The cost of being alone: the fate of floaters in a population of cooperatively breeding pied babblers <i>Turdoides bicolor</i>

Ridley, Amanda R.; Raihani, Nichola; Nelson-Flower, Martha J.

doi:10.1111/j.0908-8857.2008.04479.x

Cited by 85 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, help may also be provided by others than older siblings or the sire (light grey) [15]. While this is common in humans, it is also common in other species, and may reflect the need for individuals to be members of a group rather than solitary floaters, which can have substantially lower survival [63]. In this case, helpers are not always close kin of those they help, and we may expect a pay-to-stay system [64].…”

Section: The Major Elements Of Cooperative Offspring Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Looking for unity in diversity: human cooperative childcare in comparative perspective

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans engage in cooperative childcare, which includes some elements not found in other animals, such as the presence of post-reproductive helpers, extensive food sharing among adults and a pervasive sexual division of labour. In animals, cooperative offspring care has typically been studied in two different contexts. The first mainly involves helpers contributing care in cooperatively breeding family groups; the second context is allomaternal care in species usually not categorized as cooperative breeders (e.g. plural and communal breeders, often without male care). Comparative analyses suggest that cooperative breeding and allomaternal care in plural and communal breeders have distinct evolutionary origins, with humans fitting neither pathway entirely. Nevertheless, some critical proximate mechanisms of helping, including hormonal regulators, are likely to be shared across species. Other mechanisms may vary among species, such as social tolerance, proactive prosociality or conditional mother–infant bonding. These are presumably associated with specific details of the care system, such as whether all group members contribute, or whether mothers can potentially raise offspring alone. Thus, cooperative offspring care is seen in different contexts across animal lineages, but may nonetheless share several important psychological characteristics. We end by discussing how work on humans may play a unifying role in studying cooperative offspring care.

show abstract

Section: The Major Elements Of Cooperative Offspring Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Looking for unity in diversity: human cooperative childcare in comparative perspective

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are not prospectors (individuals who visit other territories to display or to fight, but return to their own group between interactions until they attain a position in a new group, see [26,27]), because the duration of living out of their natal territory is relatively long (many days or even months), they maintain all life activities, including roosting, alone and when they are discovered by the owners of the territory, they are chased away and escape, but not necessarily back to their natal territory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sentinel behaviour of Arabian babbler floaters

Ostreiher

Heifetz

2017

R. Soc. open sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sentinel behaviour of 38 Arabian babbler adult floaters, who lived alone within a territory belonging to a foreign group, was studied and compared with their own sentinel behaviour in the past, when they were group members. All floaters acted as sentinels and uttered ‘alarm calls’. This suggests that sentinel activity is due at least, in part, to selfish motives. Floaters sentinelled less than they did as group members, with the decrease in sentinel activity sharper for ex-dominants than for ex-subordinates. One possible explanation for these differences is that sentinel activity is aimed not only at detecting predators, but also at detecting foreign conspecifics. Within a group, the latter incentive is stronger for breeding dominants than for subordinates, whereas all floaters alike may be trying to detect the owners of the territory in which they were roaming but also to avoid being detected by them. Other possible explanations are that floaters have less time and energy for sentinel activity because they are weaker or because foraging is more difficult in a foreign territory. This may be especially so for dominants who used to enjoy privileged access to food in their group. No significant difference was found in the rate of sentinels' ‘alarm calls’ between floaters and group members, suggesting that their main purpose is predator–prey communication, of which warning groupmates may be a side benefit.

show abstract

“…There is intense competition between same-sex babbler siblings [48], and lower quality offspring are often evicted from the group by their siblings [49]. Evicted individuals risk becoming 'floaters', which carries a significant cost: the longer an individual is a 'floater' the greater their weight loss and the more likely they are to enter a new group as a subordinate [50]. When early condition has such profound long-term impacts, natural selection should favour the evolution of offspring behaviours that gain the greatest amount of provisioning in order to maximize their growth rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of fledgling location on adult provisioning: a test of the blackmail hypothesis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One theory to explain the existence of conspicuous solicitation is that it is a way for young to 'blackmail' carers into provisioning them, by threatening their own destruction. Fledgling birds offer a unique opportunity to investigate the 'blackmail theory', as their mobility enables them to influence the predation risk they face. We investigated a novel solicitation behaviour in fledgling pied babblers (Turdoides bicolor), where fledglings use their location to influence provisioning rates. We show that fledglings face a trade-off: the ground is a much more profitable location in terms of provisioning rate from adult carers, but they are at greater risk from predators owing to their limited flying ability and slow response to alarm calls. Young babbler fledglings move to the ground when hungry, signalling their state, and this stimulates adults to increase their provisioning rates. Once satiated, fledglings return to the safety of cover. By experimentally increasing terrestrial predation risk, we found that adults increased their provisioning rate to terrestrial but not arboreal fledglings. Thus, by moving to a riskier location, fledglings revealed their need and were able to manipulate adults to achieve higher provisioning rates. These results provide support for the 'blackmail theory'.

show abstract

The cost of being alone: the fate of floaters in a population of cooperatively breeding pied babblers Turdoides bicolor

Cited by 85 publications

References 27 publications

Looking for unity in diversity: human cooperative childcare in comparative perspective

Looking for unity in diversity: human cooperative childcare in comparative perspective

The sentinel behaviour of Arabian babbler floaters

The influence of fledgling location on adult provisioning: a test of the blackmail hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About