↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Why mutualist partners vary in quality: mutation–selection balance and incentives to cheat in the fig tree–fig wasp mutualism

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Why mutualist partners vary in quality: mutation–selection balance and incentives to cheat in the fig tree–fig wasp mutualism
Published in
Ecology Letters, June 2017
DOI 10.1111/ele.12792
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Charlotte Jandér, Brian S. Steidinger

Abstract

Mutualisms between species are ecologically ubiquitous but evolutionarily puzzling. Host discrimination mechanisms that reduce the fitness of uncooperative symbionts can stabilise mutualism against collapse, but also present a paradox - if discrimination is effective, why do uncooperative symbionts persist? Here, we test whether mutations or fitness benefits of cheating best explain the prevalence of uncooperative wasps in the fig tree-fig wasp mutualism. By combining theory with field-collected data we demonstrate that the proportions of pollen-free wasps of strongly discriminating hosts are reached with reasonable mutation rates. In contrast, in weakly discriminating hosts, the required mutation rates, assuming a single locus, are untenably high, but the required cheater advantages fall within expected ranges. We propose that when discrimination is weak, uncooperative symbionts proliferate until they reach the equilibrium proportion that balances costs and benefits of cheating. Our results suggest that mechanisms that resolve the paradox of uncooperative symbionts differ among host species.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 60%
Environmental Science 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,037,535
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#616
of 2,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,172
of 317,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#9
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 317,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.