Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26841169›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2016

Temporal Structure in Cooperative Interactions: What Does the Timing of Exploitation Tell Us about Its Cost?

Jessica L Barker, Judith L Bronstein

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The geometry of evolutionary conflict.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica L BarkerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Judith L BronsteinDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
University of Arizona · US

Funding

POST DOCTORAL EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH AND TEACHINGK12GM000708 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI STRAUSFELD, NICHOLAS J · 2000 to 2018
$21.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS 5K12GM000708-13NIGMS NIH HHS K12 GM000708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exploitation in cooperative interactions both within and between species is widespread. Although it is assumed to be costly to be exploited, mechanisms to control exploitation are surprisingly rare, making the persistence of cooperation a fundamental paradox in evolutionary biology and ecology. Focusing on between-species cooperation (mutualism), we hypothesize that the temporal sequence in which exploitation occurs relative to cooperation affects its net costs and argue that this can help explain when and where control mechanisms are observed in nature. Our principal prediction is that when exploitation occurs late relative to cooperation, there should be little selection to limit its effects (analogous to "tolerated theft" in human cooperative groups). Although we focus on cases in which mutualists and exploiters are different individuals (of the same or different species), our inferences can readily be extended to cases in which individuals exhibit mixed cooperative-exploitative strategies. We demonstrate that temporal structure should be considered alongside spatial structure as an important process affecting the evolution of cooperation. We also provide testable predictions to guide future empirical research on interspecific as well as intraspecific cooperation.

Indexed as

SymbiosisAnimalsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26841169
PMCPMC4739704
OpenAlexW2272293983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.