Analysis of the impact of fear in the presence of additional food and prey refuge with nonlocal predator–prey models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many positive and negative factors present in the predator–prey interaction which affect the net growth of the species. Fear of predation is one such factor that creates psychological stress in a prey species, which causes a negative impact on their overall growth. This work considers a predator–prey model where the prey species faces a reduction in their growth out of fear, and the predator has an alternative food source that helps the prey to hide in a safer place. As an extension into the nonlocal spatio-temporal model, a nonlocal term is considered in the prey growth to incorporate a fear-effect range around their spatial location. Linear stability analysis helps to analyse the temporal model and produces a wide range of interesting results, including the presence of a certain amount of fear or even prey refuge, which helps in population coexistence. Furthermore, the numerical simulations of the local and nonlocal spatio-temporal models show different types of spatial–temporal patterns, such as Turing and non-Turing patterns. Nevertheless, an increase in fear level reduces the range of the Turing domain for the local model, whereas the opposite happens when the range of nonlocal interaction is increased. • A prey–predator interaction is proposed where fear of predation affects prey growth. • Predator is provided with additional food sources except for the targeted prey. • The fear term acts as a stabilizing and destabilizing factor in the system. • Chances of non-homogeneous pattern formation are reduced for an increasing fear level. • Turing domain is increased with the incorporation of the nonlocal fear term.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".