A spatial theory for characterizing predator–multiprey interactions in heterogeneous landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trophic interactions in multiprey systems can be largely determined by prey distributions. Yet, classic predator-prey models assume spatially homogeneous interactions between predators and prey. We developed a spatially informed theory that predicts how habitat heterogeneity alters the landscape-scale distribution of mortality risk of prey from predation, and hence the nature of predator interactions in multiprey systems. The theoretical model is a spatially explicit, multiprey functional response in which species-specific advection-diffusion models account for the response of individual prey to habitat edges. The model demonstrates that distinct responses of alternative prey species can alter the consequences of conspecific aggregation, from increasing safety to increasing predation risk. Observations of threatened boreal caribou, moose and grey wolf interacting over 378 181 km(2) of human-managed boreal forest support this principle. This empirically supported theory demonstrates how distinct responses of apparent competitors to landscape heterogeneity, including to human disturbances, can reverse density dependence in fitness correlates.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".