2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2016.05.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Eco-evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas

Abstract: Social dilemmas are an integral part of social interactions. Cooperative actions, ranging from secreting extra-cellular products in microbial populations to donating blood in humans, are costly to the actor and hence create an incentive to shirk and avoid the costs. Nevertheless, cooperation is ubiquitous in nature. Both costs and benefits often depend non-linearly on the number and types of individuals involved -as captured by idioms such as 'too many cooks spoil the broth' where additional contributions are … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
56
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
0
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This leads to an EEF between population size and morph frequencies via density-and frequency-dependent selection (eco-to-evo) and via fitness differences in the morphs (evoto-eco; reviewed in Smallegange, Rhebergen, Van Gorkum, Vink, & Egas, 2018). Very similar mechanisms have been discussed in the context of the evolution of cooperation (e.g., Gokhale & Hauert, 2016;Lehtonen & Kokko, 2012). For example, ecological conditions, such as resource limitation and variability, may select for the evolution of cooperation (eco-to-evo), which can then feed back on demography leading to increased population sizes ("supersaturation," Fronhofer, Liebig, Mitesser, & Poethke, 2018;Fronhofer, Pasurka, Mitesser, & Poethke, 2011).…”
Section: Feedbacks In Single Populationsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…This leads to an EEF between population size and morph frequencies via density-and frequency-dependent selection (eco-to-evo) and via fitness differences in the morphs (evoto-eco; reviewed in Smallegange, Rhebergen, Van Gorkum, Vink, & Egas, 2018). Very similar mechanisms have been discussed in the context of the evolution of cooperation (e.g., Gokhale & Hauert, 2016;Lehtonen & Kokko, 2012). For example, ecological conditions, such as resource limitation and variability, may select for the evolution of cooperation (eco-to-evo), which can then feed back on demography leading to increased population sizes ("supersaturation," Fronhofer, Liebig, Mitesser, & Poethke, 2018;Fronhofer, Pasurka, Mitesser, & Poethke, 2011).…”
Section: Feedbacks In Single Populationsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Thus, demographical changes in the population occur at a much slower timescale than changes in the environment. As such, the system effectively experiences the average environment with season lengths being the weights of each component [44]. Thus, in the short seasons approximationthe population growth rate is given by the growth rate in the averaged static environment S…”
Section: Limit Regimes Of Dynamic Environmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An additional parameter, w is added to our model that modifies the beneficial effect each additional REPIN provides to the host. The following functional form changes the benefit provided by each additional REPIN, where w is the base of the change: [24][25][26],…”
Section: Beneficial Effects Can Lead To Stable Repin Population Sizesmentioning
confidence: 99%