IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v449y2021ics0304380021001216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cautious individuals have non-invadable territories, according to an evolutionary mechanistic model

Author

Listed:
  • Menezes, Jorge Fernando Saraiva
  • Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo Rodrigues

Abstract

Territoriality is widespread in the animal kingdom, but its evolutionary origins are less understood than the movement patterns that generate it. Previous studies attempted to understand the evolution of these movement patterns by assuming that certain movement patterns comprised competing strategies and using evolutionary game theory to find which strategies would provide greater fitness and give rise to evolutionary stability. Four strategies were identified: Cautious, an individual that moves through the landscape avoiding all places where it experienced conflicts with other animals; Common-sense, an individual that avoids areas where it lost conflicts and selects areas where it won conflicts; Paradoxical, an individual that does the opposite of Common-sense; and Daring, an individual that seeks areas where it won conflicts, but is unaffected by loss. Previous models used a combination of individual-based models and algebraic calculations, but they did not incorporate recent developments in mechanistic models. Here, we developed a stochastic individual-based model using fluid dynamics to represent space use and used invasion tests to determine evolutionary stability. Using this model, we tested which (if any) of the previous strategies would be evolutionarily stable in two scenarios: one with inconclusive territorial fights and another without. We found that the cautious strategy was evolutionarily stable, in disagreement with previous literature. Cautious individuals show a more homogeneous use of space, when compared to the other three strategies. Cautious individuals tend to win most resources across the environment, which results in greater fitness than other strategies and allows it to invade populations comprised of any of the others. Daring also invades paradox and common-sense strategies, while paradox invades common sense. There was no qualitative difference between scenarios. We discuss how the evolutionary stability of this strategy depends on whether individuals employ their maximal effort when foraging.

Suggested Citation

  • Menezes, Jorge Fernando Saraiva & Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo Rodrigues, 2021. "Cautious individuals have non-invadable territories, according to an evolutionary mechanistic model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 449(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:449:y:2021:i:c:s0304380021001216
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380021001216
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109551?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abernethy, Gavin M. & McCartney, Mark & Glass, David H., 2019. "The role of migration in a spatial extension of the Webworld eco-evolutionary model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 397(C), pages 122-140.
    2. Ben D. MacArthur & Richard O. C. Oreffo, 2005. "Bridging the gap," Nature, Nature, vol. 433(7021), pages 19-19, January.
    3. Grimm, Volker & Berger, Uta & DeAngelis, Donald L. & Polhill, J. Gary & Giske, Jarl & Railsback, Steven F., 2010. "The ODD protocol: A review and first update," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(23), pages 2760-2768.
    4. Graciá, Eva & Rodríguez-Caro, Roberto C. & Sanz-Aguilar, Ana & Anadón, José D. & Botella, Francisco & García-García, Angel Luis & Wiegand, Thorsten & Giménez, Andrés, 2020. "Assessment of the key evolutionary traits that prevent extinctions in human-altered habitats using a spatially explicit individual-based model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 415(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vanessa Taylor & Sarah Ashelford & Patricia Fell & Penelope J Goacher, 2015. "Biosciences in nurse education: is the curriculum fit for practice? Lecturers' views and recommendations from across the UK," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(19-20), pages 2797-2806, October.
    2. Booth, Heather, 2006. "Demographic forecasting: 1980 to 2005 in review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 547-581.
    3. Ercan Tomakin, 2014. "Teaching English Tenses (grammar) in the Turkish Texts; A Case of Simple Present Tense: Is?l Maketi Iter," International Journal of Learning and Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 4(1), pages 115-131, March.
    4. Peter Viggo Jakobsen, 2009. "Small States, Big Influence: The Overlooked Nordic Influence on the Civilian ESDP," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 81-102, January.
    5. Tardy, Olivia & Lenglos, Christophe & Lai, Sandra & Berteaux, Dominique & Leighton, Patrick A., 2023. "Rabies transmission in the Arctic: An agent-based model reveals the effects of broad-scale movement strategies on contact risk between Arctic foxes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 476(C).
    6. Radha Jagannathan & Michael J. Camasso & Bagavan Das & Jale Tosun & Sadagopan Iyengar, 2017. "Family, society and the individual: determinants of entrepreneurial attitudes among youth in Chennai, South India," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Vimercati, Giovanni & Hui, Cang & Davies, Sarah J. & Measey, G. John, 2017. "Integrating age structured and landscape resistance models to disentangle invasion dynamics of a pond-breeding anuran," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 356(C), pages 104-116.
    8. Tautenhahn, Susanne & Heilmeier, Hermann & Jung, Martin & Kahl, Anja & Kattge, Jens & Moffat, Antje & Wirth, Christian, 2012. "Beyond distance-invariant survival in inverse recruitment modeling: A case study in Siberian Pinus sylvestris forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 233(C), pages 90-103.
    9. Jagadish, Arundhati & Dwivedi, Puneet & McEntire, Kira D. & Chandar, Mamta, 2019. "Agent-based modeling of “cleaner” cookstove adoption and woodfuel use: An integrative empirical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Vincenzo Galasso, 2020. "Market Reactions to Quest for Decentralization and Independence: Evidence from Catalonia," CESifo Working Paper Series 8254, CESifo.
    11. Thijs Fassaert & Matty A.S. De Wit & Wilco C. Tuinebreijer & Jeroen W. Knipscheer & Arnoud P. Verhoeff & Aartjan T.F. Beekman & Jack Dekker, 2011. "Acculturation and Psychological Distress Among Non-Western Muslim Migrants - a Population-Based Survey," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 57(2), pages 132-143, March.
    12. Jakub Bijak & Jason D. Hilton & Eric Silverman & Viet Dung Cao, 2013. "Reforging the Wedding Ring," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(27), pages 729-766.
    13. Philippe De Donder & Michel Le Breton & Eugenio Peluso, 2012. "Majority Voting in Multidimensional Policy Spaces: Kramer–Shepsle versus Stackelberg," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 14(6), pages 879-909, December.
    14. Grace Kite, 2014. "Linked in? Software and Information Technology Services in India’s Economic Development," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 9(2), pages 99-119, August.
    15. Hinker, Jonas & Hemkendreis, Christian & Drewing, Emily & März, Steven & Hidalgo Rodríguez, Diego I. & Myrzik, Johanna M.A., 2017. "A novel conceptual model facilitating the derivation of agent-based models for analyzing socio-technical optimality gaps in the energy domain," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1219-1230.
    16. Spyros Arvanitis & Ursina Kubli & Martin Woerter, 2006. "University-Industry Knowledge Interaction in Switzerland: What University Scientists Think about Co-operation with Private Enterprises," KOF Working papers 06-132, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    17. Tianran Ding & Wouter Achten, 2023. "Coupling agent-based modeling with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/359527, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Jens Lausen & Moritz Kohlhase, 2021. "Internalizing the externalities of overfunding: an agent-based model approach for analyzing the market dynamics on crowdfunding platforms," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(9), pages 1387-1430, November.
    19. Crevier, Lucas Phillip & Salkeld, Joseph H & Marley, Jessa & Parrott, Lael, 2021. "Making the best possible choice: Using agent-based modelling to inform wildlife management in small communities," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 446(C).
    20. Falco, Paolo & Zaccagni, Sarah, 2020. "Promoting social distancing in a pandemic: Beyond the good intentions," OSF Preprints a2nys, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:449:y:2021:i:c:s0304380021001216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.