Kin Discrimination and the Benefit of Helping in Cooperatively Breeding Vertebrates

Science

Volumn 302, Issue 5645, 2003, Pages 634-636

  Griffin, Ashleigh S ^a   West, Stuart A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

OFFSPRING CARE;

BIODIVERSITY;

COOPERATIVE BREEDING; FITNESS; KIN RECOGNITION; VERTEBRATE;

ALTRUISM; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; BREEDING; COOPERATIVE BREEDING; EVOLUTION; FITNESS; KIN DISCRIMINATION; KIN SELECTION; META ANALYSIS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; VERTEBRATE;

ALTRUISM; ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; BIRDS; BREEDING; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; FAMILY; FEMALE; HELPING BEHAVIOR; MALE; MAMMALS; PROBABILITY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

ANIMALIA; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 0142240341     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1089402     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. T. H. Clutton-Brock, Science 296, 69 (2002).
2. A. Cockburn, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29, 141 (1998).
3. P. B. Stacey, W. D. Koenig, Cooperative Breeding in Birds: Longterm Studies in Ecology and Behaviour (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990).
4. S. T. Emlen, in Behavioral Ecology, J. R. Krebs, N. B. Davies, Eds. (Blackwell, Oxford, 1997), pp. 228-253.
5. L. A. Dugatkin, Cooperation Among Animals, R. M. May, P. H. Harvey, Eds. (Oxford Series in Ethology and Evolution, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997).
6. W. D. Hamilton, Am. Nat. 97, 354 (1963).
7. W. D. Hamilton, J. Theor. Biol. 7, 1 (1964).
8. A. Bourke, N. Franks, Social Evolution in Ants (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995).
9. L. Keller, H. K. Reeve, Kin Selection, M. Pagel, Ed. (Encyclopedia of Evolution, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2002).
10. A. S. Griffin, S. A. West, Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 15 (2002).
11. S. T. Emlen, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92, 8092 (1995).
12. A. J. Gaston, Am. Nat. 112, 1091 (1978).
13. H. Kokko, R. A. Johnstone, T. H. Clutton-Brock, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 268, 187 (2001).
14. H. Kokko, R. A. Johnstone, J. Wright, Behav. Ecol. 13, 291 (2002).
15. J. Komdeur, B. J. Hatchwell, Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 237 (1999).
16. A. Grafen, Anim. Behav. 39, 42 (1990).
17. A. F. Russell, B. J. Hatchwell, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 268, 2169 (2001).
18. J. Komdeur. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 256, 47 (1994).
19. S. T. Emlen, P. Wrege, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 23, 305 (1988).
20. T. H. Clutton-Brock et al., Science 284, 1577 (1999).
21. T. H. Clutton-Brock et al., Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 267, 301 (2000).
22. P. O. Dunn, A. Cockburn, R. A. Mulder, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 259, 339 (1995).
23. M. A. Du Plessis, Behaviour 127, 49 (1993).
24. G. Amqvist, D. Wooster, Trends Ecol. Evo. 10, 236 (1995).
25. R. Rosenthal, Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research (Sage Foundation, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1991).
26. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
27. We used standard meta-analytic methods, described in detail elsewhere (25), implemented with the package MetaWin 2.0 (31). Effect sizes from each test statistic were averaged to obtain a single value per species. Effect sizes were Z-transformed before analysis to correct for the asymptotic behavior of r, and in all analyses individual effect sizes were weighted by the inverse of the variance associated with the effect size estimate. We used random effect models, because these are more appropriate for ecological data, and our underlying hypothesis is that effect sizes may differ between species.
28. A. Moller, M. Jennions, Oecologia 132, 492 (2002).
29. rand = 0.28), suggesting that how relatedness was measured was not biasing the results.
30. K. N. Rabenold, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17, 1 (1985).
31. M. S. Rosenberg, D. C. Adams, J. Gurevitch, MetaWin: Statistical Software for Meta-Analysis, version 2.0 (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, 2000).
32. M. D. Jennions, A. P. Moller, Biol. Rev. 77, 211 (2002).
33. S. Duvall, R. Tweedie, Biometrics 56, 455 (2000).
34. We thank A. Russell, B. Sheldon, D. Shuker, and three anonymous referees for comments; L. Bennun, P. Finn, and A. Russell for supplying and clarifying data; M. Jennions for supplying a spreadsheet for trim and fill analyses; and the Natural Environment Research Council, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and Royal Society for funding.