IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/thpobi/v91y2014icp58-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution of learning and levels of selection: A lesson from avian parent–offspring communication

Author

Listed:
  • Lotem, Arnon
  • Biran-Yoeli, Inbar

Abstract

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the evolution of behavior may be better understood as the evolution of the learning mechanisms that produce it, and that such mechanisms should be modeled and tested explicitly. However, this approach, which has recently been applied to animal foraging and decision-making, has rarely been applied to the social and communicative behaviors that are likely to operate in complex social environments and be subject to multi-level selection. Here we use genetic, agent-based evolutionary simulations to explore how learning mechanisms may evolve to adjust the level of nestling begging (offspring signaling of need), and to examine the possible consequences of this process for parent–offspring conflict and communication. In doing so, we also provide the first step-by-step dynamic model of parent–offspring communication. The results confirm several previous theoretical predictions and demonstrate three novel phenomena. First, negatively frequency-dependent group-level selection can generate a stable polymorphism of learning strategies and parental responses. Second, while conventional reinforcement learning models fail to cope successfully with family dynamics at the nest, a newly developed learning model (incorporating behaviors that are consistent with recent experimental results on learning in nestling begging) produced effective learning, which evolved successfully. Third, while kin-selection affects the frequency of the different learning genes, its impact on begging slope and intensity was unexpectedly negligible, demonstrating that evolution is a complex process, and showing that the effect of kin-selection on behaviors that are shaped by learning may not be predicted by simple application of Hamilton’s rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Lotem, Arnon & Biran-Yoeli, Inbar, 2014. "Evolution of learning and levels of selection: A lesson from avian parent–offspring communication," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 58-74.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:thpobi:v:91:y:2014:i:c:p:58-74
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2013.10.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004058091300107X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tpb.2013.10.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas W. Mock & Matthew B. Dugas & Stephanie A. Strickler, 2011. "Honest begging: expanding from Signal of Need," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(5), pages 909-917.
    2. Uri Grodzinski & Ido Erev & Arnon Lotem, 2008. "Can hungry nestlings be trained to reduce their begging?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(1), pages 116-125.
    3. Uri Grodzinski & Roi Dor & Arnon Lotem, 2011. "Begging for a better future: how far can behavioral ecologists go without specifying mechanisms?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(5), pages 921-922.
    4. Miguel A. Rodriguez-Girones & Magnus Enguist & Michael Lachmann, 2001. "The Role of Begging and Sibling Competition in Foraging Strategies of Nestlings," Working Papers 01-01-002, Santa Fe Institute.
    5. Miguel A. Rodríguez-Gironés & Jesús Martín Zúñiga & Tomás Redondo, 2002. "Feeding experience and relative size modify the begging strategies of nestlings," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 13(6), pages 782-785, November.
    6. Arbilly, Michal & Motro, Uzi & Feldman, Marcus W. & Lotem, Arnon, 2011. "Recombination and the evolution of coordinated phenotypic expression in a frequency-dependent game," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 244-255.
    7. Roi Dor & Hilla Kedar & David W. Winkler & Arnon Lotem, 2007. "Begging in the absence of parents: a "quick on the trigger" strategy to minimize costly misses," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18(1), pages 97-102, January.
    8. Regis Ferriere & Richard E. Michod, 2011. "Inclusive fitness in evolution," Nature, Nature, vol. 471(7339), pages 6-8, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Parejo-Pulido & Lorenzo Pérez-Rodríguez & Inmaculada Abril-Colón & Jaime Potti & Tomás Redondo, 2023. "Passive and active parental food allocation in a songbird," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(5), pages 729-740.
    2. Samuel Riou & Olivier Chastel & Keith C Hamer, 2012. "Parent–offspring conflict during the transition to independence in a pelagic seabird," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(5), pages 1102-1107.
    3. Jonathan Newton, 2018. "Evolutionary Game Theory: A Renaissance," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-67, May.
    4. Yamaguchi, Sachi & Iwasa, Yoh, 2015. "Phenotype adjustment promotes adaptive evolution in a game without conflict," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 16-25.
    5. Dridi, Slimane & Lehmann, Laurent, 2014. "On learning dynamics underlying the evolution of learning rules," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 20-36.
    6. Paula Ferrer-Pereira & Ester Martínez-Renau & Manuel Martín-Vivaldi & Juan José Soler, 2023. "Food supply and provisioning behavior of parents: Are small hoopoe nestlings condemned to die?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(6), pages 992-1001.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:thpobi:v:91:y:2014:i:c:p:58-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.