Abstract

Abstract Background/Question/Methods The recog-ni-tion that ecosys-tems can undergo sud-den shifts to alter-nate, less desir-able sta-ble states has led to the desire to iden-tify early warn-ing signs of these impend-ing col-lapses. This search has been moti-vated by the math-e-mat-ics of bifur-ca-tions, in which sud-den shifts result not from direct per-tur-ba-tions to the state (i.e. the pop-u-la-tion abun-dance, through mech-a-nisms such as over-harvesting) but to a slowly chang-ing para-me-ter that impacts the sys-tem sta-bil-ity. While these col-lapses can-not be antic-i-pated by observ-ing only the mean dynam-ics (as described by a deter-min-is-tic model), signs of the impend-ing col-lapse are expressed in the ran-dom per-tur-ba-tions, or noise, inher-ent in real sys-tems. The math-e-mat-i-cal the-ory of early warn-ing signs exploits this fact by seek-ing to detect pat-terns such as “crit-i-cal slow-ing down” of these per-tur-ba-tions due to the grad-ual loss of sta-bil-ity which leads to a bifurcation.While much atten-tion has been given to empha-siz-ing the exis-tence both of sud-den col-lapses and of signs of crit-i-cal slow-ing down, lit-tle atten-tion has been paid to its detec-tion. Faced with only finite data, any method risks both false alarms and failed detec-tion events. We believe that weigh-ing these risks must be the bur-den of man-age-ment pol-icy, while research must first pro-vide a reli-able way to quan-tify the rel-a-tive risks of each. We present a method which quan-ti-fies this risk and show how to decrease the uncer-tainty inher-ent in com-mon summary-statistic approaches through the use of a like-li-hood based mod-el-ing approach. Results/Conclusions We demon-strate that com-monly used cor-re-la-tion tests applied to sum-mary sta-tis-tics such as auto-cor-re-la-tion and vari-ance are both inap-pro-pri-ate and insuf-fi-cient tests of early warn-ing signals.Our method esti-mates directly the para-me-ters of a gen-er-al-ized model of the bifur-ca-tion pos-tu-lated by early warn-ing sig-nals the-ory, with and with-out the pres-ence of a grad-ual change lead-ing towards col-lapse. Using Monte Carlo sim-u-la-tion we gen-er-ate the dis-tri-b-u-tion of warning-signal sta-tis-tics expected under each model. From this we can quan-tify the risk of false alarms and missed detec-tion. We then show how apply-ing this approach to the data directly rather than the sum-mary sta-tis-tic increases the power of detec-tion. We illus-trate the approach in both sim-u-lated and empir-i-cal data of sud-den eco-log-i-cal shifts.

Highlights

  • What’s an increase? Do we have enough data to tell? Which indicators to trust most?

  • Both patterns come from a stable process!

  • Estimate false alarms & failed detections Identify which indicators are best Explore the influence of more data on these rates

Read more

Summary

Introduction

What’s an increase? Do we have enough data to tell? Which indicators to trust most?. Limits to the detection of early warning signals of population collapse Carl Boettiger & Alan Hastings, UC Davis cboettig@ucdavis.edu What if we could predict such sudden collapse?

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call