Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28255180›Full record

ReviewInsectes sociaux2017

Inferring polydomy: a review of functional, spatial and genetic methods for identifying colony boundaries.

S Ellis, D S Procter, P Buckham-Bonnett, E J H Robinson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insectes sociaux, 2017. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Social structure of perennialEcology and evolution · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors.

S Ellis *Department of Biology and York Centre for Complex Systems Analysis, University of York, York, UK.
D S Procter *Department of Biology and York Centre for Complex Systems Analysis, University of York, York, UK.
P Buckham-BonnettDepartment of Biology and York Centre for Complex Systems Analysis, University of York, York, UK.
E J H RobinsonDepartment of Biology and York Centre for Complex Systems Analysis, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying the boundaries of a social insect colony is vital for properly understanding its ecological function and evolution. Many species of ants are polydomous: colonies inhabit multiple, spatially separated, nests. Ascertaining which nests are parts of the same colony is an important consideration when studying polydomous populations. In this paper, we review the methods that are used to identify which nests are parts of the same polydomous colony and to determine the boundaries of colonies. Specifically, we define and discuss three broad categories of approach: identifying nests sharing resources, identifying nests sharing space, and identifying nests sharing genes. For each of these approaches, we review the theoretical basis, the limitations of the approach and the methods that can be used to implement it. We argue that all three broad approaches have merits and weaknesses, and provide a methodological comparison to help researchers select the tool appropriate for the biological question they are investigating.

Indexed as

Colony boundariesGenetic differentiationPolydomyResource movementSocial organisationSpatial clustering

Identifiers

PMID28255180
PMCPMC5310590

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.