Author
Listed:
- Pablo Capilla-Lasheras
- Nina Bircher
- Antony M Brown
- Xavier Harrison
- Thomas Reed
- Jennifer E York
- Dominic L Cram
- Christian Rutz
- Lindsay Walker
- Marc Naguib
- Andrew J Young
Abstract
Explaining the evolution of sex differences in cooperation remains a major challenge. Comparative studies highlight that offspring of the more philopatric sex tend to be more cooperative within their family groups than those of the more dispersive sex but we do not understand why. The leading “Philopatry hypothesis” proposes that the more philopatric sex cooperates more because their higher likelihood of natal breeding increases the direct fitness benefits of natal cooperation. However, the “Dispersal trade-off hypothesis” proposes that the more dispersive sex cooperates less because preparations for dispersal, such as extra-territorial prospecting, trade-off against natal cooperation. Here, we test both hypotheses in cooperatively breeding white-browed sparrow weavers (Plocepasser mahali), using a novel high-resolution automated radio-tracking method. First, we show that males are the more dispersive sex (a rare reversal of the typical avian sex difference in dispersal) and that, consistent with the predictions of both hypotheses, females contribute substantially more than males to cooperative care while within the natal group. However, the Philopatry hypothesis cannot readily explain this female-biased cooperation, as females are not more likely than males to breed within their natal group. Instead, our radio-tracking findings support the Dispersal trade-off hypothesis: males conduct pre-dispersal extra-territorial prospecting forays at higher rates than females and prospecting appears to trade-off against natal cooperation. Our findings thus highlight that the evolution of sex differences in cooperation could be widely attributable to trade-offs between cooperation and dispersal; a potentially general explanation that does not demand that cooperation yields direct fitness benefits.Why do the more philopatric sex tend to be more cooperative within family groups than the more dispersive sex? This study uses radio tracking of white-browed sparrow weavers to reveal that sex differences in cooperation can be attributable to sex differences in the direct costs of cooperation, arising from a trade-off between cooperation and dispersal.
Suggested Citation
Pablo Capilla-Lasheras & Nina Bircher & Antony M Brown & Xavier Harrison & Thomas Reed & Jennifer E York & Dominic L Cram & Christian Rutz & Lindsay Walker & Marc Naguib & Andrew J Young, 2024.
"Evolution of sex differences in cooperation can be explained by trade-offs with dispersal,"
PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(10), pages 1-27, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pbio00:3002859
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002859
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- Lindsay A. Walker & Jenny E. York & Andrew J. Young, 2016.
"Sexually selected sentinels? Evidence of a role for intrasexual competition in sentinel behavior,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(5), pages 1461-1470.
- Sjouke A. Kingma, 2017.
"Direct benefits explain interspecific variation in helping behaviour among cooperatively breeding birds,"
Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, December.
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.
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:plo:pbio00:3002859. 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.