ArticleBMC ecology and evolution2024
Game theory elucidates how competitive dynamics mediate animal social networks.
Article in BMC ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile most game theoretical models assume that individuals randomly interact with all other group members, strong evidence indicates that individuals tend to preferentially interact with some of them. The position of an individual in a network affects, among other factors related to survival, its predation risk and competitive success. Here I then modified the Hawk-Dove game to explore the effect of social network structure on competitive strategy of individuals that differ in their fighting ability and may adjust their use of the Hawk, Dove and Assessor tactics to maximize their foraging success when they meet opponents they are connected with.
resultsFrom randomly generated networks, I demonstrate that phenotypic assortment by fighting ability reduces individuals' aggressiveness and, as such, favours cooperative interactions. Furthermore, the success of individuals with the weakest fighting ability is usually highest within networks where they most frequently meet opponents with the same fighting ability as their own, suggesting they might benefit from breaking connections with strong contestants. This might be the case when strong contestants systematically rely on the aggressive Hawk tactic or the risk of being predated is low and independent of the number of neighbours. Thus, I extended the model and built a dynamic model to allow individuals not only to adjust their behaviour to local conditions but also to modify the structure of the social network. The number of connections and degree of phenotypic assortment are then affected by ecological factors (e.g. resources value and predation risk), but above all by whether individuals can reliably assess the competitive ability of their opponents and adjust their behaviour accordingly.
conclusionsThese findings provide strong evidence that behaviour can play a key role in shaping network structure and highlight the importance of considering the coevolution of network and behaviour to apprehend its consequences on population dynamics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.