↓ Skip to main content

Local Orientation and the Evolution of Foraging: Changes in Decision Making Can Eliminate Evolutionary Trade-offs

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Local Orientation and the Evolution of Foraging: Changes in Decision Making Can Eliminate Evolutionary Trade-offs
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002186
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. van der Post, Dirk Semmann

Abstract

Information processing is a major aspect of the evolution of animal behavior. In foraging, responsiveness to local feeding opportunities can generate patterns of behavior which reflect or "recognize patterns" in the environment beyond the perception of individuals. Theory on the evolution of behavior generally neglects such opportunity-based adaptation. Using a spatial individual-based model we study the role of opportunity-based adaptation in the evolution of foraging, and how it depends on local decision making. We compare two model variants which differ in the individual decision making that can evolve (restricted and extended model), and study the evolution of simple foraging behavior in environments where food is distributed either uniformly or in patches. We find that opportunity-based adaptation and the pattern recognition it generates, plays an important role in foraging success, particularly in patchy environments where one of the main challenges is "staying in patches". In the restricted model this is achieved by genetic adaptation of move and search behavior, in light of a trade-off on within- and between-patch behavior. In the extended model this trade-off does not arise because decision making capabilities allow for differentiated behavioral patterns. As a consequence, it becomes possible for properties of movement to be specialized for detection of patches with more food, a larger scale information processing not present in the restricted model. Our results show that changes in decision making abilities can alter what kinds of pattern recognition are possible, eliminate an evolutionary trade-off and change the adaptive landscape.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 57 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 27%
Researcher 15 25%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 53%
Environmental Science 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 8 13%
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 12 May 2012.
All research outputs
#17,604,528
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,544
of 9,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,816
of 147,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#84
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 147,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.