↓ Skip to main content

Signalling and the Evolution of Cooperative Foraging in Dynamic Environments

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Signalling and the Evolution of Cooperative Foraging in Dynamic Environments
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002194
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin J. Torney, Andrew Berdahl, Iain D. Couzin

Abstract

Understanding cooperation in animal social groups remains a significant challenge for evolutionary theory. Observed behaviours that benefit others but incur some cost appear incompatible with classical notions of natural selection; however, these behaviours may be explained by concepts such as inclusive fitness, reciprocity, intra-specific mutualism or manipulation. In this work, we examine a seemingly altruistic behaviour, the active recruitment of conspecifics to a food resource through signalling. Here collective, cooperative behaviour may provide highly nonlinear benefits to individuals, since group functionality has the potential to be far greater than the sum of the component parts, for example by enabling the effective tracking of a dynamic resource. We show that due to this effect, signalling to others is an evolutionarily stable strategy under certain environmental conditions, even when there is a cost associated to this behaviour. While exploitation is possible, in the limiting case of a sparse, ephemeral but locally abundant nutrient source, a given environmental profile will support a fixed number of signalling individuals. Through a quantitative analysis, this effective carrying capacity for cooperation is related to the characteristic length and time scales of the resource field.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 2%
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 178 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 23%
Researcher 33 17%
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 8%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 16 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 79 41%
Physics and Astronomy 13 7%
Environmental Science 12 6%
Psychology 11 6%
Engineering 11 6%
Other 40 21%
Unknown 25 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 24 April 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
#100,930
of 142,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#79
of 117 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 142,361 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 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.