72
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reproductive control via eviction (but not the threat of eviction) in banded mongooses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Considerable research has focused on understanding variation in reproductive skew in cooperative animal societies, but the pace of theoretical development has far outstripped empirical testing of the models. One major class of model suggests that dominant individuals can use the threat of eviction to deter subordinate reproduction (the ‘restraint’ model), but this idea remains untested. Here, we use long-term behavioural and genetic data to test the assumptions of the restraint model in banded mongooses ( Mungos mungo), a species in which subordinates breed regularly and evictions are common. We found that dominant females suffer reproductive costs when subordinates breed, and respond to these costs by evicting breeding subordinates from the group en masse, in agreement with the assumptions of the model. We found no evidence, however, that subordinate females exercise reproductive restraint to avoid being evicted in the first place. This means that the pattern of reproduction is not the result of a reproductive ‘transaction’ to avert the threat of eviction. We present a simple game theoretical analysis that suggests that eviction threats may often be ineffective to induce pre-emptive restraint among multiple subordinates and predicts that threats of eviction (or departure) will be much more effective in dyadic relationships and linear hierarchies. Transactional models may be more applicable to these systems. Greater focus on testing the assumptions rather than predictions of skew models can lead to a better understanding of how animals control each other's reproduction, and the extent to which behaviour is shaped by overt acts versus hidden threats.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Social control of reproduction in banded mongooses.

          Recent theoretical work suggests that the distribution of reproduction, or degree of reproductive skew, in animal societies depends crucially on (1) whether dominant individuals can fully control subordinate reproduction, and (2) how subordinate reproduction affects the fitness of dominants. I investigated these two factors in cooperatively breeding banded mongooses, Mungos mungo. Female packmates entered oestrus together and were closely guarded by dominant males. These males were aggressive to subordinate males who attempted to mate, but females still managed to mate with males other than their mate guard. Older females were guarded and mated a few days before their younger packmates, yet all females usually gave birth on the same day, suggesting that older females may have a longer gestation period. Moreover, older females carried more fetuses. Overall, ca. 83% of adult females conceived in each breeding attempt and 71% carried to term. These results indicate that, among males, dominant individuals did not have full control over the mating attempts of subordinates (since they could not fully control the mating behaviour of the females they guarded), while among females there was little or no attempt to prevent subordinates from breeding (at least, prior to parturition). Two within-group infanticides by males suggested that some control over reproduction may be exercised postpartum. Per capita survivorship of young in the den increased with the number of females who gave birth. Thus, dominant females may benefit from subordinate reproduction, providing a possible explanation for the lack of reproductive suppression among females in this species. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Perspective: repression of competition and the evolution of cooperation.

            Repression of competition within groups joins kin selection as the second major force in the history of life shaping the evolution of cooperation. When opportunities for competition against neighbors are limited within groups, individuals can increase their own success only by enhancing the efficiency and productivity of their group. Thus, characters that repress competition within groups promote cooperation and enhance group success. Leigh first expressed this idea in the context of fair meiosis, in which each chromosome has an equal chance of transmission via gametes. Randomized success means that each part of the genome can increase its own success only by enhancing the total number of progeny and thus increasing the success of the group. Alexander used this insight about repression of competition in fair meiosis to develop his theories for the evolution of human sociality. Alexander argued that human social structures spread when they repress competition within groups and promote successful group-against-group competition. Buss introduced a new example with his suggestion that metazoan success depended on repression of competition between cellular lineages. Maynard Smith synthesized different lines of thought on repression of competition. In this paper, I develop simple mathematical models to illustrate the main processes by which repression of competition evolves. With the concepts made clear, I then explain the history of the idea. I finish by summarizing many new developments in this subject and the most promising lines for future study.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Fasting or feasting in a fish social hierarchy.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Biol Sci
                RSPB
                royprsb
                Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
                The Royal Society
                0962-8452
                1471-2954
                22 July 2010
                17 March 2010
                17 March 2010
                : 277
                : 1691
                : 2219-2226
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Ecology and Conservation, simpleUniversity of Exeter in Cornwall , Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, UK
                [2 ]Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
                [3 ]School of Life Sciences, simpleNapier University , Edinburgh EH10 5DT, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence ( m.a.cant@ 123456exeter.ac.uk ).
                Article
                rspb20092097
                10.1098/rspb.2009.2097
                2880142
                20236979
                5719b1fb-183f-429a-92dc-4799fc9fb2f8
                © 2010 The Royal Society

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 November 2009
                : 25 February 2010
                Categories
                1001
                14
                60
                70
                Research articles

                Life sciences
                eviction,reproductive conflict,punishment,skew,cooperation
                Life sciences
                eviction, reproductive conflict, punishment, skew, cooperation

                Comments

                Comment on this article