Reproductive skew and the evolution of conflict resolution: a synthesis of transactional and tug-of-war models

Buston, Peter M.; Zink, Andrew G.

doi:10.1093/beheco/arp050

Cited by 66 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 2 shows that cooperation becomes less likely with increases in the number of parasitic eggs laid by female S and increases in r ns . In both figures, the decreased likelihood of groups forming when primary and secondary female kinship increases is a unique outcome of this model, relative to reproductive skew theory generally, where kinship drops out of the stability conditions entirely (Reeve and Ratnieks 1993;Johnstone 2000;Buston and Zink 2009). This is because even the nesting female gains higher inclusive fitness (and secondary female direct fitness) as long as the number of parasitic eggs E s is sufficiently high.…”

Section: Conditions Under Which a Secondary Female May Breed Cooperatmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…With three players, we must consider genetic relatedness between three dyad combinations (hostsecondary females, host-primary females, and primarysecondary females) in an approach that is similar to the three-breeder skew model of . We use the framework of previous reproductive skew models that explore the conditions under which a secondary female's "outside option" (here, CBP) affects the solutions for reproductive skew within a cooperatively breeding pair as well as the overall stability of such paired breeding groups (Johnstone 2000;Reeve and Shen 2006;Buston and Zink 2009;Johnstone and Cant 2009). The nesting female (N) is presented with the alternative tactics of (1) accepting female S ("secondary female") to join her in a cooperative nest or (2) rejecting female S to maintain her own solitary nest.…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Buston and Zink (2009), we define p n or p s as the specific fraction of group reproduction (G) in the communal nest that females N and S will require (respectively) based on the outside options described above. We use Hamilton's rule (1964) to determine the behavioral tactics favored by natural selection.…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This window represents the range of all possible combinations of reproductive shares where both N and S achieve at least their minimum requirement for cooperation (similar to the "window of group stability" in Buston and Zink 2009 and the "window of selfishness" in Reeve 2000 or "tug-of-war zone" in Reeve and Shen 2006). We derive the maximum allowed values of p n and p s that satisfy the conditions for cooperation by simply substituting in (1 2 p n ) for p s (in eq.…”

Section: Solving For the Window Of Reproductive Sharing (Conditions Umentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In cooperatively breeding societies, there are potential conflicts of interest over how much each individual within the social group should invest in offspring care Zink 2000Zink , 2001Zink and Reeve 2005;Shen et al 2011), as well as conflicts over how the reproductive output should be shared among females (Vehrencamp 1983a(Vehrencamp , 1983bEmlen et al 1998;Reeve and Keller 2001;Loeb and Zink 2006;Buston and Zink 2009). These conflicts over costs of parental care and benefits of reproductive skew are often considered in isolation, but simultaneous conflict over parental care and reproductive skew is present in a variety of cooperatively breeding societies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evolution of Conspecific Brood Parasitism versus Cooperative Breeding as Alternative Reproductive Tactics

Zink

Lyon²

2016

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative breeding and conspecific brood parasitism can both be favored by ecological saturation of breeding territories or nest sites. Here, we develop a model that links these alternative reproductive tactics by focusing on nonnesting females (S) that either breed cooperatively with a nesting female (N) or parasitize a third, outside host female (H). We find that cooperative breeding is more likely to evolve with increasing relatedness of cooperating females (S or N) to the outside host female (H) and with increasing costs to the hosts for receiving parasitic eggs. Conversely, cooperation is less likely with increasing kinship between the two potentially cooperative nesters (S and N ). This is because even the nesting female gains higher inclusive fitness as long as the number of parasitic eggs (of her otherwise potentially cooperating partner) is sufficiently high. We find the relationship between kinship and reproductive skew within cooperative nests can be either positive or negative depending on the fecundity of parasites versus nesting females. We also find that either of the cooperatively nesting females is more likely to tolerate a smaller fraction of group reproduction as kinship with the host female increases and as the host reproduces more (relative to the parasite) in outside nests. Finally, our model predicts that, as the outside option of conspecific brood parasitism becomes more profitable, helping behavior (zero reproduction by one female) is less likely to evolve in cooperatively breeding groups.

show abstract

Section: Conditions Under Which a Secondary Female May Breed Cooperatmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Solving For the Window Of Reproductive Sharing (Conditions Umentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evolution of Conspecific Brood Parasitism versus Cooperative Breeding as Alternative Reproductive Tactics

Zink

Lyon²

2016

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reproductive Skew Theory

Trubenová

Hager

2012

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An almost universal characteristic of cooperatively breeding animal groups is the unequal sharing of reproduction within the group, referred to as reproductive skew. Reproductive skew theory has been developed to investigate the adaptive causes underlying the variation in reproduction between and within species seen in nature. From its inception in the late 1970s, skew theory has expanded over the years both conceptually and in its application. Three main types of models are distinguished: Transactional models assume that reproductive shares are offered as a reward for cooperative behaviour, tug‐of‐war; TOW (or compromise ) models assume that reproductive shares are determined by competitive abilities of individuals. Both assumptions are reconciled in the third type of models, most recently developed synthetic models . Reproductive skew theory makes predictions about the range of skew using a set of key parameters such as relatedness and competitive abilities of group members. Skew theory has been applied to a wide variety of topics in evolutionary biology such as parent–offspring conflict, sex ratio conflict or the evolution of cooperation. Key to skew theory is the question under what conditions groups remain stable and it has thus been advanced as a framework to understand the evolution of sociality. Key Concepts: Social animals living in groups must often resolve a conflict over the allocation of reproduction. Unequal partitioning of reproduction is termed reproductive skew. Reproductive skew is a degree of reproductive bias in favour of one or a few breeders. Skew theory provides a possible explanation for conflict resolution and adaptive causes of sociality. Several indices of skew exist, suitable for different types of studies and questions. There are three main types of models: transactional, tug‐of‐war (TOW) (also referred to as compromise) and synthetic models, based on different assumptions and yielding different predictions. Transactional models are subdivided into two categories: concession and restraint models. Concession models assume full control of dominants over reproduction in the group, and reproductive share is offered as a reward for cooperation. Restraint models assume subordinates are free to claim reproduction and are only limited by the threat of eviction. TOW models are based on the assumption that both subordinates and dominants have only a limited control over the reproduction and reproductive share is determined by the mutual competitive abilities. Synthetic models combine features of transactional and TOW models. The maximal and minimal reproductive share of the subordinate for a group to remain stable is determined as in transactional models, while, within the range given by the maximal and minimal share, the exact reproductive share is determined by the competitive abilities of both subordinate and dominant in a TOW scenario.

show abstract

Queen–worker ratio affects reproductive skew in a socially polymorphic ant

Walter

Heınze

2015

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The partitioning of reproduction among individuals in communally breeding animals varies greatly among species, from the monopolization of reproduction (high reproductive skew) to similar contribution to the offspring in others (low skew). Reproductive skew models explain how relatedness or ecological constraints affect the magnitude of reproductive skew. They typically assume that individuals are capable of flexibly reacting to social and environmental changes. Most models predict a decrease of skew when benefits of staying in the group are reduced. In the ant Leptothorax acervorum, queens in colonies from marginal habitats form dominance hierarchies and only the top‐ranking queen lays eggs (“functional monogyny”). In contrast, queens in colonies from extended coniferous forests throughout the Palaearctic rarely interact aggressively and all lay eggs (“polygyny”). An experimental increase of queen:worker ratios in colonies from low‐skew populations elicits queen–queen aggression similar to that in functionally monogynous populations. Here, we show that this manipulation also results in increased reproductive inequalities among queens. Queens from natural overwintering colonies differed in the number of developing oocytes in their ovaries. These differences were greatly augmented in queens from colonies with increased queen:worker ratios relative to colonies with a low queen:worker ratio. As assumed by models of reproductive skew, L. acervorum colonies thus appear to be capable of flexibly adjusting reproductive skew to social conditions, yet in the opposite way than predicted by most models.

show abstract

Reproductive skew and the evolution of conflict resolution: a synthesis of transactional and tug-of-war models

Cited by 66 publications

References 69 publications

Evolution of Conspecific Brood Parasitism versus Cooperative Breeding as Alternative Reproductive Tactics

Evolution of Conspecific Brood Parasitism versus Cooperative Breeding as Alternative Reproductive Tactics

Reproductive Skew Theory

Queen–worker ratio affects reproductive skew in a socially polymorphic ant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About