Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36433975›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

Resource sharing is sufficient for the emergence of division of labour.

Jan J Kreider, Thijs Janzen, Abel Bernadou, Daniel Elsner, Boris H Kramer, Franz J Weissing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The evolution of division of labour: preconditions and evolutionary feedback.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Division of labour during honeybee colony defence: poetic and scientific views.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Division of labour as key driver of social evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Early CD4Scientific reports · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Jan J KreiderGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.j.kreider@rug.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-3389-5344
Thijs JanzenGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4162-1140
Abel BernadouZoology / Evolutionary Biology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5600-587X
Daniel ElsnerGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1397-7617
Boris H KramerGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2775-1918
Franz J WeissingGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands. f.j.weissing@rug.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-3281-663X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Division of labour occurs in a broad range of organisms. Yet, how division of labour can emerge in the absence of pre-existing interindividual differences is poorly understood. Using a simple but realistic model, we show that in a group of initially identical individuals, division of labour emerges spontaneously if returning foragers share part of their resources with other group members. In the absence of resource sharing, individuals follow an activity schedule of alternating between foraging and other tasks. If non-foraging individuals are fed by other individuals, their alternating activity schedule becomes interrupted, leading to task specialisation and the emergence of division of labour. Furthermore, nutritional differences between individuals reinforce division of labour. Such differences can be caused by increased metabolic rates during foraging or by dominance interactions during resource sharing. Our model proposes a plausible mechanism for the self-organised emergence of division of labour in animal groups of initially identical individuals. This mechanism could also play a role for the emergence of division of labour during the major evolutionary transitions to eusociality and multicellularity.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionLabor, ObstetricAnimalsFemalePregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36433975
PMCPMC9700737

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.