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

Evan Johnson

Evan Johnson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Populations and EvolutionCryptography and SecurityOperating SystemsProgramming LanguagesQuantitative Methods

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
5topics
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

5 published item(s)

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

Private delegated computations using strong isolation

Sensitive computations are now routinely delegated to third-parties. In response, Confidential Computing technologies are being introduced to microprocessors, offering a protected processing environment, which we generically call an isolate, providing confidentiality and integrity guarantees to code and data hosted within -- even in the face of a privileged attacker. Isolates, with an attestation protocol, permit remote third-parties to establish a trusted "beachhead" containing known code and data on an otherwise untrusted machine. Yet, the rise of these technologies introduces many new problems, including: how to ease provisioning of computations safely into isolates; how to develop distributed systems spanning multiple classes of isolate; and what to do about the billions of "legacy" devices without support for Confidential Computing? Tackling the problems above, we introduce Veracruz, a framework that eases the design and implementation of complex privacy-preserving, collaborative, delegated computations among a group of mutually mistrusting principals. Veracruz supports multiple isolation technologies and provides a common programming model and attestation protocol across all of them, smoothing deployment of delegated computations over supported technologies. We demonstrate Veracruz in operation, on private in-cloud object detection on encrypted video streaming from a video camera. In addition to supporting hardware-backed isolates -- like AWS Nitro Enclaves and Arm Confidential Computing Architecture Realms -- Veracruz also provides pragmatic "software isolates" on Armv8-A devices without hardware Confidential Computing capability, using the high-assurance seL4 microkernel and our IceCap framework.

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