ABSTRACT
Qualitative analysis of stability in model ecosystems has previously been limited to determining whether a community matrix is sign stable or not with little analytical means to assess the impact of complexity on system stability. Systems are seen as either unconditionally or conditionally stable with little distinction and therefore much ambiguity in the likelihood of stability. First, we reexamine Hurwitz's principal theorem for stability and propose two "Hurwitz criteria" that address different aspects of instability: positive feedback and insufficient lower-level feedback. Second, we derive two qualitative metrics based on these criteria: weighted feedback (wF(n)) and weighted determinants (wDelta(n)). Third, we test the utility of these qualitative metrics through quantitative simulations in a random and evenly distributed parameter space in models of various sizes and complexities. Taken together they provide a practical means to assess the relative degree to which ambiguity has entered into calculations of stability as a result of system structure and complexity. From these metrics we identify two classes of models that may have significant relevance to system research and management. This work helps to resolve some of the impasse between theoretical and empirical discussions on the complexity and stability of natural communities.
