Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Benefits of Mutualism: A Conceptual Framework

Open access
CONNOR, RICHARD C.·1995·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Summary: There are three general mechanisms by which phenotypic benefits are transferred between unrelated organisms. First, one organism may purloin benefits from another by preying on or parasitizing the other organism. Second, one organism may enjoy benefits that are incidental to or a by‐product of the self‐serving traits of another organism. Third, an organism may invest in another organism if that investment produces return benefits which outweigh the cost of the investment. Interactions in which both parties gain a net benefit are mutualistic. The three mechanisms by which benefits are transferred between organisms can be combined in pairs to produce six possible kinds of original or ‘basal’ mutualisms that can arise from an amutualistic state. A review of the literature suggests that most or all interspecific mutualism have origins in three of the six possible kinds of basal mutualism. Each of these three basal mutualisms have byproduct benefits flowing in at least one direction. The transfer of by‐product benefits and investment are common to both intra‐ and interspecific mutualisms, so that some interspecific mutualisms have intraspecific analogs. A basal mutualism may evolve to the point where each party invests in the other, sometimes obscuring the nature of the original interaction along the way. Two prominent models for the evolution of mutualism do not include by‐product benefits: Roughgarden's model for the evolution of the damsel‐fish anemone mutualism and the ‘Tit‐for‐Tat’ model of reciprocity. Using the conceptual framework presented here, including in particular by‐product benefits, I have shown how it is possible to construct more parsimonious alternatives to both models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1995.tb01196.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
CONNOR, R. C.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-08
Volume
70
Issue
3
Pages
427-457
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2065669015
Cited by
270
References
3
FWCI
27.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Benefits of Mutualism: A Conceptual Framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-185x.1995.tb01196.x
The paper
CONNOR, R. C. (1995). The Benefits of Mutualism: A Conceptual Framework. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.1995.tb01196.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.