4.7 Article

Adaptive movement strategy in rock-paper-scissors models

期刊

CHAOS SOLITONS & FRACTALS
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112430

关键词

Population dynamics; Rock -paper -scissors model; Adaptive movement; Stochastic simulations

资金

  1. CNPq
  2. ECT
  3. Fapern
  4. IBED

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adaptive movement does not necessarily provide an advantage in cyclic spatial games, as it can delay spatial domain occupation and increase vulnerability to dominant species. The impact of adaptive movement behavior depends on whether individuals have a long-range neighborhood perception.
Organisms may respond to local stimuli that benefit or threaten their fitness. The adaptive movement behaviour may allow individuals to adjust their speed to maximise the chances of being in comfort zones, where death risk is minimal. We investigate spatial cyclic models where the rock-paper-scissors game rules describe the nonhier-archical dominance. We assume that organisms of one out of the species can control the mobility rate in response to the information obtained from scanning the environment. Running a series of stochastic simulations, we quan-tify the effects of the movement strategy on the spatial patterns and population dynamics. Our findings show that the ability to change mobility to adapt to environmental clues is not reflected in an advantage in cyclic spatial games. The adaptive movement provokes a delay in the spatial domains occupied by the species in the spiral waves, making the group more vulnerable to the advance of the dominant species and less efficient in taking territory from the dominated species. Our outcomes also show that the effects of adaptive movement be-haviour accentuate whether most individuals have a long-range neighbourhood perception. Our results may be helpful for biologists and data scientists to comprehend the dynamics of ecosystems where adaptive processes are fundamental.(c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据