| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Behavioral Ecology Vol. 15 No. 4: 585-591
Behavioral Ecology vol. 15 no. 4 © International Society for Behavioral Ecology 2004; all rights reserved
A commitment model of reproductive inhibition in cooperatively breeding groups
Department of Biology, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montréal, Québec H3G 1M8, Canada
Address correspondence to I. M. Hamilton, who is now at Zoology Institute, University of Bern, CH-3032, Hinterkappelen, Switzerland. E-mail: ian.hamilton{at}esh.unibe.ch
Cooperatively breeding groups include individuals that give up some current reproductive opportunities while remaining in a group. In some cases, these individuals are physiologically or morphologically unable to reproduce. Empirical and theoretical evidence suggest that this inability often does not result from stress or manipulation by dominants against the interests of subordinates. I argue that such reproductive inhibition can represent a commitment not to reproduce in exchange for a reduction in costs imposed by dominants. I present a model that allows subordinates to choose whether to inhibit their own reproduction ("self-inhibition") and accept no direct reproduction while in the group or to remain flexible and attempt to take a share of group productivity. If dominants assess the reproductive status of subordinates and punish those that reproduce, this model predicts self-inhibition when group members are closely related, opportunities for independent breeding are poor, assessment of reproductive status and eviction are costly, and the chance of being detected when cheating is high. However, dominants are less likely to assess the reproductive status of subordinates that are closely related, resulting in a narrow window of relatedness in which self-inhibition is favored. Counterintuitively, this window is wider when flexible subordinates would be able to take a large share of group production. Although the model assumes that dominants are able to reliably detect commitment, it is generally robust against mistakes in the form of dominants failing to assess uncommitted subordinates, or even low frequencies of deception by flexible subordinates.
Key words: credibility, imperfect information, reproductive skew, reproductive suppression.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. Saltzman, L. J Digby, and D. H Abbott Reproductive skew in female common marmosets: what can proximate mechanisms tell us about ultimate causes? Proc R Soc B, February 7, 2009; 276(1656): 389 - 399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Heg Reproductive suppression in female cooperatively breeding cichlids Biol Lett, December 23, 2008; 4(6): 606 - 609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. M. Hamilton and D. Heg Clutch-size adjustments and skew models: effects on reproductive partitioning and group stability Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2007; 18(2): 467 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Heg, R. Bergmuller, D. Bonfils, O. Otti, Z. Bachar, R. Burri, G. Heckel, and M. Taborsky Cichlids do not adjust reproductive skew to the availability of independent breeding options Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2006; 17(3): 419 - 429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. G. Zink and H. K. Reeve Predicting the temporal dynamics of reproductive skew and group membership in communal breeders Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2005; 16(5): 880 - 888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|