↓ Skip to main content

Lazy workers are necessary for long-term sustainability in insect societies

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
44 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
4048 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lazy workers are necessary for long-term sustainability in insect societies
Published in
Scientific Reports, February 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep20846
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eisuke Hasegawa, Yasunori Ishii, Koichiro Tada, Kazuya Kobayashi, Jin Yoshimura

Abstract

Optimality theory predicts the maximization of productivity in social insect colonies, but many inactive workers are found in ant colonies. Indeed, the low short-term productivity of ant colonies is often the consequence of high variation among workers in the threshold to respond to task-related stimuli. Why is such an inefficient strategy among colonies maintained by natural selection? Here, we show that inactive workers are necessary for the long-term sustainability of a colony. Our simulation shows that colonies with variable thresholds persist longer than those with invariable thresholds because inactive workers perform the critical function of replacing active workers when they become fatigued. Evidence of the replacement of active workers by inactive workers has been found in ant colonies. Thus, the presence of inactive workers increases the long-term persistence of the colony at the expense of decreasing short-term productivity. Inactive workers may represent a bet-hedging strategy in response to environmental stochasticity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4,048 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Austria 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 180 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 21%
Researcher 29 15%
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 5%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 30 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 47%
Computer Science 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 36 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 828. 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 28 August 2023.
All research outputs
#22,815
of 25,870,142 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#360
of 143,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#345
of 312,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#6
of 3,539 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,142 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 143,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 312,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,539 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.