Cooperative breeding systems

2012 ◽  
pp. 206-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Cant
Keyword(s):  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Breeding Systems

scholarly journals Climate and the distribution of cooperative breeding in mammals

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 160897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Lukas ◽  
Tim Clutton-Brock
Keyword(s):  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Breeding Systems ◽  
Annual Rainfall ◽  
Alloparental Care ◽  
Arid Environments ◽  
Social Monogamy ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Group Members

Cooperative breeding systems, in which non-breeding individuals provide care for the offspring of dominant group members, occur in less than 1% of mammals and are associated with social monogamy and the production of multiple offspring per birth (polytocy). Here, we show that the distribution of alloparental care by non-breeding subordinates is associated with habitats where annual rainfall is low. A possible reason for this association is that the females of species found in arid environments are usually polytocous and this may have facilitated the evolution of alloparental care.

scholarly journals Kinship affects investment by helpers in a cooperatively breeding bird

2010 ◽  
Vol 277 (1698) ◽  
pp. 3299-3306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ki-Baek Nam ◽  
Michelle Simeoni ◽  
Stuart P. Sharp ◽  
Ben J. Hatchwell
Keyword(s):  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Genetic Relatedness ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Breeding Systems ◽  
Pedigree Information ◽  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Cooperatively Breeding ◽  
Indirect Fitness ◽  
Fitness Benefits

Helping behaviour in cooperative breeding systems has been attributed to kin selection, but the relative roles of direct and indirect fitness benefits in the evolution of such systems remain a matter of debate. In theory, helpers could maximize the indirect fitness benefits of cooperation by investing more in broods with whom they are more closely related, but there is little evidence for such fine-scale adjustment in helper effort among cooperative vertebrates. In this study, we used the unusual cooperative breeding system of the long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus to test the hypothesis that the provisioning effort of helpers was positively correlated with their kinship to broods. We first use pedigrees and microsatellite genotypes to characterize the relatedness between helpers and breeders from a 14 year field study. We used both pedigree and genetic approaches because long-tailed tits have access to pedigree information acquired through social relationships, but any fitness consequences will be determined by genetic relatedness. We then show using both pedigrees and genetic relatedness estimates that alloparental investment by helpers increases as their relatedness to the recipients of their care increases. We conclude that kin selection has played a critical role in moulding the investment decisions of helpers in this cooperatively breeding species.

scholarly journals Life histories and the evolution of cooperative breeding in mammals

2012 ◽  
Vol 279 (1744) ◽  
pp. 4065-4070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Lukas ◽  
Tim Clutton-Brock
Keyword(s):  
Life History ◽  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Life Histories ◽  
Mating Systems ◽  
Reproductive Output ◽  
Breeding Systems ◽  
Life History Parameters ◽  
Socially Monogamous ◽  
Group Members

While the evolution of cooperative breeding systems (where non-breeding helpers participate in rearing young produced by dominant females) has been restricted to lineages with socially monogamous mating systems where coefficients of relatedness between group members are usually high, not all monogamous lineages have produced species with cooperative breeding systems, suggesting that other factors constrain the evolution of cooperative breeding. Previous studies have suggested that life-history parameters, including longevity, may constrain the evolution of cooperative breeding. Here, we show that transitions to cooperative breeding across the mammalian phylogeny have been restricted to lineages where females produce multiple offspring per birth. We find no support for effects of longevity or of other life-history parameters. We suggest that the evolution of cooperative breeding has been restricted to monogamous lineages where helpers have the potential to increase the reproductive output of breeders.

scholarly journals Maternal effects in cooperative breeders: from hymenopterans to humans

2009 ◽  
Vol 364 (1520) ◽  
pp. 1143-1167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew F Russell ◽  
Virpi Lummaa
Keyword(s):  
Maternal Effects ◽  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Social Complexity ◽  
Cooperative Systems ◽  
Breeding Systems ◽  
Model Systems ◽  
Maternal Environment ◽  
Evolutionary Origins ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Do So

The environment that an offspring experiences during its development can have lifelong consequences for its morphology, anatomy, physiology and behaviour that are strong enough to span generations. One aspect of an offspring's environment that can have particularly pronounced and long-lasting effects is that provided by its parent(s) (maternal effects). Some disciplines in biology have been quicker to appreciate maternal effects than others, and some organisms provide better model systems for understanding the causes and consequences of the maternal environment for ecology and evolution than others. One field in which maternal effects has been poorly represented, and yet is likely to represent a particularly fruitful area for research, is the field of cooperative breeding (i.e. systems where offspring are reared by carers in addition to parent(s)). Here, we attempt to illustrate the scope of cooperative breeding systems for maternal effects research and, conversely, highlight the importance of maternal effects research for understanding cooperative breeding systems. To this end, we first outline why mothers will commonly benefit from affecting the phenotype of their offspring in cooperative breeding systems, present potential strategies that mothers could employ in order to do so and offer predictions regarding the circumstances under which different types of maternal effects might be expected. Second, we highlight why a neglect of maternal strategies and the effects that they have on their offspring could lead to miscalculations of helper/worker fitness gains and a misunderstanding of the factors selecting for the evolution and maintenance of cooperative breeding. Finally, we introduce the possibility that maternal effects could have significant consequences for our understanding of both the evolutionary origins of cooperative breeding and the rise of social complexity in cooperative systems.

scholarly journals The evolution of cooperative breeding in birds: kinship, dispersal and life history

2009 ◽  
Vol 364 (1533) ◽  
pp. 3217-3227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben J. Hatchwell
Keyword(s):  
Life History ◽  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Family Formation ◽  
Breeding Systems ◽  
Evolution Of Cooperation ◽  
Social Species ◽  
Limited Dispersal ◽  
Kin Structure ◽  
Level I ◽  
Population Viscosity

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.

scholarly journals Group-size-dependent punishment of idle subordinates in a cooperative breeder where helpers pay to stay

2014 ◽  
Vol 281 (1789) ◽  
pp. 20140184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Fischer ◽  
Markus Zöttl ◽  
Frank Groenewoud ◽  
Barbara Taborsky
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Breeding Systems ◽  
Idle Period ◽  
Cognitive Constraints ◽  
Size Dependent ◽  
Cooperatively Breeding ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Large Groups

In cooperative breeding systems, dominant breeders sometimes tolerate unrelated individuals even if they inflict costs on the dominants. According to the ‘pay-to-stay’ hypothesis, (i) subordinates can outweigh these costs by providing help and (ii) dominants should be able to enforce help by punishing subordinates that provide insufficient help. This requires that dominants can monitor helping and can recognize group members individually. In a field experiment, we tested whether cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher subordinates increase their help after a forced ‘idle’ period, how other group members respond to a previously idle helper, and how helper behaviour and group responses depend on group size. Previously idle helpers increased their submissiveness and received more aggression than control helpers, suggesting that punishment occurred to enforce help. Subordinates in small groups increased their help more than those in large groups, despite receiving less aggression. When subordinates were temporarily removed, dominants in small groups were more likely to evict returning subordinates. Our results suggest that only in small groups do helpers face a latent threat of punishment by breeders as predicted by the pay-to-stay hypothesis. In large groups, cognitive constraints may prevent breeders from tracking the behaviour of a large number of helpers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document