Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41802045›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Direct and indirect benefits of cooperation in collective defense against predation.

Raphael Ritter, Heikki Helanterä, Riikka Tynkkynen, Saskia Wutke, Carita Lindstedt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. An insect that cooperates like bacteria.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Direct and indirect benefits of cooperation in collective defense against predation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. High detectability costs select weak warning signals in chemically defended gregarious prey.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Raphael RitterDepartment of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00014, Finland.ORCID 0009-0000-3060-1622
Heikki HelanteräEcology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu 90014, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6468-5956
Riikka TynkkynenNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Joensuu 80100, Finland.
Saskia WutkeEcology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu 90014, Finland.
Carita LindstedtDepartment of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00014, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8176-3613

Funding

Research Council of Finland (AKA) 330578Research Council of Finland (AKA) 333482
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution and maintenance of public goods cooperation, despite cheating, remains a key interest in social biology. Identifying how ecological factors determine the direct and indirect benefits that maintain cooperation has proven challenging, as these can vary significantly across species and environments. Here, we study this problem using the social pine sawfly

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorHymenopteraPredatory BehaviorAnimalsBiological EvolutionFemaleLarvaMaleSocial Behaviorchemical defensegroup livingkin-selectionsex-biased cooperationsocial environment

Identifiers

PMID41802045
PMCPMC12994198

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.