Density-dependent network structuring within and across wild animal systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High population density should drive individuals to more frequently share space and interact, producing better-connected spatial and social networks [1-4]. Although this theory is fundamental to our understanding of disease dynamics [2,5-8], it remains unconfirmed how local density generally drives individuals' positions within their networks, which reduces our ability to understand and predict density-dependent processes [4,9,10]. Here we provide the first general evidence that density drives greater network connectedness at fine spatiotemporal scales, at the scale of individuals within wild animal populations. We analysed 36 datasets of simultaneous spatial and social behaviour in >58,000 individual animals, spanning 30 species of fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, and insects. 80% of systems exhibited strong positive relationships between local density and network centrality. However, >80% of relationships were nonlinear and 75% became shallower at higher values, signifying that demographic and behavioural processes counteract density's effects, thereby producing saturating trends [11-15]. Density's effect was much stronger and less saturating for spatial than social networks, such that individuals become disproportionately spatially connected rather than socially at higher densities. Consequently, ecological processes that depend on spatial connections (e.g. indirect pathogen transmission, resource competition, and territory formation) are likely more density-dependent than those involving social interactions (e.g. direct pathogen transmission, aggression, and social learning). These findings reveal fundamental ecological rules governing societal structuring, with widespread implications. Identifying scaling rules based on processes that generalise across systems, such as these patterns of density dependence, might provide the ability to predict network structures in novel 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".