↓ Skip to main content

Modelling the Evolution of Traits in a Two-Sex Population, with an Application to Grandmothering

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Modelling the Evolution of Traits in a Two-Sex Population, with an Application to Grandmothering
Published in
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11538-017-0323-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew H. Chan, Kristen Hawkes, Peter S. Kim

Abstract

We present a mathematical simplification for the evolutionary dynamics of a heritable trait within a two-sex population. This trait is assumed to control the timing of sex-specific life-history events, such as the age of sexual maturity and end of female fertility, and each sex has a distinct fitness trade-off associated with the trait. We provide a formula for the fitness landscape of the population and show a natural extension of the result to an arbitrary number of heritable traits. Our method can be viewed as a dynamical systems generalisation of the Price equation to include two sexes, age structure and multiple traits. We use this formula to examine the effect of grandmothering, whereby post-fertile females subsidise their daughter's fertility by provisioning grandchildren. Grandmothering can drive a shift towards increasingly male-biased mating sex ratios due to a post-fertile life stage in females, while male fertility continues to older ages. Our fitness landscapes show a net increase in fitness for both males and females at longer lifespans, and as a result, we find that grandmothering alone provides an evolutionary trajectory to higher longevities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 33%
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 22%
Psychology 2 22%
Mathematics 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2019.
All research outputs
#7,708,092
of 24,167,226 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#289
of 1,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,618
of 315,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,167,226 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,150 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.