13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The importance of individual‐to‐society feedbacks in animal ecology and evolution

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references210

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks.

            A fundamental aspect of all biological systems is cooperation. Cooperative interactions are required for many levels of biological organization ranging from single cells to groups of animals. Human society is based to a large extent on mechanisms that promote cooperation. It is well known that in unstructured populations, natural selection favours defectors over cooperators. There is much current interest, however, in studying evolutionary games in structured populations and on graphs. These efforts recognize the fact that who-meets-whom is not random, but determined by spatial relationships or social networks. Here we describe a surprisingly simple rule that is a good approximation for all graphs that we have analysed, including cycles, spatial lattices, random regular graphs, random graphs and scale-free networks: natural selection favours cooperation, if the benefit of the altruistic act, b, divided by the cost, c, exceeds the average number of neighbours, k, which means b/c > k. In this case, cooperation can evolve as a consequence of 'social viscosity' even in the absence of reputation effects or strategic complexity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Superspreading and the effect of individual variation on disease emergence

              Coughs and sneezes... From Typhoid Mary to SARS, it has long been known that some people spread disease more than others. But for diseases transmitted via casual contact, contagiousness arises from a plethora of social and physiological factors, so epidemiologists have tended to rely on population averages to assess a disease's potential to spread. A new analysis of outbreak data shows that individual differences in infectiousness exert powerful influences on the epidemiology of ten deadly diseases. SARS and measles (and perhaps avian influenza) show strong tendencies towards ‘superspreading events’ that can ignite explosive epidemics — but this same volatility makes outbreaks more likely to fizzle out. Smallpox and pneumonic plague, two potential bioterrorism agents, show steadier growth but still differ markedly from the traditional average-based view. These findings are relevant to how emerging diseases are detected and controlled. Supplementary information The online version of this article (doi:10.1038/nature04153) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Animal Ecology
                J Anim Ecol
                Wiley
                0021-8790
                1365-2656
                January 2021
                October 05 2020
                January 2021
                : 90
                : 1
                : 27-44
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Collective Behaviour Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior Radolfzell Germany
                [2 ]Department of Biology University of Konstanz Konstanz Germany
                [3 ]Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour University of Konstanz Konstanz Germany
                [4 ]Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Florianópolis Brazil
                [5 ]Centro de Estudos do Mar Universidade Federal do Paraná Pontal do Paraná Brazil
                [6 ]Department of Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics Max Planck Institute for Ornithology Seewiesen Germany
                [7 ]Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology The Ohio State University Columbus OH USA
                [8 ]Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology Department of Zoology University of Oxford Oxford UK
                [9 ]Department of Migration Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior Konstanz Germany
                [10 ]Department of Sociobiology/Anthropology Johann‐Friedrich‐Blumenbach Institute of Zoology & Anthropology University of Göttingen Göttingen Germany
                [11 ]Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology Unit German Primate Center Göttingen Germany
                Article
                10.1111/1365-2656.13336
                32895936
                b1d4eb7e-4b3f-42e1-ba71-339c0b33713a
                © 2021

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article