ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2000
Visibility of the environmental noise modulating population dynamics.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental variability and population dynamics: do European and North American ducks play by the same rules?Ecology and evolution · 2016Article
- An updated perspective on the role of environmental autocorrelation in animal populations.Theoretical ecology · 2016Article
- Harvested populations are more variable only in more variable environments.Ecology and evolution · 2016Article
- Estimating malaria transmission from humans to mosquitoes in a noisy landscape.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2015Article
- Predators reduce extinction risk in noisy metapopulations.PloS one · 2010Article
- Phase-locking and environmental fluctuations generate synchrony in a predator-prey community.Nature · 2009Article
- Relative importance of density-dependent regulation and environmental stochasticity for butterfly population dynamics.Oecologia · 2009Article
- Red environmental noise and the appearance of delayed density dependence in age-structured populations.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2004Article
- Population growth rates: issues and an application.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2002Review
- The irreducible uncertainty of the demography-environment interaction in ecology.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Characterizing population fluctuations and their causes is a major theme in population ecology. The debate is on the relative merits of density-dependent and density-independent effects. One paradigm (revived by the research on global warming and its relation to long-term population data) states that fluctuations in population densities can often be accounted for by external noise. Several empirical models have been suggested to support this view. We followed this by assuming a given population skeleton dynamics (Ricker dynamics and second-order autoregressive dynamics) topped off with noise composed of low- and high-frequency components. Our aim was to determine to what extent the modulated population dynamics correlate with the noise signal. High correlations (with time-lag -1) were observed with both model categories in the region of stable dynamics, but not in the region of periodic or complex dynamics. This finding is not very sensitive to low-frequency noise. High correlations throughout the entire range of dynamics are only achievable when the impact of the noise is very high. Fitted parameter values of skeleton dynamics modulated with noise are prone to err substantially. This casts doubt as to what degree the underlying dynamics are any more recognizable after being modulated by the external noise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.