Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28806781›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

The advantage of being slow: The quasi-neutral contact process.

Marcelo Martins de Oliveira, Ronald Dickman

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Marcelo Martins de OliveiraDepartamento de Física e Matemática, Campus Alto Paraopeba, Universidade Federal de São João del Rei, Ouro Branco, Minas Gerais - Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8940-1972
Ronald DickmanDepartamento de Física and National Institute of Science and Technology for Complex Systems, Instituto de Ciências Exatas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais - Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the competitive exclusion principle, in a finite ecosystem, extinction occurs naturally when two or more species compete for the same resources. An important question that arises is: when coexistence is not possible, which mechanisms confer an advantage to a given species against the other(s)? In general, it is expected that the species with the higher reproductive/death ratio will win the competition, but other mechanisms, such as asymmetry in interspecific competition or unequal diffusion rates, have been found to change this scenario dramatically. In this work, we examine competitive advantage in the context of quasi-neutral population models, including stochastic models with spatial structure as well as macroscopic (mean-field) descriptions. We employ a two-species contact process in which the "biological clock" of one species is a factor of α slower than that of the other species. Our results provide new insights into how stochasticity and competition interact to determine extinction in finite spatial systems. We find that a species with a slower biological clock has an advantage if resources are limited, winning the competition against a species with a faster clock, in relatively small systems. Periodic or stochastic environmental variations also favor the slower species, even in much larger systems.

Indexed as

EcosystemComputer SimulationModels, TheoreticalPopulation DynamicsProbabilityStochastic Processes

Identifiers

PMID28806781
PMCPMC5555674

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.