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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game
Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/364056a0 · Cited by 1,797
Cited by
Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection.
WEST, S. A., GRIFFIN, A. S., & GARDNER, A. (2007) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01258.x · Cited by 1,889
The evolution of social behavior in microorganisms
Crespi, B. J. (2001) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02115-2 · Cited by 578
Evolutionary transitions in bacterial symbiosis
Sachs, J. L., Skophammer, R. G., & Regus, J. U. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1100304108 · Cited by 375
Costless metabolic secretions as drivers of interspecies interactions in microbial ecosystems
Pacheco, A. R., Moel, M., & Segrè, D. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07946-9 · Cited by 328
Morality as Cooperation: A Problem-Centred Approach
Curry, O. S. (2016) · Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2 · Cited by 293
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.