Meta-analysis reveals that density-dependent growth, survival, and their trade-off vary systematically among habitats and taxa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances posit that density dependence plays a substantial role in the eco-evolutionary dynamics of life-history evolution, wherein fast-paced life histories (high fecundity, lower growth, short lifespan) perform better at lower densities while slower paced life histories (lower fecundity, higher growth, longer lifespan) are favoured in populations with strong density dependence. However, no meta-analysis has quantified systematically the importance of environmental factors on the occurrence, strength, and shape of density-dependent growth, survival, and their trade-off across animals. We processed 7214 papers from 1979 to 2021, resulting in 786 correlational effect sizes from 309 studies across 210 species. Systematic differences were detected among habitats (lentic, lotic, marine, or terrestrial) that were consistent with mechanisms of competition; studies in lotic environments were consistent with interference competition for food, whereas lentic and marine environments were consistent with exploitative competition. The shape of density dependence (linear, logarithmic, exponential, unimodal, non-significant) was context-dependent across animals. Density-dependent growth and survival covaried positively in fishes, herptiles, and invertebrates, but were unrelated in birds and mammals, suggesting context-dependent trade-offs. Collectively, our results reveal that the strength of density-dependent growth and survival varies more systematically across animals than their shape, relying on key habitat and taxonomic considerations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".