Philopatry in prairie voles: an evaluation of the habitat saturation hypothesis

Lucia, Kristen E.; Keane, Brian; Hayes, Loren D.; Lin, Ying-Chen; Schaefer, Robert L.; Solomon, Nancy G.

doi:10.1093/beheco/arn028

Cited by 80 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A consequence has been that an individual now probably has a greater choice of nearby active sites, and possibly more large ones, than were available when our research began. Studies on other species have shown that availability of nesting (or roosting) sites is a key determinant of philopatry (Grandi et al, 2008; Kokko et al, 2004; Lewis, 1995; Lucia et al, 2008), and a similar decline in site fidelity with increasing colony size over time was found in storks, Ciconia ciconia (Itonaga, Köppen, Plath, & Wallschläger, 2011). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Why come back home? Breeding-site fidelity varies with group size and parasite load in a colonial bird

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fidelity to a past breeding site is widespread among animals and may confer both costs and benefits. Colonial species occur at specific sites that can accommodate multiple breeders, and the choice of whether to return to last year's site or disperse elsewhere can affect colony site use, the colony size distribution and individual fitness. For the colonial cliff swallow, Petrochelidon pyrrhonota, which occupies colonies of widely different sizes, we used a 30-year field study in western Nebraska to investigate how the extent of infestation by ectoparasites and colony size affected breeders' colony site fidelity between years. We compared philopatry at colonies where parasitic swallow bugs, Oeciacus vicarius, had been removed by fumigation with that at nonfumigated sites exposed to natural levels of ectoparasites. About 25% of birds at nonfumigated colonies returned to their previous year's site, whereas about 69% of birds at fumigated colonies did so. Site fidelity was greatest at nonfumigated sites that changed the least in size between years. Birds were less likely to return to a nonfumigated site as the colony there became increasingly larger. Individuals philopatric to both nonfumigated and fumigated sites resided in colonies more similar in size between years than did dispersing birds. Most cliff swallows settled within 6 km of their previous year's site, indicating that many nonphilopatric birds still may have had some familiarity with the local landscape surrounding the site to which they moved. Removal of ectoparasites at a site allows large colonies to persist there perennially, probably contributing to higher philopatry because such large colonies are rare and would have been difficult to find had the residents dispersed. Cliff swallows are likely to be sensitive to both colony size and general familiarity with a given site or landscape region, and probably integrate these with other cues to select breeding colonies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Why come back home? Breeding-site fidelity varies with group size and parasite load in a colonial bird

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such parameters can also influence the distribution and behavior of one sex, which in turn can affect the behavior of the opposite sex [58]. Likewise, the demographic and kin composition of a population can affect decision-making in juveniles (Box 2) [59][60][61]. The costs and benefits of living in groups can affect the evolution of neural pathways underlying aggressive and cooperative behaviors, which in turn might affect group composition and persistence, and ultimately population structure (e.g., estrildid finches [62]).…”

Section: Conceptual Relationships Between Mechanisms and Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evolutionary framework for studying mechanisms of social behavior

Hofmann

Beery

Blumstein³

et al. 2014

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

168

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social interactions are central to most animals and have a fundamental impact upon the phenotype of an individual. Social behavior (social interactions among conspecifics) represents a central challenge to the integration of the functional and mechanistic bases of complex behavior. Traditionally, studies of proximate and ultimate elements of social behavior have been conducted by distinct groups of researchers, with little communication across perceived disciplinary boundaries. However, recent technological advances, coupled with increased recognition of the substantial variation in mechanisms underlying social interactions, should compel investigators from divergent disciplines to pursue more integrative analyses of social behavior. We propose an integrative conceptual framework intended to guide researchers towards a comprehensive understanding of the evolution and maintenance of mechanisms governing variation in sociality.The study of social behavior in the 21st century All animals interact with conspecifics at some point in their lives. Members of the same species tend to be each other's fiercest competitors and strongest allies, as evidenced by the intense cooperation and conflict that characterize many intraspecific interactions [1]. These interactions are the products of genetic, epigenetic, endocrine, and neural mechanisms that -in conjunction with environmental conditions -affect Darwinian fitness and evolve via natural selection. Building upon Aristotle's four questions, Tinbergen [2] posited that understanding behavior requires the integration of studies of mechanism and function. Only by asking questions both from a proximate perspective (i.e., focusing on causation and development) and an ultimate perspective (i.e., focusing on adaptive value and evolutionary descent) can behavior be fully understood. Social behavior in particular lends itself to such an integrative approach not only because it commands the attention of many disciplines [3] but also because even many behaviors commonly considered nonsocial often occur in a social context (e.g., mating, fighting, parental care). Social behavior is also special because the selective agents are other members of the same species, and this results in intriguing evolutionary dynamics. Nevertheless, in the intervening decades since Tinbergen's

show abstract

“…In other well-known examples, the relaxation of ecological constraints has prompted dispersal and limited cooperation, as predicted by the ecological constraints hypothesis (e.g. red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis (Walters et al 1992), Seychelles warbler Acrocephalus sechellensis (Komdeur 1992), prairie voles Microtus ochrogaster (Lucia et al 2008)). In Ethiopian wolves, the stay-and-wait strategy paid off because the costs of delayed reproduction were compensated in the longer-term by the benefits of territory inheritance and the enhanced lifetime reproduction of the new breeding pairs (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1978).…”

Section: The Longer-term Benefits Of Philopatry and Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Empirical studies in that direction are revealing new and interesting links between philopatry/cooperation and demography (Lehmann et al 2006), habitat availability (e.g. Lucia et al 2008;Iossa et al 2009), mating systems (Wolff 1992), life history traits (Hatchwell and Komdeur 2000;Hatchwell 2009) and predation (Kamler et al 2004;Beckerman et al 2011).…”

Section: The Longer-term Benefits Of Philopatry and Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological bases of philopatry and cooperation in Ethiopian wolves

Marino

Sillero‐Zubiri

Johnson

et al. 2012

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological reasons for philopatry and cooperation are frequently invoked when kin selection is an insufficient explanation. The Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) is a specialised rodent hunter that forms family groups with cooperative breeding but also lives as monogamous pairs in suboptimal areas. Given the apparent absence of fitness gains to helpers from cooperative breeding, we set out to explore the benefits accrued by communal territorial defence measured as the acquisition and retention of habitats with more and most preferred rodent prey. Pairs defended relatively large territories to encompass critical amounts of key habitats within a matrix poor in rodents. Groups in optimal areas had relatively small territories and were expansionist, such that wolves in larger packs benefited per capita from increased good-quality foraging habitat. The fitness benefits of philopatry became evident after a rabies epizootic, when philopatry and expansionism prevailed in under-saturated conditions, until large groups split or provided dispersers that established locally. This study shows that high concentrations of prey can shift the balance of costs and benefits towards group living and cooperation in long-lived territorial carnivores, in so far as this dictates immediate rewards accrued from a given increment in territory size, namely greater foraging area per animal, leading to group enlargement and eventual inheritance of breeding space.

show abstract

Philopatry in prairie voles: an evaluation of the habitat saturation hypothesis

Cited by 80 publications

References 58 publications

Why come back home? Breeding-site fidelity varies with group size and parasite load in a colonial bird

Why come back home? Breeding-site fidelity varies with group size and parasite load in a colonial bird

An evolutionary framework for studying mechanisms of social behavior

Ecological bases of philopatry and cooperation in Ethiopian wolves

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About