4.4 Article

Trade-off between reproduction and mobility prolongs organisms' survival in rock-paper-scissors models

期刊

EPL
卷 142, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/acd418

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the spatial rock-paper-scissors model and its impact on organisms' energy levels. The research shows that a trade-off strategy between reproduction and mobility helps protect individuals from death due to lack of energy and reduces the risk of being eliminated in the cyclic game. The findings provide insights into adaptive survival strategies and their role in species persistence.
- We study the spatial rock-paper-scissors model, where resource competitors' cyclic dominance impacts organisms' energy levels. Our model assumes that failed selection interactions can lead to energy loss, reducing the chances of success in the spatial game and hastening decline. To prevent death by energy insufficiency, organisms of one out of the species strategically per-form a trade-off between reproduction and mobility. When prioritising exploring more extensive areas, organisms aim to maximise the chances of acquiring resources to regain high energy levels. Through simulation, we examine the effect of survival behaviour on species segregation and spa-tial patterns. Our outcomes show that the trade-off between offspring generation and accelerated movement effectively protects individuals from death due to lack of energy. Moreover, the risk of being eliminated by an enemy in the cyclic game reduces due to the behavioural strategy. Consid-ering a three-state model, we quantify how the trade-off parameter controls the organisms' energy recovery. Computing the expected survival time, we find that although individuals performing the trade-off strategy may live longer, the organisms of other species are negatively affected by a life expectancy reduction. Our research may elucidate the role of adaptive survival strategies in species persistence and provide valuable insights for ecologists.

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

4.4
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