Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29261671›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Tragedy of the commons in the chemostat.

Martin Schuster, Eric Foxall, David Finch, Hal Smith, Patrick De Leenheer

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Martin SchusterDepartment of Microbiology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America.
Eric FoxallSchool of Mathematical & Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States of America.
David FinchDepartment of Mathematics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America.
Hal SmithSchool of Mathematical & Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States of America.
Patrick De LeenheerDepartment of Mathematics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a proof of principle for the phenomenon of the tragedy of the commons that is at the center of many theories on the evolution of cooperation. Whereas the tragedy is commonly set in a game theoretical context, and attributed to an underlying Prisoner's Dilemma, we take an alternative approach based on basic mechanistic principles of species growth that does not rely on the specification of payoffs which may be difficult to determine in practice. We establish the tragedy in the context of a general chemostat model with two species, the cooperator and the cheater. Both species have the same growth rate function and yield constant, but the cooperator allocates a portion of the nutrient uptake towards the production of a public good -the "Commons" in the Tragedy- which is needed to digest the externally supplied nutrient. The cheater on the other hand does not produce this enzyme, and allocates all nutrient uptake towards its own growth. We prove that when the cheater is present initially, both the cooperator and the cheater will eventually go extinct, hereby confirming the occurrence of the tragedy. We also show that without the cheater, the cooperator can survive indefinitely, provided that at least a low level of public good or processed nutrient is available initially. Our results provide a predictive framework for the analysis of cooperator-cheater dynamics in a powerful model system of experimental evolution.

Indexed as

Game TheoryPrisoner DilemmaModels, Chemical

Identifiers

PMID29261671
PMCPMC5737893

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.