Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109102›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025

Group size and labour demands determine division of labour as a consequence of demographic stochasticity.

Christoph Netz, Tim W Fawcett, Andrew D Higginson, Michael Taborsky, Barbara Taborsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Group size and labour demands determine division of labour as a consequence of demographic stochasticity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  2. Division of labour as key driver of social evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  3. The evolution of division of labour: preconditions and evolutionary feedback.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
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.

Christoph NetzBehavioural Ecology Division, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9309-8964
Tim W FawcettCentre for Research in Animal Behaviour (CRAB), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6337-901X
Andrew D HigginsonCentre for Research in Animal Behaviour (CRAB), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2530-0793
Michael TaborskyBehavioural Ecology Division, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Barbara TaborskyBehavioural Ecology Division, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1690-8155

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Division of labour (DoL) is most prominently observed in eusocial insects but also occurs in much smaller cooperative groups where all individuals could potentially perform any task. In such groups, previous experience and learning are the most important mechanisms underlying specialization. Using behavioural simulations, we investigate the dynamics of task specialization in groups of various sizes and with different constraints on the choice of task. We assume that individuals choose tasks by weighing their own competence to perform a task against the group requirement of how much that task needs to be performed. We find that task specialization occurs even if individuals choose tasks based solely on the group's needs rather than their own competence. As large groups are less affected by demographic stochasticity, they can more accurately distribute labour across tasks, and individuals become more effective due to a reduced need to switch between tasks. This effect is enhanced if groups must perform a larger number of tasks. However, from an evolutionary point of view, individuals in larger groups develop a greater responsiveness to group requirements than those in small groups when labour variation carries a fitness penalty and thus will more readily switch between tasks. Small groups thus seem less able to distribute labour optimally over tasks through increased switching, and therefore evolve to ignore task imbalances up to a higher level before the threshold to switch between tasks is crossed. Further, we find that selection on learning ability is stronger in small than in large groups. We conclude that the reason why DoL may emerge more readily in large groups might not be due to a group-size effect on optimal decision-making, but rather because of a lower degree of variation of the labour distribution as a consequence of demographic stochasticity.This article is part of the theme issue 'Division of labour as key driver of social evolution'.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalCooperative BehaviorInsectaSocial BehaviorAnimalsBiological EvolutionModels, BiologicalPopulation DensityStochastic Processesdivision of labourgroup sizelearningtask specialization

Identifiers

PMID40109102
PMCPMC11923606

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.