Indirect reciprocity: Song sparrows distrust aggressive neighbours based on eavesdropping

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 80, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1041-1047

  Akçay, Çaĝlar ^a   Reed, Veronica A ^a   Campbell, S Elizabeth ^a   Templeton, Christopher N ^a   Beecher, Michael D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication network; Eavesdropping; Indirect reciprocity; Prisoner's Dilemma; Territoriality

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DEAR ENEMY PHENOMENON; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PRISONER DILEMMA; RECIPROCITY; SONGBIRD; TERRITORIALITY;

AVES; MELOSPIZA; MELOSPIZA MELODIA;

EID: 78549257387     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.009     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adams E.S. Territory size and shape in fire ants: a model based on neighborhood interactions. Ecology 1998, 79:1125-1134.
2. Adams E.S. Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2001, 32:277-303.
3. Akçay Ç., Wood W.E., Searcy W.A., Templeton C.N., Campbell S.E., Beecher M.D. Good neighbour, bad neighbour: song sparrows retaliate against aggressive rivals. Animal Behaviour 2009, 78:97-102.
4. Alexander R.D. The Biology of Moral Systems 1987, de Gruyter, New York.
5. Axelrod R. The Evolution of Cooperation 1984, Basic Books, New York.
6. Axelrod R., Hamilton W.D. The evolution of cooperation. Science 1981, 211:1390-1396.
7. Bshary R., Grutter A.S. Image scoring and cooperation in a cleaner fish mutualism. Nature 2006, 441:975-978.
8. Burt J.M., Vehrencamp S.L. Dawn chorus as an interactive communication network. Animal Communication Networks 2005, 320-343. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P.K. McGregor (Ed.).
9. Burt J.M., Campbell S.E., Beecher M.D. Song type matching as threat: a test using interactive playback. Animal Behaviour 2001, 62:1163-1170.
10. Fisher J. Evolution and bird sociality. Evolution as a Process 1954, 71-83. Allen & Unwin, London. J. Huxley, A. Hardy, E. Ford (Eds.).
11. Getty T. Dear enemies and the prisoner's dilemma: why should territorial neighbors form defensive coalitions?. American Zoologist 1987, 27:327-336.
12. Godard R. Tit-for-tat among neighboring hooded warblers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1993, 33:45-50.
13. Klump G.M. Sound localization in birds. Comparative Hearing: Birds and Reptiles 2000, 249-307. Springer, New York. R.J. Dooling, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper (Eds.).
14. McGregor P.K. Signalling in territorial systems: a context for individual identification, ranging and eavesdropping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series 1993, 340:237-244.
15. Maynard Smith J. Evolution and the Theory of Games 1982, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Milinski M., Semmann D., Krambeck H.-J. Reputation helps solve the 'tragedy of the commons'. Nature 2002, 415:424-426.
17. Nowak M.A., Sigmund K. Tit for tat in heterogenous populations. Nature 1992, 355:250-253.
18. Nowak M.A., Sigmund K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 1998, 393:573-577.
19. Nowak M.A., Sigmund K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 2005, 437:1291-1297.
20. Ohtsuki H., Iwasa Y. How should we define goodness? - reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2004, 231:107-120.
21. Ohtsuki H., Iwasa Y. The leading eight: social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2006, 239:435-444.
22. Olendorf R., Getty T., Scribner K., Robinson S.K. Male red-winged blackbirds distrust unreliable and sexually attractive neighbours. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2004, 271:1033-1038.
23. Panchanathan K., Boyd R. A tale of two defectors: the importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2003, 224:115-126.
24. Peake T.M. Eavesdropping in communication networks. Animal Communication Networks 2005, 13-37. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P.K. McGregor (Ed.).
25. Peake T.M., Terry A.M.R., McGregor P.K., Dabelsteen T. Do great tits assess rivals by combining direct experience with information gathered by eavesdropping?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2002, 269:1925-1929.
26. Pereira H.M., Bergman A., Roughgarden J. Socially stable territories: the negotiation of space by interacting foragers. American Naturalist 2003, 161:143-152.
27. Pollock G., Dugatkin L.A. Reciprocity and the emergence of reputation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1992, 159:25-37.
28. Rappole J.H., Tipton A.R. New harness design for attachment of radio transmitters to small passerines. Journal of Field Ornithology 1991, 62:335-337.
29. Roberts G. Evolution of direct and indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2008, 275:173-179.
30. Sommerfeld R.D., Krambeck H.-J., Semmann D., Milinski M. Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2007, 104:175435-175440.
31. Stoddard P.K. Vocal recognition of neighbors by territorial passerines. Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds 1996, 356-374. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller (Eds.).
32. Stoddard P.K., Beecher M.D., Horning C.L., Campbell S.E. Recognition of individual neighbors by song in the song sparrow, a species with song repertoires. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1991, 29:211-215.
33. Temeles E.J. The role of neighbours in territorial systems: when are they 'dear enemies'?. Animal Behaviour 1994, 47:339-350.
34. Wedekind C., Milinski M. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science 2000, 288:850-852.