Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on April 15, 2009
Behavioral Ecology 2009 20(3):672-684; doi:10.1093/beheco/arp050
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/3/672    most recent
arp050v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Buston, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Zink, A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Buston, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Zink, A. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Reproductive skew and the evolution of conflict resolution: a synthesis of transactional and tug-of-war models

Peter M. Bustona and Andrew G. Zinkb

a Integrative Ecology Group, Estación Biológica de Doñana, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientifícas, Avda. María Luisa s/n Pabellón de Perú, Sevilla, Sevilla 41013, España b Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA

Address correspondence to P.M. Buston. E-mail: buston{at}ebd.csic.es.


   Abstract

The formation of animal societies is a major transition in evolution. It is challenging to understand why societies are stable, given the reproductive conflicts inherent within them. Reproductive skew theory provides a compelling explanation for how and why reproductive conflicts are resolved. Indeed, some have suggested that skew theory represents a general theory of social evolution. Lamentably, skew theory is composed of many independent models, with the generality of each model being restricted by its assumptions. Here, we tackle this problem, using Hamilton's rule to predict the conditions under which assumptions of major classes of skew models (transactional and tug-of-war) apply. First, building on transactional models, we define the amount of reproduction that individuals can negotiate based on the threat of group dissolution (the "outside option") and determine conditions under which groups will be stable (free of group dissolution). Second, building on tug-of-war models, we define the amount of reproduction that individuals can negotiate based on the threat of costly competition (the "inside option") and determine conditions under which groups will be tranquil (free of costly competition). Finally, synthesizing transactional and tug-of-war approaches, we determine the conditions under which individuals will negotiate based on outside rather than inside options. Simply, individuals will negotiate using their outside option when it is greater than their inside option and vice versa. We conduct a post hoc test of all predictions in one simple animal society - the clown anemonefish, Amphiprion percula. The product is a more general and demonstrably testable model of reproductive skew, which should help to refocus the debate surrounding the utility of reproductive skew theory as a general theory of social evolution.

Key words: bargaining theory, conflict, cooperation, cooperative breeding, eusociality, game theory.

Received 22 August 2008; revised 24 February 2009; accepted 27 February 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.