Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37492462›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

Fidelity or love the one you're with? Biotic complexity and tradeoffs can drive strategy and specificity in beetle-fungus by-product mutualisms.

Diana L Six, Peter H W Biedermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Fungal backpackers-the mycobiome ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Diana L SixDepartment of Ecosystem and Conservation Science University of Montana Missoula Montana USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9363-6037
Peter H W BiedermannChair of Forest Entomology and Protection University of Freiburg Freiburg Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4234-5659

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By-product mutualisms are ubiquitous yet seldom considered in models of mutualism. Most models represent conditional mutualisms that shift between mutualism and antagonism in response to shifts in costs and benefits resulting from changes in environmental quality. However, in by-product mutualisms, benefits arise as a part of normal life processes that may be costly to produce but incur little-to-no additional costs in response to the interaction. Without costs associated with the interaction, they do not have antagonistic alternate states. Here, we present a conceptual model that differs from traditional conditional models in three ways: (1) partners exchange by-product benefits, (2) interactions do not have alternate antagonistic states, and (3) tradeoffs are allowed among factors that influence environmental quality (rather than all factors that contribute to environmental quality being combined into a single gradient ranging from high to low). We applied this model to bark and ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae), a diverse group that associates with fungi and that has repeatedly developed two distinct pathways to by-product mutualism. We used independent axes for each major factor influencing environmental quality in these systems, including those that exhibit tradeoffs (tree defense and nutritional quality). For these symbioses, tradeoffs in these two factors are key to which mutualism pathway is taken.

Indexed as

ambrosia beetlebark beetleby‐product mutualismScolytinaesymbiosistradeoffs

Identifiers

PMID37492462
PMCPMC10363798

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.