↓ Skip to main content

Evolution of Site-Selection Stabilizes Population Dynamics, Promotes Even Distribution of Individuals, and Occasionally Causes Evolutionary Suicide

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Evolution of Site-Selection Stabilizes Population Dynamics, Promotes Even Distribution of Individuals, and Occasionally Causes Evolutionary Suicide
Published in
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11538-016-0198-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kalle Parvinen, Åke Brännström

Abstract

Species that compete for access to or use of sites, such as parasitic mites attaching to honey bees or apple maggots laying eggs in fruits, can potentially increase their fitness by carefully selecting sites at which they face little or no competition. Here, we systematically investigate the evolution of site-selection strategies among animals competing for discrete sites. By developing and analyzing a mechanistic and population-dynamical model of site selection in which searching individuals encounter sites sequentially and can choose to accept or continue to search based on how many conspecifics are already there, we give a complete characterization of the different site-selection strategies that can evolve. We find that evolution of site-selection stabilizes population dynamics, promotes even distribution of individuals among sites, and occasionally causes evolutionary suicide. We also discuss the broader implications of our findings and propose how they can be reconciled with an earlier study (Nonaka et al. in J Theor Biol 317:96-104, 2013) that reported selection toward ever higher levels of aggregation among sites as a consequence of site-selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 39%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 22%
Mathematics 3 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 3 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,817,005
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#857
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,706
of 320,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.