1992
DOI: 10.1007/bf02270969
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can altruism evolve in purely viscous populations?

Abstract: SummaryLimited dispersal is often thought to facilitate the evolution of altruism by increasing the degree of relatedness among interacting individuals. Limited dispersal can have additional effects, however, such as local population regulation, that inhibits the evolution of altruism. Many models of structured populations assume that a viscous stage of the life cycle alternates with a global mixing stage, which allows the advantages of interactions among close relatives without the disadvantages of local popu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

17
303
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 370 publications
(321 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
17
303
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Here these two opposing effects precisely cancel each other. This result is called Taylor's cancellation result, and has been shown shown to hold when one adopts the same life-cycle assumptions (nonoverlapping generations and so on) as ours (Taylor, 1992a,b;Queller, 1992;Wilson et al, 1992;Rousset, 2004;Gardner and West, 2006;Lehmann et al, 2007;Lehmann and Rousset, 2010;Taylor et al, 2011;Ohtsuki, 2012). In this sense, our result (Corollary 2) confirms the results of Taylor (1992a) and Taylor et al (2011).…”
Section: First-order Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Here these two opposing effects precisely cancel each other. This result is called Taylor's cancellation result, and has been shown shown to hold when one adopts the same life-cycle assumptions (nonoverlapping generations and so on) as ours (Taylor, 1992a,b;Queller, 1992;Wilson et al, 1992;Rousset, 2004;Gardner and West, 2006;Lehmann et al, 2007;Lehmann and Rousset, 2010;Taylor et al, 2011;Ohtsuki, 2012). In this sense, our result (Corollary 2) confirms the results of Taylor (1992a) and Taylor et al (2011).…”
Section: First-order Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Although our data showed that temporal heterogeneity is important in the fig/fig wasp mutualism stability, the parasites of mutualism might also directly or indirectly affect the fitness interaction between reciprocal mutualists [4,42,57,59]. Non-pollinators of gall makers in fig/fig wasp mutualism could independently oviposit in the female flowers of F. racemosa and thereby impede both pollinator and viable seed production [23,25,26,40,59,60].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…With such high levels of within-group relatedness, one may even expect lower nepotism among close maternal kin because preferential support toward close maternal kin comes at the expense of other closely related group members (Wilson et al, 1992;Queller, 1994;West et al, 2001;Langergraber, 2012). Indeed, in a population where individuals have few kin available, it is not relevant to consider kin competition, as the benefits of cooperating with kin are much higher than the costs of competing with kin if there are very few kin to outcompete.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%