2000
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1077
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A skew model for the evolution of sociality via manipulation: why it is better to be feared than loved

Abstract: Concession-based reproductive skew models predict that social groups can form via persuasion, whereby dominant individuals forfeit some reproduction to subordinates as an incentive to stay and help. We have developed an alternative skew model based on manipulation, whereby dominant individuals coerce subordinates into staying and helping by imposing costs on their independent reproductive prospects. Stable groups can evolve under a much wider range of genetic and ecological conditions under this manipulation m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
40
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 87 publications
(94 reference statements)
1
40
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Ö st et al 2003b) and may therefore adjust their level of vigilance accordingly to comply with their coalition partners' demands. Individuals often have to compromise their own activity budgets to avoid social costs such as intragroup aggression and the risk of eviction (Johnstone and Cant 1999;Crespi and Ragsdale 2000). The commonly observed "group-size effect" on vigilance, with individual levels of antipredatory vigilance declining with group size (e.g., Roberts 1996), could also explain our first prediction.…”
Section: Testing the Model Predictionssupporting
confidence: 58%
“…Ö st et al 2003b) and may therefore adjust their level of vigilance accordingly to comply with their coalition partners' demands. Individuals often have to compromise their own activity budgets to avoid social costs such as intragroup aggression and the risk of eviction (Johnstone and Cant 1999;Crespi and Ragsdale 2000). The commonly observed "group-size effect" on vigilance, with individual levels of antipredatory vigilance declining with group size (e.g., Roberts 1996), could also explain our first prediction.…”
Section: Testing the Model Predictionssupporting
confidence: 58%
“…Other factors, such as parental manipulation (Alexander 1974;Michener and Brothers 1974;Craig 1983;Crespi and Ragsdale 2000) or variation in resource (pollen) quantity and quality (Roulston and Cane 2002), may also generate variation in body size. The patterns that we document depend on social context: Megalopta caste expression is not a direct result of size per se, but of size relative to nest mates.…”
Section: £)Spr Ngermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is often assumed that insect body size generally correlates with reproductive ability (e.g. Lin & Michener 1972;Crespi & Ragsdale 2000), although the evidence across bee species is mixed (Bosch & Vicens 2006) and there is presently no evidence supporting the subfertility hypothesis in a facultatively social bee or wasp (Field & Foster 1999).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%