BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alan Hastings

Alan Hastings contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Populations and Evolutionmath.DSQuantitative Methods

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

The storage effect is not about bet-hedging or population stage-structure

The storage effect is a well-known explanation for coexistence in temporally varying environments. Like many complex ecological theories, the storage effect is often used as an explanation for observed coexistence on the basis of heuristic understanding, rather than careful application of a detailed model. One interpretation states that species coexist by specializing on specific environmental states, and therefore must have a robust life-stage (e.g., long-lived adults, a seed-bank) in order to "wait it out" for favorable conditions. Here we show that this widely employed interpretation can be misleading. Multiple models show that stage-structure, long lifespans, and overlapping generations are neither necessary nor sufficient for the storage effect. In models where a robust life-stage does engender a storage effect, it does not do so by preventing stochastic extinction or by improving relative bet-hedging. A robust life-stage is best understood as one of many ways to fulfill an abstract condition for the storage effect: an interaction effect of environment and competition on per capita growth rates. Using a dataset of annual plants from a Mediterranean grassland in Spain, we show that such interaction effects occur between water availability and the number of germinant competitors, leading to storage in the absence of a persistent seed bank. Empiricists hoping to uncover the storage effect should look for interaction effects between environmental conditions and competition -- easily identifiable with multiple regression -- at all stages of a species' life-cycle.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Coexistence in spatiotemporally fluctuating environments

Ecologists have put forward many explanations for coexistence, but these are only partial explanations; nature is complex, so it is reasonable to assume that in any given ecological community, multiple mechanisms of coexistence are operating at the same time. Here, we present a methodology for quantifying the relative importance of different explanations for coexistence, based on an extension of Modern Coexistence Theory. Current versions of Modern Coexistence Theory only allow for the analysis of communities that are affected by spatial or temporal environmental variation, but not both. We show how to analyze communities with spatiotemporal fluctuations, how to parse the importance of spatial variation and temporal variation, and how to measure everything with either mathematical expressions or simulation experiments. Our extension of Modern Coexistence Theory allows empiricists to use realistic models and more data to better infer the mechanisms of coexistence in real communities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Methods for calculating coexistence mechanisms: Beyond scaling factors

How do species coexist? A framework known as Modern Coexistence Theory measures mechanisms of coexistence by comparing a species perturbed to low density (the invader) to other species that remain at their typical densities (the residents); this invader-resident comparison measures a rare-species advantage that results from specialization. However, there are several reasonable ways (i.e., methods) to compare invaders and residents, each differing in practicality and biological interpretation. Here, using theoretical arguments and case studies, we compare four such methods for calculating coexistence mechanisms: 1) Scaling factors, the traditional approach where resident growth rates are scaled by a measure of relative sensitivity to competition, obtained by solving a system of linear equations; 2) The simple comparison, which gives equal weight to all resident species; 3) Speed conversion factors, a novel method in which resident growth rates are scaled by a ratio of generation times, and; 4) The invader-invader comparison, another novel method in which a focal species is compared to itself at high vs. low density. We conclude that the conventional scaling factors can be useful in some theoretical research, but are not recommended for empirical applications, i.e., determining the mechanisms of coexistence in real communities. Instead, we recommend the simple comparison and speed conversion factor methods. The speed conversion factors are most useful when comparing species with dissimilar generation times. However, ecologists often study coexistence in guilds of species with similar life-histories, and therefore, similar generation times. In such scenarios, the easier-to-use simple comparison method is reasonable.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Resolving conceptual issues in Modern Coexistence Theory

In this paper, we discuss the conceptual underpinnings of Modern Coexistence Theory (MCT), a quantitative framework for understanding ecological coexistence. In order to use MCT to infer how species are coexisting, one must relate a complex model (which simulates coexistence in the real world) to simple models in which previously proposed explanations for coexistence have been codified. This can be accomplished in three steps: 1) relating the construct of coexistence to invasion growth rates, 2) mathematically partitioning the invasion growth rates into coexistence mechanisms (i.e., classes of explanations for coexistence), and 3) relating coexistence mechanisms to simple explanations for coexistence. Previous research has primarily focused on step 2. Here, we discuss the other crucial steps and their implications for inferring the mechanisms of coexistence in real communities. Our discussion of step 3 -- relating coexistence mechanisms to simple explanations for coexistence -- serves a heuristic guide for hypothesizing about the causes of coexistence in new models; but also addresses misconceptions about coexistence mechanisms. For example, the storage effect has little to do with bet-hedging or "storage" via a robust life-history stage; relative nonlinearity is more likely to promote coexistence than originally thought; and fitness-density covariance is an amalgam of a large number of previously proposed explanations for coexistence (e.g., the competition-colonization trade-off, heteromyopia, spatially-varying resource supply ratios). Additionally, we review a number of topics in MCT, including the role of "scaling factors"; whether coexistence mechanisms are approximations; whether the magnitude or sign of invasion growth rates matters more; whether Hutchinson solved the paradox of the plankton; the scale-dependence of coexistence mechanisms; and much more.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Towards a heuristic understanding of the storage effect

The storage effect is a general explanation for coexistence in a variable environment. The generality of the storage effect is both a strength - it can be quantified in many systems - and a challenge - there is not a clear relationship between the abstract conditions for storage effect and species' life-history traits (e.g., dormancy, stage-structure, non-overlapping generations), thus precluding a simple ecological interpretation of the storage effect. Our goal here is to provide a clearer understanding of the conditions for the storage effect as a step towards a better general explanation for coexistence in a variable environment. Our approach focuses on dividing one of the key conditions for the storage effect, covariance between environment and competition, into two pieces, namely that there must be a causal relationship between environment and competition, and that the effects of the environment do not change too quickly. This finer-grained definition can explain a number of previous results, including 1) that the storage effect promotes annual plant coexistence when the germination rate fluctuates, but not when the seed yield fluctuates, 2) that the storage effect is more likely to be induced by resource competition than apparent competition, and 3) that the spatial storage effect is more probable than the temporal storage effect. Additionally, our expanded definition suggests two novel mechanisms by which the temporal storage effect can arise: transgenerational plasticity, and causal chains of environmental variables. These mechanisms produce coexistence via the storage effect without any need for stage structure or a temporally autocorrelated environment.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Low-Dimensional Network Model for an SIS Epidemic: Analysis of the Super Compact Pairwise Model

Network-based models of epidemic spread have become increasingly popular in recent decades. Despite a rich foundation of such models, few low-dimensional systems for modeling SIS-type diseases have been proposed that manage to capture the complex dynamics induced by the network structure. We analyze one recently introduced model and derive important epidemiological quantities for the system. We derive the epidemic threshold and analyze the bifurcation that occurs, and we use asymptotic techniques to derive an approximation for the endemic equilibrium when it exists. We consider the sensitivity of this approximation to network parameters, and the implications for disease control measures are found to be in line with the results of existing studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Multiple attractors and long transients in spatially structured populations with an Allee effect

We present a discrete-time model of a spatially structured population and explore the effects of coupling when the local dynamics contain a strong Allee effect and overcompensation. While an isolated population can exhibit only bistability and essential extinction, a spatially structured population can exhibit numerous coexisting attractors. We identify mechanisms and parameter ranges that can protect the spatially structured population from essential extinction, whereas it is inevitable in the local system. In the case of weak coupling, a state where one subpopulation density lies above and the other one below the Allee threshold can prevent essential extinction. Strong coupling, on the other hand, enables both populations to persist above the Allee threshold when dynamics are (approximately) out-of-phase. In both cases, attractors have fractal basin boundaries. Outside of these parameter ranges, dispersal was not found to prevent essential extinction. We also demonstrate how spatial structure can lead to long transients of persistence before the population goes extinct.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Frequency responses of age-structured populations: Pacific salmon as an example

Increasing evidence of the effects of changing climate on physical ocean conditions and long-term changes in fish populations adds to the need to understand the effects of stochastic forcing on marine populations. Cohort resonance is of particular interest because it involves selective sensitivity to specific time scales of environmental variability, including that of mean age of reproduction, and, more importantly, very low frequencies (i.e., trends). We present an age-structured model for two Pacific salmon species with environmental variability in survival rate and in individual growth rate, hence spawning age distribution. We use computed frequency response curves and analysis of the linearized dynamics to obtain two main results. First, the frequency response of the population is affected by the life history stage at which variability affects the population; varying growth rate tends to excite periodic resonance in age structure, while varying survival tends to excite low-frequency fluctuation with more effect on total population size. Second, decreasing adult survival strengthens the cohort resonance effect at all frequencies, a finding that addresses the question of how fishing and climate change will interact.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access