The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distinguishing error from chaos in ecological time series
Abstract
Over the years, there has been much discussion about the relative importance of environmental and biological factors in regulating natural populations. Often it is thought that environmental factors are associated with stochastic fluctuations in population density, and biological ones with deterministic regulation. We revisit these ideas in the light of recent work on chaos and nonlinear systems. We show that completely deterministic regulatory factors can lead to apparently random fluctuations in population density, and we then develop a new method (that can be applied to limited data sets) to make practical distinctions between apparently noisy dynamics produced by low-dimensional chaos and population variation that in fact derives from random (high-dimensional)noise, such as environmental stochasticity or sampling error. To show its practical use, the method is first applied to models where the dynamics are known. We then apply the method to several sets of real data, including newly analysed data on the incidence of measles in the United Kingdom. Here the additional problems of secular trends and spatial effects are explored. In particular, we find that on a city-by-city scale measles exhibits low-dimensional chaos (as has previously been found for measles in New York City), whereas on a larger, country-wide scale the dynamics appear as a noisy two-year cycle. In addition to shedding light on the basic dynamics of some nonlinear biological systems, this work dramatizes how the scale on which data is collected and analysed can affect the conclusions drawn.
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
Detecting strange attractors in turbulence
Takens, F. (1981) · Lecture Notes in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/bfb0091924 · Cited by 10,459
Cited by
Chaos in Ecology: Is Mother Nature a Strange Attractor?
Hastings, A., Hom, C. L., Ellner, S., Turchin, P., & Godfray, H. C. J. (1993) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.000245 · Cited by 554
Hsieh, C.-H., Glaser, S. M., Lucas, A. J., & Sugihara, G. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03553 · Cited by 391
Self-citationData based identification and prediction of nonlinear and complex dynamical systems
Wang, W.-X., Lai, Y.-C., & Grebogi, C. (2016) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.004 · Cited by 299
Tracking and forecasting ecosystem interactions in real time
Deyle, E. R., May, R. M., Munch, S. B., & Sugihara, G. (2016) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2258 · Cited by 284
Self-citationExtraction of a weak climatic signal by an ecosystem
Taylor, A. H., Allen, J. I., & Clark, P. A. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/416629a · Cited by 196
Metadata
- Authors
- Sugihara, G., Grenfell, B. T., & May, R. M.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1990-11-29
- Volume
- 330
- Issue
- 1257
- Pages
- 235-251
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2110798438
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.05
- 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: Distinguishing error from chaos in ecological time series. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.1990.0195
- The paper
- Sugihara, G., Grenfell, B. T., & May, R. M. (1990). Distinguishing error from chaos in ecological time series. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1990.0195
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.