4.5 Article

Collective action and the intensity of between-group competition in nonhuman primates

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 625-631

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arv001

关键词

collective action problem; competition; cooperation; ideal gas model; social evolution; territoriality

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [CRSI33_133040]
  2. University of Zurich
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [CRSI33_133040] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The importance of between-group competition in the social evolution of animal societies is controversial, particularly with respect to understanding the origins and maintenance of cooperation in our own species. Among primates, aggressive between-group encounters are often rare or strikingly absent, a phenomenon that in some species has been ascribed to the presence of collective action problems. Here, we report on a series of comparative tests that show that the intensity of between-group contest competition is indeed lower in species that experience a collective action problem while controlling for predictions from an ideal gas model of animal encounters and general species' ecology. Species that do not succumb to the collective action problem are either cooperative breeders, are characterized by philopatry of the dominant sex, or live in relatively small groups with few individuals of this dominant sex. This implies that collective action problems are averted either through shared genes and benefits or a by-product mutualism in which the territorial behavior of some privileged individuals is not affected by the behavior of others. We conclude that across the primate taxon, the intensity of between-group competition is predominantly constrained by a social dilemma among group members, rather than ecological conditions, and that the collective action problem is thus an important selective pressure in the evolution of primate (including human) cooperation and sociality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据