Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28662140›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Biological interactions and cooperative management of multiple species.

Jinwei Jiang, Yong Min, Jie Chang, Ying Ge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Jinwei JiangCollege of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yong MinCollege of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9387-3921
Jie ChangCollege of Life Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Ying GeCollege of Life Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coordinated decision making and actions have become the primary solution for the overexploitation of interacting resources within ecosystems. However, the success of coordinated management is highly sensitive to biological, economic, and social conditions. Here, using a game theoretic framework and a 2-species model that considers various biological relationships (competition, predation, and mutualism), we compute cooperative (or joint) and non-cooperative (or separate) management equilibrium outcomes of the model and investigate the effects of the type and strength of the relationships. We find that cooperation does not always show superiority to non-cooperation in all biological interactions: (1) if and only if resources are involved in high-intensity predation relationships, cooperation can achieve a win-win scenario for ecosystem services and resource diversity; (2) for competitive resources, cooperation realizes higher ecosystem services by sacrificing resource diversity; and (3) for mutual resources, cooperation has no obvious advantage for either ecosystem services or resource evenness but can slightly improve resource abundance. Furthermore, by using a fishery model of the North California Current Marine Ecosystem with 63 species and seven fleets, we demonstrate that the theoretical results can be reproduced in real ecosystems. Therefore, effective ecosystem management should consider the interconnection between stakeholders' social relationship and resources' biological relationships.

Indexed as

BiodiversityAgedCaliforniaConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemHumansMarine BiologyModels, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID28662140
PMCPMC5491148

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.