ArticleNature communications2016
Restricting mutualistic partners to enforce trade reliance.
Article in Nature communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The evolution of manipulative cheating.eLife · 2022Article
- Evolution of manipulative microbial behaviors in the rhizosphere.Evolutionary applications · 2022Review
- Mycorrhizal Fungi Respond to Resource Inequality by Moving Phosphorus from Rich to Poor Patches across Networks.Current biology : CB · 2019Article
- The Red Queen and King in finite populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Perspectives and Challenges in Microbial Communities Metabolic Modeling.Frontiers in genetics · 2017Article
- Cooperation through Competition-Dynamics and Microeconomics of a Minimal Nutrient Trade System in Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis.Frontiers in plant science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mutualisms are cooperative interactions between members of different species, often involving the trade of resources. Here, we suggest that otherwise-cooperative mutualists might be able to gain a benefit from actively restricting their partners' ability to obtain resources directly, hampering the ability of the restricted partner to survive and/or reproduce without the help of the restricting mutualist. We show that (i) restriction can be favoured when it makes the resources of the restricting individual more valuable to their partner, and thus allows them to receive more favourable terms of trade; (ii) restriction maintains cooperation in conditions where cooperative behaviour would otherwise collapse; and (iii) restriction can lead to either an increase or decrease in a restricted individual's fitness. We discuss the applicability of this scenario to mutualisms such as those between plants and mycorrhizal fungi. These results identify a novel conflict in mutualisms as well as several public goods dilemmas, but also demonstrate how conflict can help maintain cooperation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.