ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025
Mutualism and division of labour: a mutual expansion of concepts.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Division of labour as key driver of social evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Division of labour within social groups and the interspecific relationships within mutualisms have traditionally been treated as separate research areas. In this opinion, we align terminologies and concepts between the two fields, by comparing within-group division of labour to the outsourcing of functions in mutualisms. Division of labour and interspecific outsourcing share fundamental similarities. Both are built from specialization of some individuals within the relationship on tasks or functions required for survival, growth and reproduction. Both also generate variable fitness outcomes. A key difference is that mutualisms generally generate direct fitness gain, while benefits from cooperative sociality often accrue from a mix of direct and indirect fitness. Additionally, the levels of physical and physiological specialization within many mutualisms expand far beyond the levels of differentiation seen in cooperative social groups, with the exception of reproductive division of labour. The consideration of between-species outsourcing in the context of division of labour allows expansion of our understanding of both fields and beyond, to consider general principles as drivers of division of labour, and role differences more broadly across levels of complexity.This article is part of the theme issue 'Division of labour as key driver of social evolution'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.