Cargando…
Reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: Environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control
A multitude of factors may determine reproductive skew among cooperative breeders. One explanation, derived from inclusive fitness theory, is that groups can partition reproduction such that subordinates do at least as well as noncooperative solitary individuals. The majority of recent data, however...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6787806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31624543 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5502 |
_version_ | 1783458358996500480 |
---|---|
author | Nonacs, Peter |
author_facet | Nonacs, Peter |
author_sort | Nonacs, Peter |
collection | PubMed |
description | A multitude of factors may determine reproductive skew among cooperative breeders. One explanation, derived from inclusive fitness theory, is that groups can partition reproduction such that subordinates do at least as well as noncooperative solitary individuals. The majority of recent data, however, fails to support this prediction; possibly because inclusive fitness models cannot easily incorporate multiple factors simultaneously to predict skew. Notable omissions are antagonistic selection (across generations, genes will be in both dominant and subordinate bodies), constraints on the number of sites suitable for successful reproduction, choice in which group an individual might join, and within‐group control or suppression of competition. All of these factors and more are explored through agent‐based evolutionary simulations. The results suggest the primary drivers for the initial evolution of cooperative breeding may be a combination of limited suitable sites, choice across those sites, and parental manipulation of offspring into helping roles. Antagonistic selection may be important when subordinates are more frequent than dominants. Kinship matters, but its main effect may be in offspring being available for manipulation while unrelated individuals are not. The greater flexibility of evolutionary simulations allows the incorporation of species‐specific life histories and ecological constraints to better predict sociobiology. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6787806 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67878062019-10-17 Reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: Environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control Nonacs, Peter Ecol Evol Original Research A multitude of factors may determine reproductive skew among cooperative breeders. One explanation, derived from inclusive fitness theory, is that groups can partition reproduction such that subordinates do at least as well as noncooperative solitary individuals. The majority of recent data, however, fails to support this prediction; possibly because inclusive fitness models cannot easily incorporate multiple factors simultaneously to predict skew. Notable omissions are antagonistic selection (across generations, genes will be in both dominant and subordinate bodies), constraints on the number of sites suitable for successful reproduction, choice in which group an individual might join, and within‐group control or suppression of competition. All of these factors and more are explored through agent‐based evolutionary simulations. The results suggest the primary drivers for the initial evolution of cooperative breeding may be a combination of limited suitable sites, choice across those sites, and parental manipulation of offspring into helping roles. Antagonistic selection may be important when subordinates are more frequent than dominants. Kinship matters, but its main effect may be in offspring being available for manipulation while unrelated individuals are not. The greater flexibility of evolutionary simulations allows the incorporation of species‐specific life histories and ecological constraints to better predict sociobiology. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6787806/ /pubmed/31624543 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5502 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Nonacs, Peter Reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: Environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control |
title | Reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: Environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control |
title_full | Reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: Environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control |
title_fullStr | Reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: Environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control |
title_full_unstemmed | Reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: Environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control |
title_short | Reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: Environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control |
title_sort | reproductive skew in cooperative breeding: environmental variability, antagonistic selection, choice, and control |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6787806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31624543 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5502 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nonacspeter reproductiveskewincooperativebreedingenvironmentalvariabilityantagonisticselectionchoiceandcontrol |