales, and discuss how predator‐mediated patches ultimately contribute to landscape heterogeneity and ecosystem functioning. Whereas density‐ and trait‐mediated indirect effects of predation generally occur through population‐scale changes, PIEs of predation occur through individual‐ and patch‐level pathways. Our synthesis provides a more holistic view of the functional role of predation in ecosystems by addressing how predators create patchy landscapes via localized pathways, in addition to influencing the abundance and behavior of lower trophic levels.
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".