Group size, survival, reproduction, and routes to breeding in dwarf mongooses

Rood, Jon P.

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80423-3

Cited by 168 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Seychelles warblers [58]), have also been documented. Positive effects of large group size on productivity have been reported in carrion crows [15], Florida scrub jays [18], meerkats [19], dwarf mongooses [54] and social wasps [59,60], but the opposite effect has been observed in social spiders [56] and scrubwrens [57]. Thus, there is currently equivocal evidence for a potential general directional effect of group size on group persistence, productivity and individual survival.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First- and second-order sociality determine survival and reproduction in cooperative cichlids

Jungwirth¹,

Taborsky²

2015

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative breeders serve as a model to study the evolution of cooperation, where costs and benefits of helping are typically scrutinized at the level of group membership. However, cooperation is often observed in multi-level social organizations involving interactions among individuals at various levels. Here, we argue that a full understanding of the adaptive value of cooperation and the evolution of complex social organization requires identifying the effect of different levels of social organization on direct and indirect fitness components. Our long-term field data show that in the cooperatively breeding, colonial cichlid fish Neolamprologus pulcher, both large group size and high colony density significantly raised group persistence. Neither group size nor density affected survival at the individual level, but they had interactive effects on reproductive output; large group size raised productivity when local population density was low, whereas in contrast, small groups were more productive at high densities. Fitness estimates of individually marked fish revealed indirect fitness benefits associated with staying in large groups. Inclusive fitness, however, was not significantly affected by group size, because the direct fitness component was not increased in larger groups. Together, our findings highlight that the reproductive output of groups may be affected in opposite directions by different levels of sociality, and that complex forms of sociality and costly cooperation may evolve in the absence of large indirect fitness benefits and the influence of kin selection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First- and second-order sociality determine survival and reproduction in cooperative cichlids

Jungwirth¹,

Taborsky²

2015

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Species where males show affiliative relationships are usually those where males are philopatric (see references in the Introduction). Nevertheless, some male dyads did show relatively higher affiliation and coalition rates than others, so C. vellerosus, can be added to the growing list of species where relatively strong relationships may occur in the dispersing sex under some circumstances (e.g., Panthera leo, Packer & Pusey, 1982; Acinonyx jubatus, Caro & Collins, 1987;Herpestes sanquineus, Rood, 1989; Helogale parvula, Rood, 1990; Tursiops aduncus, Connor et al, 1992;Möller & Beheregaray, 2004;Saimiri sciureus, Mitchell, 1994;Macaca radiata, Silk, 1994;Adiseshan et al, 2011;M. assamensis, Schülke et al, 2010;Cebus capucinus, Jack & Fedigan, 2004; Pan troglodytes, Lehmann & Boesch, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…troglodytes, Goodall, 1986;Watts, 2000a). Nevertheless, for some species where males disperse from the natal group, affiliative relationships may exist among males that are often unrelated (e.g., Panthera leo, Schaller, 1972; Acinonyx jubatus, Caro & Collins, 1987; Herpestes sanquineus, Rood, 1989; Helogale parvula, Rood, 1990; Tursiops aduncus, Connor et al, 1992;Möller & Beheregaray, 2004;Macaca radiata, Silk, 1994;Adiseshan et al, 2011;M. assamensis, Schülke et al, 2010) or males that manage to maintain a long-term association by parallel transfer (e.g., Panthera leo, Packer & Pusey, 1982;S.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing male affiliation and coalitions in a species with male dispersal and intense male–male competition, Colobus vellerosus

Teichroeb

Wikberg

Ting

et al. 2014

Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Male Colobus vellerosus compete intensely for access to females, which sometimes leads to mortal wounding. Yet, males often form cooperative relationships to overtake prime-aged males and immigrate into bisexual groups. We investigated the factors that predicted the presence of coalitions and affiliative relationships among males in this species. Interactions among males in 292 dyads from six groups were examined from 2004 to 2010 at Boabeng-Fiema, Ghana. Affiliation rates among males were higher and aggression rates lower when one or both males in the dyad were subadult, compared to adult male dyads. Affiliation rates tended to be higher among males that were kin but no other aspect of male relationships predicted affiliation. Coalitions among males were rarely observed and primarily occurred in the context of joint defense against extra-group males (93.5% of events). Adult males were more likely to provide coalitionary support than subadults and coalitions occurred significantly more often when both males were high ranking, since these males probably benefited most in terms of reproductive success from excluding extra-group males. Rank-changing and leveling coalitions among low-ranking males appear to be quite rare or absent in C. vellerosus. The costs of these types of coalitions may be too high or male group size too small on average for these types of coalitions to have been selected for. The overall low rates of affiliation and coalitions among male C. vellerosus are likely influenced by male-biased dispersal and the high level of male-male competition.

show abstract

“…Coalitions for competition against conspecifics from other groups (hereafter 'group-wide coalitions') occur when the opponents belong to different social groups (or family units, e.g., Scheiber et al, 2005), whereas within-group coalitions occur when two or more members of the same group compete against at least one other 'ingroup' member. Group-wide coalitions can be offensive if individuals join forces to oust incumbent male(s) and take over a group (e.g., Pope, 1990;Rood, 1990;Packer et al, 1991;Waser et al, 1994;Ostner & Kappeler, 2004), or to conduct a lethal attack on members of a neighbouring group (reviewed by Wrangham, 1999;Wilson et al, 2014). They can also be defensive, as when group members form a coalition to repel single challengers and/or an out-group coalition (e.g., Feh, 1999).…”

Section: A Brief Primer On Coalition Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Bissonnette

Perry

Barrett

et al. 2015

Behav

109

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coalitions and alliances are ubiquitous in humans and many other mammals, being part of the fabric of complex social systems. Field biologists and ethologists have accumulated a vast amount of data on coalition and alliance formation, while theoretical biologists have developed modelling approaches. With the accumulation of empirical data and sophisticated theory, we are now potentially able to answer a host of questions about how coalitions emerge and are maintained in a population over time, and how the psychology of this type of cooperation evolved. Progress can only be achieved, however, by effectively bridging the communication gap that currently exists between Coalitions in theory and reality empiricists and theoreticians. In this paper, we aim to do so by asking three questions: (1) What are the primary questions addressed by theoreticians interested in coalition formation, and what are the main building blocks of their models? (2) Do empirical observations support the assumptions of current models, and if not, how can we improve this situation? (3) Has theoretical work led to a better understanding of coalition formation, and what are the most profitable lines of inquiry for the future? Our overarching goal is to promote the integration of theoretical and field biology by motivating empirical scientists to collect data on aspects of coalition formation that are currently poorly quantified and to encourage theoreticians to develop a comprehensive theory of coalition formation that is testable under real-world conditions.

show abstract

Group size, survival, reproduction, and routes to breeding in dwarf mongooses

Cited by 168 publications

References 9 publications

First- and second-order sociality determine survival and reproduction in cooperative cichlids

First- and second-order sociality determine survival and reproduction in cooperative cichlids

Factors influencing male affiliation and coalitions in a species with male dispersal and intense male–male competition, Colobus vellerosus

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About