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

      Reproduction and production in a social context: Group size, reproductive skew and increasing returns

      other
      1 , , 1
      Ecology Letters
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.

      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

          Evolutionary success requires both production (acquisition of food, protection and warmth) and reproduction. We suggest that both may increase disproportionately as group size grows, reflecting ‘increasing returns’ or ‘group augmentation benefits’, raising fitness in groups that cooperate in production and limit reproduction to one or a few high fertility females supported by non‐reproductives, with high reproductive skew. In our optimisation theory both Allee effects (when individual fitness increases with group size or density) and reproductive skew arise when increasing returns determine optimal group size and proportion of reproductive females. Depending on which of food or maternal time is more important for reproduction, evolutionary trajectories of lineages may (1) reach a boundary constraint where only one female reproduces in a period (as with African wild dogs) or (2) reach a boundary where all females reproduce during their lifetimes but only during an early life stage (human menopause) or a late life stage (birds with non‐dispersing helpers), where stage length optimises the proportion of females that is reproductive at any time or (3) reach the intersection of these boundary constraints where a single reproductive female is fully specialised in reproduction (as with eusocial insects). We end with some testable hypotheses.

          Abstract

          A female's average cost per birth declines as her number of births rises, so a cooperative group achieves more births by limiting reproduction to a single female with others supporting. This reproductive skew benefits the group and generates high relatedness within it, raising indirect fitness benefits. Direct benefits arise through increasing returns to group ‘production’ of food, protection and warmth. Evolution can lead to a single lifetime reproductive female or to stage‐based cooperative reproduction. p: proportion of females in group that are reproductive. x: degree of specialization of reproductive females in reproduction. Line indicates evolutionary trajectory from solitary to stage‐based reproductive limitation in group.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories

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

            Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect.

            The Allee effect describes a scenario in which populations at low numbers are affected by a positive relationship between population growth rate and density, which increases their likelihood of extinction. The importance of this dynamic process in ecology has been under-appreciated and recent evidence now suggests that it might have an impact on the population dynamics of many plant and animal species. Studies of the causal mechanisms generating Allee effects in small populations could provide a key to understanding their dynamics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evolutionary routes to non-kin cooperative breeding in birds

              Cooperatively breeding animals live in social groups in which some individuals help to raise the offspring of others, often at the expense of their own reproduction. Kin selection--when individuals increase their inclusive fitness by aiding genetic relatives--is a powerful explanation for the evolution of cooperative breeding, particularly because most groups consist of family members. However, recent molecular studies have revealed that many cooperative groups also contain unrelated immigrants, and the processes responsible for the formation and maintenance of non-kin coalitions are receiving increasing attention. Here, I provide the first systematic review of group structure for all 213 species of cooperatively breeding birds for which data are available. Although the majority of species (55%) nest in nuclear family groups, cooperative breeding by unrelated individuals is more common than previously recognized: 30% nest in mixed groups of relatives and non-relatives, and 15% nest primarily with non-relatives. Obligate cooperative breeders are far more likely to breed with non-kin than are facultative cooperators, indicating that when constraints on independent breeding are sufficiently severe, the direct benefits of group membership can substitute for potential kin-selected benefits. I review three patterns of dispersal that give rise to social groups with low genetic relatedness, and I discuss the selective pressures that favour the formation of such groups. Although kin selection has undoubtedly been crucial to the origin of most avian social systems, direct benefits have subsequently come to play a predominant role in some societies, allowing cooperation to persist despite low genetic relatedness.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                rlee@demog.berkeley.edu
                Journal
                Ecol Lett
                Ecol Lett
                10.1111/(ISSN)1461-0248
                ELE
                Ecology Letters
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1461-023X
                1461-0248
                05 January 2023
                February 2023
                : 26
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1111/ele.v26.2 )
                : 219-231
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Graduate School in Demography and Economics Berkeley California USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Ronald Lee, Graduate School in Demography and Economics, 310 Social Science Bldg. Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.

                Email: rlee@ 123456demog.berkeley.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9755-0436
                Article
                ELE14157 ELE-00605-2022.R3
                10.1111/ele.14157
                10107238
                36604867
                06d51e45-6e5e-4dc0-b693-bf7910dedd5e
                © 2023 The Authors. Ecology Letters published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 November 2022
                : 16 June 2022
                : 29 November 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 0, Pages: 13, Words: 9717
                Categories
                Perspective
                Perspectives
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                February 2023
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.7 mode:remove_FC converted:17.04.2023

                Ecology
                Ecology

                Comments

                Comment on this article