Green et al., 2016 (Cooperative breeding birds) Flashcards

1
Q

Inclusive fitness predicts that cooperative investment should correlate … with the … of helpers to the recipients of their care

A

positively, relatedness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

This study compares helper … in … cooperatively breeding bird species

A

investment, 36

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Show that species-specific helper contributions to cooperative care increase as the mean … between helpers and recipients increases

A

relatedness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Helper contributions are also related to the … … of helpers

A

sex ratio

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Neither … … nor the proportion of nests with … influence helper effort

A

group size, helpers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Consistent with … rule: indicating key role for … … in the evolution of cooperative investment in social birds

A

Hamilton’s, kin selection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Interspecific studies show that alloparental care by helpers is more likely to evolve in species with low ….

A

promiscuity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Mean provisioning rate of helpers was expressed as a..

A

proportion of the provisioning rate of the parents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Mean kinship (r) of helpers to brood was determined fro…

A

published pedigree information, supplemented where possible by relatedness estimates from genetic analyses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What were the three variables, other than kinship, that were investigated for their influence on helper effort?

A
  • reproductive constraint, using the proportion of breeding pairs in study populations that had helpers as a measure of this (if constraints are lower, helpers more likely to go and breed independently
  • The mean group size (breeders+helpers) of each species, excluding breeders without any helpers and any non-helping group members (see next card for why)
  • average helper sex ratio, as the care of helpers could vary consistently in relation to their sex.

Summary: kinship, helper sex ratio, group size and percentage of nests with helpers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In cooperative breeding systems, breeders often benefit from reduced reproductive costs if they reduce their own … rate when ….

A

provisioning, helped

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Helper effort approached 100% (that is, very similar to that of breeders) when r was close to ….

A

0.5

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

only … and … had an effect on helper effort

A

kinship, sex ratio (helper effort was found to decrease significantly with the proportion of helpers that were male)

  • in species with more female-biased helper sex ratios, helpers of both sexes work harder relative to parental effort
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What could explain the sex-ratio effect on helper effort?

A

Increased kinship to brood arising from strong ecological constraints and reduced female dispersal provides a potential explanation for the increased provisioning effort of helpers in species with more female-biased helper sex ratios

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Finding provides an explanation for at least some of the unexplained variation in helper investment across ….

A

species

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Does not necessarily imply that that …-… gains are the only fitness benefits derived by helpers (other possibilities include increased survivorship or inheritance of the breeding territory) - but do reaffirm the central role of relatedness in the expression of cooperative behaviours

A

kin-selected