Despotic partner choice puts helpers under pressure?

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 76, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 120-125

  Noë, Ronald ^a  

^a INSTITUT DE RECHERCHES SUBATOMIQUES   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COOPERATIVE BREEDING; GROUP BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTION;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; BREEDING; COOPERATION; COOPERATIVE BREEDING; GROUP PSYCHOLOGY; NONHUMAN;

EID: 34648828620     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2007.01.015     Document Type: Note

References (35)

1. Barclay P., and Willer R. Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 274 (2007) 749-753
2. Bergmüller R., Johnstone R., Russell A., and Bshary R. Integrating cooperative breeding into theoretical concepts of cooperation. Behav. Processes. 76 (2007) 61-72
3. Bronstein J.L. The scope for exploitation within mutualistic interactions. In: Hammerstein P. (Ed). Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation (2003), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass 185-202
4. Brown J.L., Dow D.D., Brown E.R., and Brown S.D. Effects of helpers on feeding of nestlings in the Grey-crowned Babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 4 (1978) 43-59
5. Bshary R., and Noë R. Biological markets: the ubiquitous influence of partner choice on the dynamics of cleaner fish-client reef fish interactions. In: Hammerstein P. (Ed). Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation (2003), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass 167-184
6. Bshary R., and Bronstein J.L. Game structures in mutualistic interactions: what can the evidence tell us about the kind of models we need?. Adv. Study Behav. 34 (2004) 59-101
7. Bshary R., and Grutter A.S. Punishment and partner switching cause cooperative behaviour in a cleaning mutualism. Biol. Lett. 1 (2005) 396-399
8. Clutton-Brock T.H., and Parker G.A. Punishment in animal societies. Nature 373 (1995) 209-216
9. Conradt L., and Roper T.J. Consensus decision making in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 (2005) 449-456
10. Dunbar R.I.M. Neocortex size and group size in primates: a test of the hypothesis. J. Human Evol. 28 (1995) 287-296
11. Dunbar R.I.M., and Bever J. Neocortex size predicts group size in carnivores and some insectivores. Ethology 104 (1998) 695-708
12. Gaston A.J. The evolution of group territorial behavior and cooperative breeding. Am. Nat. 112 (1978) 1091-1100
13. Hawkes K., and Bliege Bird R. Showing off, handicap signaling, and the evolution of men's work. Evol. Anthropol. 11 (2002) 58-67
14. Iwaniuk A.N., and Arnold K.E. Is cooperative breeding associated with bigger brains? A comparative test in the Corvida (Passeriformes). Ethology 110 (2004) 203-220
15. Kiers E.T., Rousseau R.A., and Denison R.F. Measured sanctions: legume hosts detect quantitative variation in rhizobium cooperation and punish accordingly. Evol. Ecol. Res. 8 (2006) 1077-1086
16. Kokko H., Johnstone R.A., and Wright J. The evolution of parental and alloparental effort in cooperatively breeding groups: when should helpers pay to stay?. Behav. Ecol. 13 (2002) 291-300
17. Ligon J.D., and Ligon S.H. Communal breeding in green woodhoopoes as a case for reciprocity. Nature 276 (1978) 496-498
18. Ligon J.D., and Ligon S.H. Reciprocity in the green woodhoopoe (Phoeniculus purpureus). Anim. Behav. 31 (1983) 480-489
19. Mulder R.A., and Langmore N.E. Dominant males punish helpers for temporary defection in superb fairy-wrens. Anim. Behav. 45 (1993) 830-833
20. Noë R. Biological markets: partner choice as the driving force behind the evolution of cooperation. In: Noë R., van Hooff J.A.R.A.M., and Hammerstein P. (Eds). Economics in Nature. Social Dilemmas, Mate Choice and Biological Markets (2001), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 93-118
21. Noë R. Cooperation experiments: coordination through communication versus acting apart together. Anim. Behav. 71 (2006) 1-18
22. Noë R., and Hammerstein P. Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35 (1994) 1-11
23. Noë R., and Hammerstein P. Biological markets. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10 (1995) 336-339
24. Noë R., van Schaik C.P., and van Hooff J.A.R.A.M. The market effect: an explanation for pay-off asymmetries among collaborating animals. Ethology 87 (1991) 97-118
25. Reyer H.-U. Breeder-helper-interactions in the pied kingfisher reflect the costs and benefits of cooperative breeding. Behaviour 96 (1986) 277-303
26. Reyer H.U. Investment and relatedness: a cost/benefit analysis of breeding and helping in the pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis). Anim. Behav. 32 (1984) 1163-1178
27. Roberts G. Competitive altruism: from reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 265 (1998) 427-431
28. Sachs J.L., Mueller U.G., Wilcox T.P., and Bull J.J. The Evolution of cooperation. Q. Rev. Biol. 79 (2004) 135-160
29. In: Solomon N.G., and French J.A. (Eds). Cooperative Breeding in Mammals (1997), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
30. In: Stacey P.B., and Koenig W.D. (Eds). Cooperative Breeding in Birds (1990), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
31. Tebbich S., Taborsky M., and Winkler H. Social manipulation causes cooperation in keas. Anim. Behav. 52 (1996) 1-10
32. Trivers R.L. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46 (1971) 35-57
33. Woxvold I.A., Mulder R.A., and Magrath M.J.L. Contributions to care vary with age, sex, breeding status and group size in the cooperatively breeding apostlebird. Anim. Behav. 72 (2006) 63-73
34. Wright J. Helping-at-the-nest in Arabian babblers: signalling social status or sensible investment in chicks?. Anim. Behav. 54 (1997) 1439-1448
35. Zahavi A. Altruism as a handicap-the limitations of kin selection and reciprocity. J. Avian Biol. 26 (1995) 1-3