Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 395

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Competition between species: Theoretical models and experimental tests

Open access
Ayala, Francisco J., Gilpin, Michael E., Ehrenfeld, Joan G.·1973·Theoretical Population Biology

Abstract

Experimental determinations of Drosophila population dynamics cannot be explained by the Lotka-Volterra model of interspecific competition. This paper presents other possible mathematical models of competition between species, and gives the results of experiments designed to test the validity of such models. Eight of the ten new models presented contain the Lotka-Volterra model as a special case. The experiments made to test the models are of two kinds. Type 1 experiments are continuous one- or two-species populations, which permit the estimation of the carrying capacity of each species and the numbers of the two species at the point of stable equilibrium. Type 2 experiments measure the change in numbers over a short time interval in populations started with many different initial densities of the two species. Type 2 experiments give information on the dynamics of the two-species system in the phase plane whose coordinates are the number of individuals of each species. The models accounting best for the results are models five and seven (Table II). Each of these two models contains one parameter more than the Lotka-Volterra model. Model five adds a nonlinear term of self-interaction (−βiN2i). Model seven has the form, dNi/dt = riN/Kθii(Kθii − Nθi i − αijNj1−θi i). The exponential parameter θ removes the restriction of the logistic theory of population growth, that each individual added to the population decrease the rate of growth of the population by a constant amount. With model seven the rate of growth of a population of a single species need not have its maximum at K2, that is when the number of individuals is half the carrying capacity of the environment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0040-5809(73)90014-2

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 395

Metadata

Authors
Ayala, F. J., Gilpin, M. E., & Ehrenfeld, J. G.
Venue
Theoretical Population Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1973-09
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
331-356
ISSN
0040-5809 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989315300
Cited by
395
References
13
FWCI
11.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Competition between species: Theoretical models and experimental tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0040-5809(73)90014-2
The paper
Ayala, F. J., Gilpin, M. E., & Ehrenfeld, J. G. (1973). Competition between species: Theoretical models and experimental tests. Theoretical Population Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-5809(73)90014-2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.