The Experts below are selected from a list of 6705 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ben J. Hatchwell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The evolution of Cooperative Breeding in birds: kinship, dispersal and life history.
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B Biological sciences, 2009Co-Authors: Ben J. HatchwellAbstract:The evolution of cooperation among animals has posed a major problem for evolutionary biologists, and despite decades of research into avian Cooperative Breeding systems, many questions about the evolution of their societies remain unresolved. A review of the kin structure of avian societies shows that a large majority live in kin-based groups. This is consistent with the proposed evolutionary routes to Cooperative Breeding via delayed dispersal leading to family formation, or limited dispersal leading to kin neighbourhoods. Hypotheses proposed to explain the evolution of Cooperative Breeding systems have focused on the role of population viscosity, induced by ecological/demographic constraints or benefits of philopatry, in generating this kin structure. However, comparative analyses have failed to generate robust predictions about the nature of those constraints, nor differentiated between the viscosity of social and non-social populations, except at a coarse level. I consider deficiencies in our understanding of how avian dispersal strategies differ between social and non-social species, and suggest that research has focused too narrowly on population viscosity and that a broader perspective that encompasses life history and demographic processes may provide fresh insights into the evolution of avian societies.
-
Avian Reproduction: Role of Ecology in the Evolution of Cooperative Breeding
Current biology : CB, 2007Co-Authors: Ben J. HatchwellAbstract:A new comparative analysis of the speciose and socially diverse family of African starlings provides evidence that Cooperative Breeding has evolved in unpredictable, seasonal environments.
-
Kin Selection, Constraints, and the Evolution of Cooperative Breeding in Long‐Tailed Tits
Advances in the Study of Behavior, 2006Co-Authors: Ben J. Hatchwell, Stuart P. SharpAbstract:This chapter describes some aspects of research on the Cooperative Breeding system of the long tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus. The principal aim of the chapter is to bring together evidence from various sources concerning the role of kin selection and ecological constraints in the evolution of Cooperative Breeding in this species. Many studies of vertebrate Cooperative Breeding systems have shown that helpers assist relatives in raising their offspring. A major reason for initiating a study on long tailed tits is that their helping behavior is atypical and does not conform to this sequence of events because all helpers are failed breeders that ‘‘redirect’’ their care to become helpers. The ability to discriminate between kin and non kin plays a major role in the evolution of social behavior. The direct fitness benefits of helping are those that enhance the personal reproductive success of helpers. The direct fitness benefits of helping are those that enhance the personal reproductive success of helpers. Helpers may gain indirect fitness benefits either by helping relatives to increase productivity of their current Breeding attempt, or by reducing the reproductive costs of related breeders, thereby enhancing their survival. The main conclusions regarding the role of kin selection in the evolution of Cooperative Breeding in long tailed tits are have been listed out: (1) helpers exhibit a kin preference in helping behavior using a learned vocal kin recognition mechanism, (2) helpers increase the productivity of their relatives by increasing recruitment of fledglings of the helped brood, and (3) the kin selected fitness benefit of helping is the sole source of inclusive fitness for a substantial proportion of individuals.
-
ecology and evolution of Cooperative Breeding in birds fitness consequences of helping
2004Co-Authors: Janis L Dickinson, Ben J. HatchwellAbstract:Cooperatively or communally Breeding birds are species in which individuals live in groups of three or more Breeding-aged adults, all of which care for young at a single nest (Brown 1987; Stacey and Koenig 1990a). Most Cooperative breeders retain young that delay Breeding and help their parents raise siblings. Additional forms of Cooperative Breeding include polygamous groups with multiple cobreeders of one or both sexes and, more rarely, groups with unrelated helpers. Cooperative Breeding is rare, occurring in only about 3% of avian species worldwide, and is particularly common in Australian birds (Brown 1987; Russell 1989; Arnold and Owens 1998). Its prevalence in Australasia can be accounted for phylogenetically due to a particularly high frequency in the Corvida (23%) (Russell 1989; Edwards and Naeem 1993; Clarke 1995). Theoretical and comparative treatments of avian Cooperative Breeding have usually dealt with the full range of avian social systems (Brown 1987; Koenig et al. 1992; Hartley and Davies 1994; Arnold and Owens 1998). This practice has demonstrated that Cooperative breeders share many important characteristics, such as year-round residency, high survivorship, small clutch sizes, and, in many cases, constraints on independent Breeding (Brown 1987; Stacey and Koenig 1990a; Arnold and Owens 1998, 1999). Specific limitations on independent Breeding vary from one species to the next, and involve a variety of resources, including food, territories, suitable nest or roosting sites, and a lack of skill or mates (Smith 1990). The primary focus of this chapter is helping at the nest by retained offspring.
-
temporal variation in fitness payoffs promotes Cooperative Breeding in long tailed tits aegithalos caudatus
The American Naturalist, 2002Co-Authors: Andrew D C Maccoll, Ben J. HatchwellAbstract:Cooperative Breeding is paradoxical because some individuals forego independent reproduction and instead help others to reproduce. The ecological constraints model states that such behavior arises because of constraints on independent reproduction. Spatial variation in constraints has been shown to co-vary with the incidence of Cooperative Breeding in correlational and experimental studies. Here, we examine whether temporally variable ecological constraints can act in a similar way to promote Cooperative Breeding in the atypical system of long-tailed tits Aegithalos caudatus. In this species, individuals may switch reproductive tactics from Breeding to helping within the same Breeding season. Using 7 yr of field data, we show that reproductive success declined seasonally because of declines in brood size, nestling weight, and juvenile survival. The survival to Breeding age of chicks from nests with helpers was higher than for chicks from nests without helpers, and since helpers usually helped at the nest of a close relative, they accrued inclusive fitness benefits. We used these data to model the expected fitness payoffs of Breeding and helping at different times during the season. The model shows that late in the Breeding season, the fitness payoff from a kin-directed helping tactic becomes greater than that from independent Breeding. The behavioral switch predicted by the model is consistent with the observed switch from Breeding to helping, which shows that Cooperative Breeding may evolve as a way of making the best of a bad job at the end of a temporally constrained Breeding season.
Katherine Mcauliffe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fundamental problems with the Cooperative Breeding hypothesis a reply to burkart van schaik
Journal of Zoology, 2016Co-Authors: Alex Thornton, Katherine Mcauliffe, Sasha R. X. Dall, P. A. Garber, E Fernandezduque, Andrew J. YoungAbstract:The Cooperative Breeding hypothesis (CBH) states that Cooperative Breeding, a social system in which group members help to rear offspring that are not their own, has important socio-cognitive consequences. Thornton & McAuliffe (2015; henceforth T&M) critiqued this idea on both conceptual and empirical grounds, arguing that there is no reason to predict that Cooperative Breeding should favour the evolution of enhanced social cognition or larger brains, nor any clear evidence that it does. In response to this critique, Burkart & van Schaik (2016 henceforth B&vS) attempt to clarify the causal logic of the CBH, revisit the data and raise the possibility that the hypothesis may only apply to primates. They concede that Cooperative Breeding is unlikely to generate selection pressures for enhanced socio-cognitive abilities, but argue instead that the CBH operates purely through Cooperative Breeding reducing social or energetic constraints. Here, we argue that this revised hypothesis is also untenable because: (1) it cannot explain why resources so released would be allocated to cognitive traits per se rather than any other fitness-related traits, (2) key assumptions are inconsistent with available evidence and (3) ambiguity regarding the predictions leaves it unclear what evidence would be required to falsify it. Ultimately, the absence of any compelling evidence that Cooperative Breeding is associated with elevated cognitive ability or large brains (indeed data suggest the opposite is true in non-human primates) also casts doubt on the capacity of the CBH to explain variation in cognitive traits.
-
Fundamental problems with the Cooperative Breeding hypothesis. A reply to Burkart & van Schaik
Journal of zoology (London England : 1987), 2016Co-Authors: Alex Thornton, Katherine Mcauliffe, Sasha R. X. Dall, E. Fernandez‐duque, P. A. Garber, Andrew J. YoungAbstract:The Cooperative Breeding hypothesis (CBH) states that Cooperative Breeding, a social system in which group members help to rear offspring that are not their own, has important socio-cognitive consequences. Thornton & McAuliffe (2015; henceforth T&M) critiqued this idea on both conceptual and empirical grounds, arguing that there is no reason to predict that Cooperative Breeding should favour the evolution of enhanced social cognition or larger brains, nor any clear evidence that it does. In response to this critique, Burkart & van Schaik (2016 henceforth B&vS) attempt to clarify the causal logic of the CBH, revisit the data and raise the possibility that the hypothesis may only apply to primates. They concede that Cooperative Breeding is unlikely to generate selection pressures for enhanced socio-cognitive abilities, but argue instead that the CBH operates purely through Cooperative Breeding reducing social or energetic constraints. Here, we argue that this revised hypothesis is also untenable because: (1) it cannot explain why resources so released would be allocated to cognitive traits per se rather than any other fitness-related traits, (2) key assumptions are inconsistent with available evidence and (3) ambiguity regarding the predictions leaves it unclear what evidence would be required to falsify it. Ultimately, the absence of any compelling evidence that Cooperative Breeding is associated with elevated cognitive ability or large brains (indeed data suggest the opposite is true in non-human primates) also casts doubt on the capacity of the CBH to explain variation in cognitive traits.
-
Cognitive consequences of Cooperative Breeding? A critical appraisal
Journal of Zoology, 2015Co-Authors: Alex Thornton, Katherine McauliffeAbstract:The social intelligence hypothesis, which posits that the challenges of life in complex social environments drive cognitive evolution, enjoys widespread theoretical and empirical support. Recent years have seen the emergence of a novel variant of this hypothesis, suggesting that Cooperative Breeding is associated with the elaboration of socio-cognitive abilities. With this Cooperative Breeding hypothesis (CBH) rapidly gaining currency, the time is ripe for a critical appraisal. Proponents of the CBH argue that Cooperative Breeding leads to increased cognitive performance, calling upon cognitive and motivational processes including spontaneous prosocial tendencies, attending to and learning from conspecifics, teaching and coordinating activities. We review the literature on the natural history and cognitive abilities of Cooperative breeders and other social animals and conclude that there is no compelling evidence that these processes are either unique to Cooperative breeders or particularly cognitively demanding. Thus, there is currently no reason to suppose that Cooperative Breeding has major cognitive consequences.
Walter D. Koenig - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
What drives Cooperative Breeding
PLoS biology, 2017Co-Authors: Walter D. KoenigAbstract:Cooperative Breeding, in which more than a pair of conspecifics cooperate to raise young at a single nest or brood, is widespread among vertebrates but highly variable in its geographic distribution. Particularly vexing has been identifying the ecological correlates of this phenomenon, which has been suggested to be favored in populations inhabiting both relatively stable, productive environments and in populations living under highly variable and unpredictable conditions. Griesser et al. provide a novel approach to this problem, performing a phylogenetic analysis indicating that family living is an intermediate step between nonsocial and Cooperative Breeding birds. They then examine the ecological and climatic conditions associated with these different social systems, concluding that Cooperative Breeding emerges when family living is favored in highly productive environments, followed secondarily by selection for Cooperative Breeding when environmental conditions deteriorate and within-year variability increases. Combined with recent work addressing the fitness consequences of Cooperative Breeding, Griesser et al.’s contribution stands to move the field forward by demonstrating that the evolution of complex adaptations such as Cooperative Breeding may only be understood when each of the steps leading to it are identified and carefully integrated.
-
The ecology of Cooperative Breeding behaviour
Ecology letters, 2017Co-Authors: Sheng-feng Shen, Walter D. Koenig, Stephen T. Emlen, Dustin R RubensteinAbstract:Ecology is a fundamental driving force for the evolutionary transition from solitary living to Breeding Cooperatively in groups. However, the fact that both benign and harsh, as well as stable and fluctuating, environments can favour the evolution of Cooperative Breeding behaviour constitutes a paradox of environmental quality and sociality. Here, we propose a new model – the dual benefits framework – for resolving this paradox. Our framework distinguishes between two categories of grouping benefits – resource defence benefits that derive from group-defended critical resources and collective action benefits that result from social cooperation among group members – and uses insider–outsider conflict theory to simultaneously consider the interests of current group members (insiders) and potential joiners (outsiders) in determining optimal group size. We argue that the different grouping benefits realised from resource defence and collective action profoundly affect insider–outsider conflict resolution, resulting in predictable differences in the per capita productivity, stable group size, kin structure and stability of the social group. We also suggest that different types of environmental variation (spatial vs. temporal) select for societies that form because of the different grouping benefits, thus helping to resolve the paradox of why Cooperative Breeding evolves in such different types of environments.
-
Cooperative Breeding in vertebrates studies of ecology evolution and behavior
2016Co-Authors: Walter D. Koenig, Janis L DickinsonAbstract:List of contributors Introduction Janis L. Dickinson and Walter D. Koenig 1. Siberian jays: delayed dispersal in the absence of Cooperative Breeding Jan Ekman and Michael Griesser 2. Western bluebirds: lessons from a marginal Cooperative breeder Janis L. Dickinson, Caglar Akcay, Elise D. Ferree and Caitlin A. Stern 3. Long-tailed tits: ecological causes and fitness consequences of redirected helping Ben J. Hatchwell 4. Red-cockaded woodpeckers: alternative pathways to Breeding success Jeffrey R. Walters and Victoria Garcia 5. Florida scrub-jays: advantages of large territories and group-defense in a fire-maintained habitat John W. Fitzpatrick and Reed Bowman 6. Carrion crows: family living and helping in a flexible social system Vittorio Baglione and Daniela Canestrari 7. Southern pied babblers: the dynamics of conflict and cooperation in a group-living society Amanda R. Ridley 8. Superb fairy-wrens: making the worst of a good job Andrew Cockburn, Lyanne Brouwer, Nicolas Margraf, Helen L. Osmond and Martijn van de Pol 9. Chestnut-crowned babblers: dealing with climatic adversity and uncertainty in the Australian arid zone Andrew F. Russell 10. Bell miners: kin-selected helping decisions Jonathan Wright and Paul G. McDonald 11. Superb starlings: cooperation and conflict in an unpredictable environment Dustin R. Rubenstein 12. Seychelles warblers: complexities of the helping paradox Jan Komdeur, Terry Burke, Hannah Dugdale and David S. Richardson 13. Acorn woodpeckers: helping at the nest, polygynandry, and dependence on a variable acorn crop Walter D. Koenig, Eric L. Walters and Joseph Haydock 14. Taiwan yuhinas: unrelated joint-nesters cooperate in unfavorable environments Sheng-Feng Shen, Hsiao-Wei Yuan and Mark Liu 15. Guira cuckoos: cooperation, infanticide, and female reproductive investment in a joint-nesting species Regina H. Macedo 16. Cichlid fishes: a model for the integrative study of social behavior Michael Taborsky 17. Meerkats: Cooperative Breeding in the Kalahari Tim Clutton-Brock and Marta Manser 18. Banded mongooses: demography, life history, and social behavior Michael A. Cant, Hazel J. Nichols, Faye J. Thompson and Emma Vitikainen 19. Damaraland and naked mole-rats: convergence of social evolution Chris G. Faulkes and Nigel C. Bennett 20. Synthesis: Cooperative Breeding in the twenty-first century Walter D. Koenig, Janis L. Dickinson and Stephen T. Emlen Taxonomic index Subject index.
-
Cooperative Breeding and long distance dispersal a test using vagrant records
PLOS ONE, 2013Co-Authors: Caroline L Rusk, Eric L Walters, Walter D. KoenigAbstract:Cooperative Breeding is generally associated with increased philopatry and sedentariness, presumably because short-distance dispersal facilitates the maintenance of kin groups. There are, however, few data on long-distance dispersal in Cooperative breeders—the variable likely to be important for genetic diversification and speciation. We tested the hypothesis that Cooperative breeders are less likely to engage in long-distance dispersal events by comparing records of vagrants outside their normal geographic range for matched pairs (Cooperatively vs. non-Cooperatively Breeding) of North American species of birds. Results failed to support the hypothesis of reduced long-distance dispersal among Cooperative breeders. Thus, our results counter the conclusion that the lower rate of speciation among Cooperative Breeding taxa found in recent analyses is a consequence of reduced vagility.
Stuart P. Sharp - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Kin Selection, Constraints, and the Evolution of Cooperative Breeding in Long‐Tailed Tits
Advances in the Study of Behavior, 2006Co-Authors: Ben J. Hatchwell, Stuart P. SharpAbstract:This chapter describes some aspects of research on the Cooperative Breeding system of the long tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus. The principal aim of the chapter is to bring together evidence from various sources concerning the role of kin selection and ecological constraints in the evolution of Cooperative Breeding in this species. Many studies of vertebrate Cooperative Breeding systems have shown that helpers assist relatives in raising their offspring. A major reason for initiating a study on long tailed tits is that their helping behavior is atypical and does not conform to this sequence of events because all helpers are failed breeders that ‘‘redirect’’ their care to become helpers. The ability to discriminate between kin and non kin plays a major role in the evolution of social behavior. The direct fitness benefits of helping are those that enhance the personal reproductive success of helpers. The direct fitness benefits of helping are those that enhance the personal reproductive success of helpers. Helpers may gain indirect fitness benefits either by helping relatives to increase productivity of their current Breeding attempt, or by reducing the reproductive costs of related breeders, thereby enhancing their survival. The main conclusions regarding the role of kin selection in the evolution of Cooperative Breeding in long tailed tits are have been listed out: (1) helpers exhibit a kin preference in helping behavior using a learned vocal kin recognition mechanism, (2) helpers increase the productivity of their relatives by increasing recruitment of fledglings of the helped brood, and (3) the kin selected fitness benefit of helping is the sole source of inclusive fitness for a substantial proportion of individuals.
Alex Thornton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fundamental problems with the Cooperative Breeding hypothesis a reply to burkart van schaik
Journal of Zoology, 2016Co-Authors: Alex Thornton, Katherine Mcauliffe, Sasha R. X. Dall, P. A. Garber, E Fernandezduque, Andrew J. YoungAbstract:The Cooperative Breeding hypothesis (CBH) states that Cooperative Breeding, a social system in which group members help to rear offspring that are not their own, has important socio-cognitive consequences. Thornton & McAuliffe (2015; henceforth T&M) critiqued this idea on both conceptual and empirical grounds, arguing that there is no reason to predict that Cooperative Breeding should favour the evolution of enhanced social cognition or larger brains, nor any clear evidence that it does. In response to this critique, Burkart & van Schaik (2016 henceforth B&vS) attempt to clarify the causal logic of the CBH, revisit the data and raise the possibility that the hypothesis may only apply to primates. They concede that Cooperative Breeding is unlikely to generate selection pressures for enhanced socio-cognitive abilities, but argue instead that the CBH operates purely through Cooperative Breeding reducing social or energetic constraints. Here, we argue that this revised hypothesis is also untenable because: (1) it cannot explain why resources so released would be allocated to cognitive traits per se rather than any other fitness-related traits, (2) key assumptions are inconsistent with available evidence and (3) ambiguity regarding the predictions leaves it unclear what evidence would be required to falsify it. Ultimately, the absence of any compelling evidence that Cooperative Breeding is associated with elevated cognitive ability or large brains (indeed data suggest the opposite is true in non-human primates) also casts doubt on the capacity of the CBH to explain variation in cognitive traits.
-
Fundamental problems with the Cooperative Breeding hypothesis. A reply to Burkart & van Schaik
Journal of zoology (London England : 1987), 2016Co-Authors: Alex Thornton, Katherine Mcauliffe, Sasha R. X. Dall, E. Fernandez‐duque, P. A. Garber, Andrew J. YoungAbstract:The Cooperative Breeding hypothesis (CBH) states that Cooperative Breeding, a social system in which group members help to rear offspring that are not their own, has important socio-cognitive consequences. Thornton & McAuliffe (2015; henceforth T&M) critiqued this idea on both conceptual and empirical grounds, arguing that there is no reason to predict that Cooperative Breeding should favour the evolution of enhanced social cognition or larger brains, nor any clear evidence that it does. In response to this critique, Burkart & van Schaik (2016 henceforth B&vS) attempt to clarify the causal logic of the CBH, revisit the data and raise the possibility that the hypothesis may only apply to primates. They concede that Cooperative Breeding is unlikely to generate selection pressures for enhanced socio-cognitive abilities, but argue instead that the CBH operates purely through Cooperative Breeding reducing social or energetic constraints. Here, we argue that this revised hypothesis is also untenable because: (1) it cannot explain why resources so released would be allocated to cognitive traits per se rather than any other fitness-related traits, (2) key assumptions are inconsistent with available evidence and (3) ambiguity regarding the predictions leaves it unclear what evidence would be required to falsify it. Ultimately, the absence of any compelling evidence that Cooperative Breeding is associated with elevated cognitive ability or large brains (indeed data suggest the opposite is true in non-human primates) also casts doubt on the capacity of the CBH to explain variation in cognitive traits.
-
Cognitive consequences of Cooperative Breeding? A critical appraisal
Journal of Zoology, 2015Co-Authors: Alex Thornton, Katherine McauliffeAbstract:The social intelligence hypothesis, which posits that the challenges of life in complex social environments drive cognitive evolution, enjoys widespread theoretical and empirical support. Recent years have seen the emergence of a novel variant of this hypothesis, suggesting that Cooperative Breeding is associated with the elaboration of socio-cognitive abilities. With this Cooperative Breeding hypothesis (CBH) rapidly gaining currency, the time is ripe for a critical appraisal. Proponents of the CBH argue that Cooperative Breeding leads to increased cognitive performance, calling upon cognitive and motivational processes including spontaneous prosocial tendencies, attending to and learning from conspecifics, teaching and coordinating activities. We review the literature on the natural history and cognitive abilities of Cooperative breeders and other social animals and conclude that there is no compelling evidence that these processes are either unique to Cooperative breeders or particularly cognitively demanding. Thus, there is currently no reason to suppose that Cooperative Breeding has major cognitive consequences.