The environment to the rescue: can physics help predict predator–prey interactions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the factors that determine the occurrence and strength of ecological interactions under specific abiotic and biotic conditions is fundamental since many aspects of ecological community stability and ecosystem functioning depend on patterns of interactions among species. Current approaches to mapping food webs are mostly based on traits, expert knowledge, experiments, and/or statistical inference. However, they do not offer clear mechanisms explaining how trophic interactions are affected by the interplay between organism characteristics and aspects of the physical environment, such as temperature, light intensity or viscosity. Hence, they cannot yet predict accurately how local food webs will respond to anthropogenic pressures, notably to climate change and species invasions. Herein, we propose a framework that synthesises recent developments in food-web theory, integrating body size and metabolism with the physical properties of ecosystems. We advocate for combination of the movement paradigm with a modular definition of the predation sequence, because movement is central to predator-prey interactions, and a generic, modular model is needed to describe all the possible variation in predator-prey interactions. Pending sufficient empirical and theoretical knowledge, our framework will help predict the food-web impacts of well-studied physical factors, such as temperature and oxygen availability, as well as less commonly considered variables such as wind, turbidity or electrical conductivity. An improved predictive capability will facilitate a better understanding of ecosystem responses to a changing world.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".