Submit a preprint

THIS IS A TEST SITE


Please go to this page to see the list of the different Peer Communities in already created, hosting recommendations and peer-reviews of preprints and ready to receive your submissions

399

Is dispersal always beneficial to carrying capacity? New insights from the multi-patch logistic equationuse asterix (*) to get italics
Arditi, Roger, Lobry, Claude, Sari, TewfikPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2015
<p>The standard model for the dynamics of a fragmented density-dependent population is built from several local logistic models coupled by migrations. First introduced in the 1970s and used in innumerable articles, this standard model applied to a two-patch situation has never been completely analyzed. Here, we complete this analysis and we delineate the conditions under which fragmentation is either beneficial or detrimental to total population abundance. Therefore, this is a contribution to the SLOSS question. Importantly, we also show that, depending on the underlying mechanism , there is no unique way to generalize the logistic model to a patchy situation. In many cases, the standard model is not the correct generalization. We analyze several alternative models and compare their predictions. Finally, we emphasize the shortcomings of the logistic model when written in the r-K parameterization and we explain why Verhulst's original polynomial expression is to be preferred.</p>
https://You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Intraspecific competition
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
TEST
thomas reviewer2 suggested: Denis Bourguet , thomas reviewer2 suggested: THomas, Denis BOURGUET suggested: Nicki Lauda No need for them to be recommenders of PCICompStat. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2024-04-12 10:13:57
Jean -François abebertecommender
Denis BOURGUET, Denis Reviewer 1, thomas reviewer2