The validity and value of inclusive fitness theory
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, ISSN: 1471-2970, Vol: 278, Issue: 1723, Page: 3313-3320
2011
- 130Citations
- 476Captures
- 5Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations130
- Citation Indexes130
- 130
- CrossRef118
- Captures476
- Readers476
- 475
- Mentions5
- References4
- Wikipedia4
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
Andrew F. G. Bourke - The validity and value of inclusive fitness theory.pdf
The validity and value of inclusive fitness theory Andrew F. G. Bourke Proc. R. Soc. B 2011 278, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1465 first published online 14 September
Review Description
Social evolution is a central topic in evolutionary biology, with the evolution of eusociality (societies with altruistic, non-reproductive helpers) representing a long-standing evolutionary conundrum. Recent critiques have questioned the validity of the leading theory for explaining social evolution and eusociality, namely inclusive fitness (kin selection) theory. I review recent and past literature to argue that these critiques do not succeed. Inclusive fitness theory has added fundamental insights to natural selection theory. These are the realization that selection on a gene for social behaviour depends on its effects on co-bearers, the explanation of social behaviours as unalike as altruism and selfishness using the same underlying parameters, and the explanation of within-group conflict in terms of non-coinciding inclusive fitness optima. A proposed alternative theory for eusocial evolution assumes mistakenly that workers' interests are subordinate to the queen's, contains no new elements and fails to make novel predictions. The haplodiploidy hypothesis has yet to be rigorously tested and positive relatedness within diploid eusocial societies supports inclusive fitness theory. The theory has made unique, falsifiable predictions that have been confirmed, and its evidence base is extensive and robust. Hence, inclusive fitness theory deserves to keep its position as the leading theory for social evolution. ©2011 The Royal Society.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=80053934775&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1465; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21920980; https://facultyopinions.com/prime/13296981#eval14657088; http://dx.doi.org/10.3410/f.13296981.14657088; https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.1465; https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1465; http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.1465; https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2011.1465; http://f1000.com/13296981#eval14657088; http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.1465; http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1723/3313
Faculty Opinions Ltd
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know