Skip Navigation



Behavioral Ecology Advance Access published online on April 27, 2005

Behavioral Ecology, doi:10.1093/beheco/ari051
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/4/708    most recent
ari051v1
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 Cant, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Field, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cant, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Field, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Received June 9, 2004
Revised March 2, 2004
Accepted March 8, 2005

Article

Helping effort in a dominance hierarchy

Michael A. Cant 1* and Jeremy Field 2

1 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
2 Department of Biology, University College London, Wolfson House, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Michael A. Cant, E-mail: mac21{at}hermes.cam.ac.uk


   Abstract

In many cooperatively breeding species, group members form a dominance hierarchy or queue to inherit the position of breeder. Models aimed at understanding individual variation in helping behavior, however, rarely take into account the effect of dominance rank on expected future reproductive success and thus the potential direct fitness costs of helping. Here we develop a kin-selection model of helping behavior in multimember groups in which only the highest ranking individual breeds. Each group member can invest in the dominant's offspring at a cost to its own survivorship. The model predicts that lower ranked subordinates, who have a smaller probability of inheriting the group, should work harder than higher ranked subordinates. This prediction holds regardless of whether the intrinsic mortality rate of subordinates increases or decreases with rank. The prediction does not necessarily hold, however, where the costs of helping are higher for lower ranked individuals: a situation that may be common in vertebrates. The model makes two further testable predictions: that the helping effort of an individual of given rank should be lower in larger groups, and the reproductive success of dominants should be greater where group members are more closely related. Empirical evidence for these predictions is discussed. We argue that the effects of rank on stable helping effort may explain why attempts to correlate individual helping effort with relatedness in cooperatively breeding species have met with limited success.

Keywords: cooperative breeding; helpers; inheritance; queueing; social queue.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
J. Field and M. A. Cant
Social stability and helping in small animal societies
Phil Trans R Soc B, November 12, 2009; 364(1533): 3181 - 3189.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
A. L. Cronin and J. Field
Rank and colony defense against conspecifics in a facultatively eusocial hover wasp
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2007; 18(2): 331 - 336.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
M. A. Cant and S. English
Stable group size in cooperative breeders: the role of inheritance and reproductive skew
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2006; 17(4): 560 - 568.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



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.