Paper detail

Could sampling make hares eat lynxes?

Cycles in population dynamics are widely found in nature. These cycles are understood as emerging from the interaction between two or more coupled species. Here, we argue that data regarding population dynamics are prone to misinterpretation when sampling is conducted at a slow rate compared to the population cycle period. This effect, known as aliasing, is well described in other areas, such as signal processing and computer graphics. However, to the best of our knowledge, aliasing has never been addressed in the population dynamics context or in coupled oscillatory systems. To illustrate aliasing, the Lotka-Volterra model oscillatory regime is numerically sampled, creating prey-predator cycles. Inadequate sampling periods produce inversions in the cause-effect relationship and an increase in cycle period, as reported in the well-known hare-lynx paradox. More generally, slow acquisition rates may distort data, producing deceptive patterns and eventually leading to data misinterpretation.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.