Kin-directed food sharing promotes lifetime natal philopatry of both sexes in a population of fish-eating killer whales, Orcinus orca

Wright, Brianna M.; Stredulinsky, Eva H.; Ellis, Graeme M.; Ford, John K. B.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.02.025

Cited by 74 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 118 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The likely alteration of this female sociality caused by the rapid loss of individuals was proposed as one of the factors potentially contributing further to the decline of some populations (80,82,83). Female killer whales are also known to take care of their kin, protect them during attacks, transmit ecological knowledge like hunting techniques, and share prey with them (9,47,(84)(85)(86)(87). These factors may have driven the remaining Crozet killer whales to try to restore an efficient group size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of sociality in the response of killer whales to an additive mortality event

Busson

Authier

Barbraud

et al. 2019

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In highly social top predators, group living is an ecological strategy that enhances individual fitness, primarily through increased foraging success. Additive mortality events across multiple social groups in populations may affect the social structure, and therefore the fitness, of surviving individuals. This hypothesis was examined in a killer whale (Orcinus orca) population that experienced a 7-y period of severe additive mortality due to lethal interactions with illegal fishing vessels. Using both social and demographic analyses conducted on a unique long-term dataset encompassing periods before, during, and after this event, results indicated a decrease in both the number and the mean strength of associations of surviving individuals during the additive mortality period. A positive significant correlation between association strength and apparent survival suggested that the fitness of surviving individuals was impacted by the additive mortality event. After this event, individuals responded to the loss of relatives in their social groups by associating with a greater number of other social groups, likely to maintain a functional group size that maximized their foraging success. However, these associations were loose; individuals did not reassociate in highly stable social groups, and their survival remained low years after the mortality event. These findings demonstrate how the disruption of social structure in killer whales may lead to prolonged negative effects of demographic stress beyond an additive mortality event. More importantly, this study shows that sociality has a key role in the resilience of populations to humaninduced mortality; this has major implications for the conservation of highly social and long-lived species. sociality | survival | social structure | anthropogenic disturbances | killer whales

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of sociality in the response of killer whales to an additive mortality event

Busson

Authier

Barbraud

et al. 2019

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Food sharing is considered as a prosocial behavior, which is by definition intended to benefit one or more other individuals (Batson & Powell, ) and can be defined as the joint use of a monopolizable food source (Stevens & Gilby, ). Despite the costs for donors, which consists in giving‐up the nutritional value of the food, food sharing has been observed in numerous taxa like insects (Vahed, ), fish (Griffiths & Armstrong, ), birds (Amat, ; Arnold & Owens, ; de Kort, Emery, & Clayton, ), primates (see Jaeggi & van Schaik, for review; de Waal, ; Hauser, Chen, Chen, & Chuang, ; Feistner & Price, ), and other mammals like lions (Cooper, ), wolves (Dale, Range, Stott, Kotrschal, & Marshall‐Pescini, ), killer‐whales (Wright, Stredulinsky, Ellis, & Ford, ), or vampire bats (Carter & Wilkinson, , ; Wilkinson, ). More importantly, food sharing has been observed in very different contexts, between kin, during parent and offspring interactions for example (Feistner & McGrew, ), but also between non‐kin (Clutton‐Brock, ; Stevens & Gilby, ; Wilkinson, Carter, Bohn, & Adams, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food sharing and affiliation: An experimental and longitudinal study in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus)

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food sharing has attracted much attention because of its apparently altruistic nature and its link to prosociality. However, food sharing has been mostly studied in a reproductive context, during courtship and parental care, where the fitness benefits are obvious. We still lack a clear understanding of the functions of food sharing outside any reproductive context and within social groups of same‐aged peers. Previous studies suggest that cofeeding, the action to let another animal feed from the same monopolizable food source, may be used to build and strengthen bonds between individuals. This may be particularly crucial in social birds forming long‐term associations between mates or siblings such as psittacids and corvids. Here, we investigated food sharing and affiliative behaviors such as allopreening in a psittacine species, namely in a group of captive juvenile cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus) consisting of five siblings and five unrelated birds. Our main objective was to study the developmental pattern of food sharing over time and its implication in social bonding depending on kinship, affiliation, and sex. Studying cockatiels in this context is providing many new information since most of the studies on food sharing in birds focused on corvids. We found that, contrary to jackdaws, cockatiels continued to share food with multiple individuals, although the frequency of cofeeding as well as the number of cofeeding partners decreased over time. Cockatiels shared more food with their siblings than with other conspecifics but they were not more likely to do cofeeding with birds of the opposite sex. We also found evidence that young cockatiels exchanged more food with those from whom they received food (reciprocity) and, to a lesser extent, allopreening (interchange), than from other cockatiels. Our findings suggest that in cockatiels, food sharing within social groups serves the formation (and maintenance) of affiliative bonds, especially between siblings, rather than pair bonds, but might additionally be explained by reciprocity, interchange, and harassment avoidance.

show abstract

“…Our finding implies that the foundations of a social system in which foraging specializations are present and in which groups are kin‐structured could easily arise as an emergent phenomenon of simple individual‐level rules based around resource exploitation (here, forage with those with whom you were last successful). The following two principal outcomes of our models demonstrate how the maintenance of social ties based on direct foraging benefits can lead to a group structure that mirrors at least the baseline structure of real‐world populations (e.g., Estes et al., ; Kopps et al., ; Krützen et al., ; Wright, Stredulinsky, Ellis, & Ford, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…The following two principal outcomes of our models demonstrate how the maintenance of social ties based on direct foraging benefits can lead to a group structure that mirrors at least the baseline structure of real-world populations (e.g., Estes et al, 2003;Kopps et al, 2014;Krützen et al, 2005;Wright, Stredulinsky, Ellis, & Ford, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Simple foraging rules in competitive environments can generate socially structured populations

Cantor

Farine

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social vertebrates commonly form foraging groups whose members repeatedly interact with one another and are often genetically related. Many species also exhibit within‐population specializations, which can range from preferences to forage in particular areas through to specializing on the type of prey they catch. However, within‐population structure in foraging groups, behavioral homogeneity in foraging behavior, and relatedness could be outcomes of behavioral interactions rather than underlying drivers. We present a simple process by which grouping among foragers emerges and is maintained across generations. We introduce agent‐based models to investigate (1) whether a simple rule (keep foraging with the same individuals when you were successful) leads to stable social community structure, and (2) whether this structure is robust to demographic changes and becomes kin‐structured over time. We find the rapid emergence of kin‐structured populations and the presence of foraging groups that control, or specialize on, a particular food resource. This pattern is strongest in small populations, mirroring empirical observations. Our results suggest that group stability can emerge as a product of network self‐organization and, in doing so, may provide the necessary conditions for the evolution of more sophisticated processes, such as social learning. This taxonomically general social process has implications for our understanding of the links between population, genetic, and social structures.

show abstract

Kin-directed food sharing promotes lifetime natal philopatry of both sexes in a population of fish-eating killer whales, Orcinus orca

Cited by 74 publications

References 118 publications

Role of sociality in the response of killer whales to an additive mortality event

Role of sociality in the response of killer whales to an additive mortality event

Food sharing and affiliation: An experimental and longitudinal study in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus)

Simple foraging rules in competitive environments can generate socially structured populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About