Longevity suppresses conflict in animal societies

Port, Markus; Cant, Michael A.

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.0680

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Social interactions within the same sex and/or between sexes can also affect the cost-benefit balances of somatic maintenance and reproduction, often leading to the weakening of trade-offs. For example, cooperation by food transferral from adults to their descendants can promote the evolution of longer life span in populations of overlapping generations (Gurven, Stieglitz, Hooper, Gomes, & Kaplan, 2012;Lee, 2003;Pavard & Branger, 2012); long life and post-reproductive life span can in turn promote the evolution of cooperation (Ross, Rychtar, & Rueppell, 2015) and suppress conflict (Port & Cant, 2013). As soon as the wheels of the positive feedback start to turn, the cost of somatic maintenance can be reduced quickly so that slowed ageing/increased life span does not necessarily cause detrimental effects on reproduction.…”

Section: The Effect Of Social and Sexual Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are trade‐offs really the key drivers of ageing and life span?

Cohen

Coste

et al. 2019

Functional Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Current thinking in life-history theory and the biology of ageing suggests that ageing rates, and consequently life spans, evolve largely as a function of trade-offs with reproduction. While various evolutionary constraints are generally acknowledged to exist, their potential role in determining ageing rates is rarely considered.2. This review integrates three types of information to assess the relative importance of constraints and trade-offs in shaping ageing rates: (a) empirical work on the presence of intraspecific trade-offs; (b) theoretical work on factors limiting the force of trade-offs; and (c) consideration of the biological mechanisms of ageing, as currently understood. 3. At the empirical level, evidence for intraspecific trade-offs is mixed, including some surprising failures to observe a trade-off in model organisms. At the theoretical level, the presence of multiple currencies and nonlinearity can weaken the strength and/or generality of trade-offs. Additionally, trade-offs among lowerlevel functions, such as between sources of mortality, can create constraints at higher organizational levels, for example such that reductions in reproduction are unable to produce decreases in ageing rate. In terms of ageing mechanisms, some mechanisms, such as the regulation of IGF-1 and related pathways, seem to agree quite well with trade-offs as a driving force; however, other mechanisms, such as dysregulation of the vertebrate stress response and stem cell exhaustion, seem more likely to impose constraints than to mediate trade-offs. 4. Taken together, these findings suggest that trade-offs alone are insufficient to understand how ageing rates evolve; instead, both trade-offs and constraints likely play important roles in shaping evolutionary patterns, with their relative importance varying across taxa. Accordingly, it is time to revisit the broad assumption that survival-reproduction trade-offs are the key force structuring much of lifehistory variation and the evolution of ageing rates. K E Y W O R D S ageing, constraint, cost of reproduction, disposable soma, life history, physiology, senescence, trade-off 154 | Functional Ecology COHEN Et al. | 155Functional Ecology COHEN Et al. | 157Functional Ecology COHEN Et al.

show abstract

Section: The Effect Of Social and Sexual Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are trade‐offs really the key drivers of ageing and life span?

Cohen

Coste

et al. 2019

Functional Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However Blumstein & Møller () found no relationship between parental care and longevity in North American bird species whilst controlling for a number of confounding variables. The importance of longevity when exploring animal aggregations was reiterated by Port & Cant () who contend that longevity promotes peaceful societies as it tends to suppress conflict in highly related aggregations. Squamates exhibiting stable aggregations showed a wide variety of life spans from around 8 ( Xantusia vigilis ) to 50 ( Hoplodactylus duvaucelii ) years (see online Appendix S2).…”

Section: Do Squamates Living In Stable Aggregations Share Common Charmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group living in squamate reptiles: a review of evidence for stable aggregations

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How sociality evolves and is maintained remains a key question in evolutionary biology. Most studies to date have focused on insects, birds, and mammals but data from a wider range of taxonomic groups are essential to identify general patterns and processes. The extent of social behaviour among squamate reptiles is under-appreciated, yet they are a promising group for further studies. Living in aggregations is posited as an important step in the evolution of more complex sociality. We review data on aggregations among squamates and find evidence for some form of aggregations in 94 species across 22 families. Of these, 18 species across 7 families exhibited 'stable' aggregations that entail overlapping home ranges and stable membership in long-term (years) or seasonal aggregations. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that stable aggregations have evolved multiple times in squamates. We: (i) identify significant gaps in our understanding; (ii) outline key traits which should be the focus of future research; and (iii) outline the potential for utilising reproductive skew theory to provide insights into squamate sociality.

show abstract

“…Partnership thus takes elements of reciprocity theory but emphasizes the life-history context. Similar thoughts have been developed, with subtly varying terminology, by Roberts [22], Garay [91], Port & Cant [92] and Smaldino et al [57] (see also [93,94]). …”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Models of social evolution: can we do better to predict ‘who helps whom to achieve what’?

Rodrigues

Kokko

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of social evolution and the evolution of helping have been classified in numerous ways. Two categorical differences have, however, escaped attention in the field. Models tend not to justify why they use a particular assumption structure about who helps whom: a large number of authors model peer-to-peer cooperation of essentially identical individuals, probably for reasons of mathematical convenience; others are inspired by particular cooperatively breeding species, and tend to assume unidirectional help where subordinates help a dominant breed more efficiently. Choices regarding what the help achieves (i.e. which life-history trait of the helped individual is improved) are similarly made without much comment: fecundity benefits are much more commonly modelled than survival enhancements, despite evidence that these may interact when the helped individual can perform life-history reallocations (load-lightening and related phenomena). We review our current theoretical understanding of effects revealed when explicitly asking ‘who helps whom to achieve what’, from models of mutual aid in partnerships to the very few models that explicitly contrast the strength of selection to help enhance another individual's fecundity or survival. As a result of idiosyncratic modelling choices in contemporary literature, including the varying degree to which demographic consequences are made explicit, there is surprisingly little agreement on what types of help are predicted to evolve most easily. We outline promising future directions to fill this gap.

show abstract

Longevity suppresses conflict in animal societies

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

Are trade‐offs really the key drivers of ageing and life span?

Are trade‐offs really the key drivers of ageing and life span?

Group living in squamate reptiles: a review of evidence for stable aggregations

Models of social evolution: can we do better to predict ‘who helps whom to achieve what’?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About