The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Depensation: evidence, models and implications
Abstract
We review the evidence supporting depensation, describe models of two depensatory mechanisms and how they can be included in population dynamics models and discuss the implications of depensation. The evidence for depensation can be grouped into four mechanisms: reduced probability of fertilisation, impaired group dynamics, conditioning of the environment and predator saturation. Examples of these mechanisms come from a broad range of species including fishes, arthropods, birds, mammals and plants. Despite the large number of studies supporting depensatory mechanisms, there is very little evidence of depensation that is strong enough to be important in a population’s dynamics. However, because factors such as demographic and environmental variability make depensatory population dynamics difficult to detect, this lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence that depensatory dynamics are rare and unimportant. The majority of depensatory models are based on reduced probability of fertilisation and predator saturation. We review the models of these mechanisms and different ways they can be incorporated in population dynamics models. Finally, we discuss how depensation may affect optimal harvesting, pest control and population viability analysis.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Some Characteristics of Simple Types of Predation and Parasitism
Holling, C. S. (1959) · The Canadian Entomologist · doi:10.4039/ent91385-7 · Cited by 4,609
Holling, C. S. (1959) · The Canadian Entomologist · doi:10.4039/ent91293-5 · Cited by 3,624
(1992) · Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries · doi:10.1007/bf00042883 · Cited by 3,500
Ricker, W. E. (1954) · Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada · doi:10.1139/f54-039 · Cited by 3,152
Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment
Hilborn, R., & Walters, C. J. (1992) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-3598-0 · Cited by 3,068
The distribution and abundance of animals
Andrewartha, H. G., & Birch, L. C. (1974) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,774
Holling, C. S. (1965) · Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada · doi:10.4039/entm9745fv · Cited by 2,701
Experimental Ecology of the Feeding of Fishes
Farris, D. A., Ivlev, V. S., & Scott, D. (1962) · Copeia · doi:10.2307/1439522 · Cited by 1,751
Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states
May, R. M. (1977) · Nature · doi:10.1038/269471a0 · Cited by 1,722
Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect
Courchamp, F., Clutton-Brock, T., & Grenfell, B. (1999) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01683-3 · Cited by 1,548
Cited by
Rose, K. A., Cowan, J. H., Winemiller, K. O., Myers, R. A., & Hilborn, R. (2001) · Fish and Fisheries · doi:10.1046/j.1467-2960.2001.00056.x · Cited by 696
Fish abundance with no fishing: predictions based on macroecological theory
Jennings, S., & Blanchard, J. L. (2004) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00839.x · Cited by 298
Bay Scallop Restoration in New York
Tettelbach, S. T., & Smith, C. F. (2009) · Ecological Restoration · doi:10.3368/er.27.1.20 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Liermann, & Hilborn
- Venue
- Fish and Fisheries
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-58
- ISSN
- 1467-2960 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-2979
- OpenAlex
- W2165809550
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 72
- FWCI
- 5.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Depensation: evidence, models and implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2001.00029.x
- The paper
- Liermann, & Hilborn. (2001). Depensation: evidence, models and implications. Fish and Fisheries. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2001.00029.x
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.