4.4 Article

Reproductive Conflict and the Costs of Social Status in Cooperatively Breeding Vertebrates

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 173, 期 5, 页码 650-661

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/597606

关键词

allostasis; allostatic load; reproductive skew; dominance rank; cooperative breeding; glucocorticoids

资金

  1. Kenyan Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology
  2. National Museums of Kenya Ornithology Department
  3. Kenya Wildlife Service
  4. Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science
  5. Department of Neurobiology and Behavior
  6. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conflict over reproduction is an inherent part of group living. In many social vertebrates, conflict may be reflected as allostatic load, or the costs of social status and dominance rank, which may be quantified by measuring glucocorticoid stress hormones. Here, we develop the first quantitative model of allostatic load based on the tug-of-war model of reproductive skew to generate insights into the mechanisms underlying reproductive conflict in cooperative breeders and to determine whether glucocorticoids can be used to assess conflict levels in group-living vertebrates. It predicts that subordinates have higher allostatic loads than dominants under most conditions, but when body condition is lower in dominants than in subordinates, dominants experience higher allostatic load. Group structure is also important, as dominants generally have higher allostatic loads than subordinates when there is a large number of subordinates in the group, but this cost can be reduced by increasing the number of dominants, as in plural breeding societies. Using glucocorticoid data from cooperatively breeding superb starlings Lamprotornis superbus, we found empirical support for both predictions. Our model is useful for understanding how the costs of social status influence reproductive sharing, and it suggests that glucocorticoids can be used to examine reproductive conflict and cooperation in social species.

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

4.4
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