Honest signaling and the double counting of inclusive fitness

Levin, Samuel R.; Shana, M.; Griffin, Ashleigh S.; West, Stuart A.

doi:10.1002/evl3.138

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(85 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bird cartoons adapted from Levin, Caro, Griffin & West, Evolution Letters (ref. 59 ), Creative Commons ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ ). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple social encounters can eliminate Crozier’s paradox and stabilise genetic kin recognition

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crozier’s paradox suggests that genetic kin recognition will not be evolutionarily stable. The problem is that more common tags (markers) are more likely to be recognised and helped. This causes common tags to increase in frequency, and hence eliminates the genetic variability that is required for genetic kin recognition. It has therefore been assumed that genetic kin recognition can only be stable if there is some other factor maintaining tag diversity, such as the advantage of rare alleles in host-parasite interactions. We show that allowing for multiple social encounters before each social interaction can eliminate Crozier’s paradox, because it allows individuals with rare tags to find others with the same tag. We also show that rare tags are better indicators of relatedness, and hence better at helping individuals avoid interactions with non-cooperative cheats. Consequently, genetic kin recognition provides an advantage to rare tags that maintains tag diversity, and stabilises itself.

show abstract

“…Bird cartoons adapted from Levin, Caro, Griffin & West, Evolution Letters (ref. 59 ), Creative Commons ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ ). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple social encounters can eliminate Crozier’s paradox and stabilise genetic kin recognition

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, the methodologies presented here and by Taylor & Frank [ 7 ] provide systematic ways to count up fitness effects on one individual (either an actor or recipient), eliminating the risk of ‘double counting’ fitness effects. Double counting is a common cause of error in informal reasoning about social evolution [ 63 ]. Additionally, our methodology has the advantages over Taylor & Frank [ 7 ] of: (i) being a fully actor-centric argument, justifying interpretation in terms of individual fitness maximization; (ii) not requiring a full fitness function, which means it can sometimes work with fewer assumptions, and streamline the mathematical argument, as shown by our sex ratio example in electronic supplementary material, appendix G; (iii) requiring no differentiation or complex mathematics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to make an inclusive-fitness model

Scott,

Wild

2023

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social behaviours are typically modelled using neighbour-modulated fitness, which focuses on individuals having their fitness altered by neighbours. However, these models are either interpreted using inclusive fitness, which focuses on individuals altering the fitness of neighbours, or not interpreted at all. This disconnect leads to interpretational mistakes and obscures the adaptive significance of behaviour. We bridge this gap by presenting a systematic methodology for constructing inclusive-fitness models. We find a behaviour’s ‘inclusive-fitness effect’ by summing primary and secondary deviations in reproductive value. Primary deviations are the immediate result of a social interaction; for example, the cost and benefit of an altruistic act. Secondary deviations are compensatory effects that arise because the total reproductive value of the population is fixed; for example, the increased competition that follows an altruistic act. Compared to neighbour-modulated fitness methodologies, our approach is often simpler and reveals the model’s inclusive-fitness narrative clearly. We implement our methodology first in a homogeneous population, with supplementary examples of help under synergy, help in a viscous population and Creel’s paradox. We then implement our methodology in a class-structured population, where the advantages of our approach are most evident, with supplementary examples of altruism between age classes, and sex-ratio evolution.

show abstract

“…Our results indicate that the social environment matters, perhaps just as much as the abiotic environment. Explicit mathematical models on sexual conflict and parent-offspring communication, rather than verbal models, will be necessary to clarify these relationships (23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Offspring across many taxa have evolved to entice their parents to increase their provisioning effort via "begging" signals, such as vocalizations, postures, and brightly colored mouths (20). How offspring signal and how parents respond to those signals depends on the degree of parent-offspring conflict over parental investment, which in turn is impacted by factors such as promiscuity, pair bond stability across reproductive bouts, the number of offspring produced per brood and over the parent's lifetime, and how relatively abundant resources are (19,(21)(22)(23).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely, species with strong (stable, monogamous) bonds would have more alignment of male and female future fitness, and fathers would have more paternity certainty, leading to higher male responsiveness and lower sex differences (2,12,23,32). Alternatively, because increased male care may allow females to breed again more quickly (as seen across mammals, 33), we hypothesized that males would be more responsive than females mostly in species with strong bonds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sex differences in parental response to offspring begging are associated with pair bond strength across birds

Shana

Hofmann

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mothers, fathers, and offspring regularly clash over how much care offspring receive. Offspring beg to solicit for more resources--but how much begging is rewarded can depend on who is listening. While both parents benefit from provisioning offspring, each would benefit from their partner shouldering more of the burden of care, leading to sexual conflict. Additionally, if the costs and benefits of provisioning differ by sex, parent-offspring conflict should vary by sex. How these evolutionary conflicts influence sex differences in parent-offspring communication is unknown. To determine whether the sexes differ in their response to offspring signals, we conducted a meta-analysis on 30 bird species, comparing responsiveness to social and physiological traits affecting conflict. We found that a species' typical pair bond strength predicts whether males or females respond more to offspring begging. In species with stable and/or monogamous bonds, and thus lower sexual and paternal-offspring conflict, males' provisioning effort is more strongly correlated with offspring begging than females'. The opposite holds for species with weak pair bonds: females respond more to begging, perhaps compensating for males' lower responsiveness. These results demonstrate that sex differences in parental care can arise via sex differences in parent-offspring communication, driven by evolutionary conflicts.

show abstract

Honest signaling and the double counting of inclusive fitness

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Multiple social encounters can eliminate Crozier’s paradox and stabilise genetic kin recognition

Multiple social encounters can eliminate Crozier’s paradox and stabilise genetic kin recognition

How to make an inclusive-fitness model

Sex differences in parental response to offspring begging are associated with pair bond strength across birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About