CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Earth Systems and Cosmic EvolutionPhilosophy of Biology and Scientific ExplanationEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making Evolutionary Sense of Gaia

Doolittle, W. Ford·2019·Trends in Ecology & Evolution
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2019.05.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Gaia hypothesis in a strong and frequently criticized form assumes that global homeostatic mechanisms have evolved by natural selection favoring the maintenance of conditions suitable for life. Traditional neoDarwinists hold this to be impossible in theory. But the hypothesis does make sense if one treats the clade that comprises the biological component of Gaia as an individual and allows differential persistence - as well as differential reproduction - to be an outcome of evolution by natural selection. Recent developments in theoretical and experimental evolutionary biology may justify both maneuvers.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tree.2019.05.001

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Debate continues about if and how adaptive evolution of the biosphere can produce a more stable climate than an abiotic Earth.

    “However, debate continues about if and how adaptive evolution of the biosphere can produce a more stable climate than an abiotic Earth (221, 222).”

    From The Archean atmosphere (2020) · cites this paper as [222]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Doolittle, 1981, Is nature really motherly?, CoEvol. Quart., 58
  2. Godfrey-Smith, 2015, The ant and the steam engine, London Rev. Books, 37, 18

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Doolittle, W. F.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Doolittle, W. Ford
ORCID
Doolittle, W. Ford
Venue
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
34
Issue
10
Pages
889-894
ISSN
0169-5347 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tree.2019.05.001
OpenAlex
W2947291459
Cited by
61
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Trends in Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Earth Systems and Cosmic Evolution
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
Gaia hypothesis, natural selection, neo-Darwinism, differential reproduction
MeSH terms
Biological Evolution, Reproduction, Selection, Genetic, Ecosystem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review