Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39920185›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Ecology and the evolution of cooperation by partner choice and reciprocity.

Marcelino Fuentes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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

1 author.

Marcelino FuentesDepartment of Biology, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain. marcelino.fuentes@udc.es.

Funding

Xunta de Galicia ED431B 2024/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organisms help each other to get resources, protection from enemies, and other goods, but not as much as would be best for their population. Partner choice, direct reciprocity and indirect reciprocity foster cooperation and help to align individual interests with the social good. However, we still do not know what ecological variables affect their success and interaction. I simulated the evolution of partner choice, direct reciprocity and indirect reciprocity, and the production of a good that partners donate to each other. I show that, with few exceptions, partner choice evolves whenever there is an initial social dilemma, under a wider range of conditions than direct reciprocity. Direct reciprocity is deleterious when the shared good is highly essential or very influential. Both partner choice and direct reciprocity compel individuals to produce close to the socially optimal quantity of the shared good. Direct reciprocity does so even when it is deleterious and reciprocators are rare. Indirect reciprocity succeeds when individuals can also choose partners, and in most cases contributes less than partner choice or direct reciprocity to alleviating social dilemmas. Partner choice may have allowed humans to use a set of collectively produced goods including clothing, fire, hunting tools, housing, and shared knowledge, to the point that they became essential.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionChoice BehaviorCooperative BehaviorEcologyAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID39920185
PMCPMC11805957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.