The Evolution of Cooperative Breeding by Delayed Reciprocity and Queuing for Favorable Social Positions

Wiley, R. Haven; Rabenold, Kerry N.

doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1984.tb00326.x

Cited by 154 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, individuals are assumed to survive or reproduce better in larger groups and they therefore bene¢t from raising new group members even if these are unrelated. This argument may take the explicit form of`delayed reciprocity', in which individuals help to recruit new group members who will later actively help them (Ligon & Ligon 1978;Wiley & Rabenold 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Models of cooperative breeding have focused almost exclusively on kin selection as an explanation for helping behaviour, ignoring bene¢ts that individuals may enjoy in groups of di¡erent sizes (Emlen 1982;Brown & Pimm 1985;Mumme et al 1989;Motro 1993;Queller 1994). In a notable exception, Wiley & Rabenold (1984) modelled the evolution of helping through delayed reciprocity, showing that helping behaviour which reduces survival early in life can be selectively favoured if it leads to greater fecundity or survival later. However, even their model did not address the evolutionary stability of helping fully.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The evolution of cooperative breeding through group augmentation

Kokko

Johnstone

Clutton‐Brock

2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

514

420

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some individuals (helpers) in cooperatively breeding species provide alloparental care and often suppress their own reproduction. Kin selection is clearly an important explanation for such behaviour, but a possible alternative is group augmentation where individuals survive or reproduce better in large groups and where it therefore pays to recruit new members to the group. The evolutionary stability of group augmentation is currently disputed. We model evolutionarily stable helping strategies by following the dynamics of social groups with varying degrees of subordinate help. We also distinguish between passive augmentation, where a group member bene¢ts from the mere presence of others, and active augmentation, where their presence as such is neutral or harmful, but where helping to recruit new group members may still be bene¢cial if they in turn actively provide help for the current reproductives (`delayed reciprocity'). The results show that group augmentation (either passive or active) can be evolutionarily stable and explain costly helping by non-reproductive subordinates, either alone or leading to elevated help levels when acting in concert with kin selection. Group augmentation can thus potentially explain the weak relationships between relatedness and helping behaviour that are observed in some cooperatively breeding species. In some cases, the superior mutualistic performance of cooperatively behaving groups can generate an incentive to stay and help which is strong enough to make ecological constraints unnecessary for explaining the stability of cooperatively breeding groups.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of cooperative breeding through group augmentation

Kokko

Johnstone

Clutton‐Brock

2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

514

420

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under predation risk, breeders and helpers might both benefit from group-living (e.g. 'group augmentation' and groups might be 'safe havens' (Kokko & Ekman 2002) for helpers until a 'low-risk' nearby territory is available, or helpers may 'queue' for the breeding position in the group (Wiley & Rabenold 1984). Hence, it is likely that predation risk strongly affects helper dispersal, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation risk is an ecological constraint for helper dispersal in a cooperatively breeding cichlid

Heg

Bachar

Brouwer

et al. 2004

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

188

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental conditions are thought to be responsible for the extent and benefits of cooperative breeding in many animal societies, but experimental tests are scarce. We manipulated predator pressure in the cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher in Lake Tanganyika, where predators have been suggested to influence helper and breeder survival, helper dispersal and group reproductive success. We varied the type and intensity of predation by releasing medium, large, or no predators inside large underwater cages enclosing two or three group territories. Helper and breeder survival, helper dispersal and group reproductive success decreased from the control, to the medium-and large-predator treatments. These effects were modified by helper body size and the number of adults protecting the group from predators, supporting the 'group augmentation hypothesis'. Predators forced helpers to stay closer to, and spend more time inside, protective shelters. The results demonstrate the importance of predators for group living in this species, and support the 'ecological constraints hypothesis' of cooperative breeding, in the sense that subordinates stay at home rather than leave and breed independently under the risk of predation.

show abstract

“…I tested the predictions of three classic, nonexclusive hypotheses regarding the types of benefits that betas may obtain through their cooperative behavior: (1) direct genetic benefits: if beta-ranked males receive direct fitness benefits from mating with the females they help to attract, then beta copulations will be detected by genetic paternity testing; (2) inclusive fitness benefits: if beta males receive inclusive fitness benefits by increasing relatives' reproductive success (Hamilton 1964), betas will be more related to their partners than to other males selected at random from the population; and (3) delayed direct benefits: if beta males gain future direct fitness benefits from cooperation, betas should become alphas with greater frequency than do nonbetas. In addition, if delayed direct benefits result from queuing for status (Wiley and Rabenold 1984), betas should ascend to alpha status on the display area where they cooperate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Advantages of Cooperative Courtship for Subordinate Male Lance‐Tailed Manakins

DuVal

2007

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Male lance-tailed manakins (Chiroxiphia lanceolata) cooperate in complex courtship displays, but the dominant (alpha) partner monopolizes mating opportunities. This raises the question of why subordinates (betas) cooperate. Three nonexclusive hypotheses explain the adaptive basis of helping behavior by subordinate males: cooperation may increase (1) subordinates' immediate reproductive success, (2) the reproductive success of close relatives, or (3) subordinates' chances of future reproduction. I demonstrated that beta males rarely sired chicks and were unrelated to their alpha partners but received delayed direct benefits from cooperation; betas had an increased probability of becoming an alpha when compared to males that had not been betas. To investigate the mechanism by which betas attain these adaptive benefits, I examined betas' success in replacing their alpha partners both in natural turnover events and when alphas were experimentally removed. Beta males did not consistently inherit alpha roles in the same territories where they served their beta tenure, arguing that queuing for status does not fully explain the benefits of cooperation for betas. Instead, betas may be apprenticing to develop effective and appropriate displays that enhance their subsequent success as alphas. Complex social affiliations appear to mediate selective pressure for cooperation in this species.Keywords: lance-tailed man akin, Chiroxiphia, cooperative courtship, relatedness, delayed direct benefits.Cooperative reproduction is a classic paradox in evolutionary biology because cooperating individuals apparently sacrifice their own reproductive potential to assist the reproductive efforts of others. Much theory about cooperation is informed by studies of cooperative breeding, in * Present address:

show abstract

The Evolution of Cooperative Breeding by Delayed Reciprocity and Queuing for Favorable Social Positions

Cited by 154 publications

References 36 publications

The evolution of cooperative breeding through group augmentation

The evolution of cooperative breeding through group augmentation

Predation risk is an ecological constraint for helper dispersal in a cooperatively breeding cichlid

Adaptive Advantages of Cooperative Courtship for Subordinate Male Lance‐Tailed Manakins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About