An official website of the United States government
Abstract Reciprocity and pseudo‐reciprocity are two important models for the evolution of cooperation and often considered alternative hypotheses. Reciprocity is typically defined as a scenario where help givencauseshelp received: cooperation is stabilized because each actor's cooperative investments are conditional on the cooperative returns from the receiver. Pseudo‐reciprocity is a scenario where helpenablesbyproduct returns: cooperation is inherently stable because the actor's cooperative investments yield byproduct returns from the receiver's self‐serving behavior. These models are strict alternatives only if reciprocity is defined by the restrictive assumption of zerofitness interdependence, meaning that the helper has no “stake” in the receiver's fitness. Reciprocity and interdependence are, however, not mutually exclusive when helping can increase both reciprocal help and byproduct returns. For instance, helping partners survive can simultaneously increase their willingness to reciprocate, their ability to reciprocate, and byproduct benefits of their existence. Interdependence can “pave the road” to reciprocal helping, and partners who reciprocate help can also become interdependent. However, larger cooperative investments can increase the need for responsiveness to partner returns. Therefore, most long‐term cooperative relationships involve both responsiveness and interdependence. Categorizing these relationships as “reciprocity” can be viewed as ignoring interdependence, but calling them ‘pseudo‐reciprocity’ is confusing because stability also comes from the cooperative investments being conditional on returns. Rather than conceptualizing cooperation intodiscrete categories, it is more insightful to imagine a coordinate system with responsiveness and interdependence ascontinuous dimensions. One can ask: To what degree is helping behavior responsive to the partner's behavior? And to what degree does the helper inherently benefit from the receiver's survival or reproduction? The amounts of responsiveness and interdependence will often be hard to estimate, but both are unlikely to be zero. Identifying their relative importance, and how that changes over time, would greatly clarify the nature of cooperative relationships.
more »
« less
Co‐option and the evolution of food sharing in vampire bats
Abstract The function of cooperative traits can change over time. For example, helping behaviors that originally evolved by kin selection can later yield direct fitness benefits and be stabilized by partner choice. In such cases, there may be multiple interacting factors that drive cooperation. Here, I review evidence that food sharing in vampire bats evolved as form of extended maternal care that was co‐opted to yield reciprocal benefits, and that such reciprocal relationships may have led to investment strategies that balance the trade‐offs between greater quality and quantity of cooperative relationships.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2015928
- PAR ID:
- 10390281
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Ethology
- Volume:
- 127
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 0179-1613
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 837-849
- Size(s):
- p. 837-849
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract When plants colonize new habitats, the novel interactions they form with new mutualists or enemies can immediately affect plant performance. These novel interactions also may provoke rapid evolutionary responses and can be ideal scenarios for investigating how species interactions influence plant evolution.To explore how mutualists influence the evolution of colonizing plant populations, we capitalized on an experiment in which two former agricultural fields were seeded with identical prairie seed mixes in 2010. Six years later, we compared how populations of the legumeChamaecrista fasciculatafrom these sites and their original (shared) source population responded to nitrogen‐fixing rhizobia from the restoration sites in a greenhouse reciprocal cross‐inoculation experiment.We found that the two populations differed both from their original source population and from each other in the benefits they derive from rhizobia, and that one population has evolved reduced allocation to rhizobia (i.e. forms fewer rhizobium‐housing nodules).Synthesis. Our results suggest that these plant populations have evolved different ways of interacting with rhizobia, potentially in response to differences in rhizobium quality between sites. Our study illustrates how microbial mutualists may shape plant evolution in new environments and highlights how variation in microbial mutualists potentially may select for different evolutionary strategies in plant hosts.more » « less
-
Abstract The coordinated motion of animal groups through fluids is thought to reduce the cost of locomotion to individuals in the group. However, the connection between the spatial patterns observed in collectively moving animals and the energetic benefits at each position within the group remains unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we study the spontaneous emergence of cohesive formations in groups of fish, modeled as flapping foils, all heading in the same direction. We show in pairwise formations and with increasing group size that (1) in side-by-side arrangements, the reciprocal nature of flow coupling results in an equal distribution of energy re-quirements among all members, with reduction in cost of locomotion for swimmers flapping inphase but an increase in cost for swimmers flapping antiphase, and (2) in inline arrangements, flow coupling is non-reciprocal for all flapping phase, with energetic savings in favor of trailing swimmers, but only up to a finite number of swimmers, beyond which school cohesion and energetic benefits are lost at once. We explain these findings mechanistically and we provide efficient diagnostic tools for identifying locations in the wake of single and multiple swimmers that offer op-portunities for hydrodynamic benefits to aspiring followers. Our results imply a connection between the resources generated by flow physics and social traits that influence greedy and cooperative group behavior.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT Studies of symbiosis employ the term “parasitism” to connote different sorts of relationships. Within the context of mutualistic symbioses, parasites are otherwise cooperative individuals or strains that appropriate a disproportionate amount of the synergistic products. In the context of antagonistic symbioses, there is no pretence of cooperation, and instead parasites are defined as individuals or strains that derive fitness benefits at a fitness cost to their hosts. In both cases, parasitism is selected for at the lower level (that of the individual symbiont) but selected against at the higher level (the group of symbionts in a single host). Despite these similarities, these different sorts of parasitism likely evolve by different pathways. Once a host–symbiont relationship initiates, if functional synergy is lacking, the relationship will remain exploitative, although parasites may differ in their detrimental effects on the host and the higher‐level unit. If functional synergy is present, however, cooperation may develop with benefits for both host and symbionts (i.e. mutualism). Nevertheless, parasites may still evolve from within these incipient relationships when individuals or strains of symbionts act parasitically by defecting from the common good to further their selfish replication. Levels‐of‐selection dynamics thus underlie both forms of parasitism, but only in the case of latent functional synergy can true symbiotic complexity at the higher level emerge.more » « less
-
Polyploidy, or whole-genome duplication, is expected to confound the inference of species trees with phyloge- netic methods for two reasons. First, the presence of retained duplicated genes requires the reconciliation of the inferred gene trees to a proposed species tree. Second, even if the analyses are restricted to shared single copy genes, the occurrence of reciprocal gene loss, where the surviving genes in different species are paralogs from the polyploidy rather than orthologs, will mean that such genes will not have evolved under the corresponding species tree and may not produce gene trees that allow inference of that species tree. Here we analyze three different ancient polyploidy events, using synteny-based inferences of orthology and paralogy to infer gene trees from nearly 17,000 sets of homologous genes. We find that the simple use of single copy genes from polyploid organisms provides reasonably robust phylogenetic signals, despite the presence of reciprocal gene losses. Such gene trees are also most often in accord with the inferred species relationships inferred from maximum likelihood models of gene loss after polyploidy: a completely distinct phylogenetic signal present in these genomes. As seen in other studies, however, we find that methods for inferring phylogenetic confidence yield high support values even in cases where the underlying data suggest meaningful conflict in the phylogenetic signals.more » « less
