4.5 Article

Experimental manipulation of helping in a cooperative breeder: helpers 'pay to stay' by pre-emptive appeasement

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 19-28

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.05.009

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 'pay-to-stay hypothesis' proposes that subordinate group members help dominants in order to be tolerated in the territory. Accordingly, helpers should be punished if they, are not helping sufficiently and should increase helping behaviour thereafter. We tested whether helping and social behaviours of group members of the cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher change according to these predictions. A focal helper was experimentally prevented from helping to defend the territory against a conspecific intruder by depriving it of the information that an intruder was present. At the same time the other group members witnessed both the intruder and the 'passive' focal helper. When a helper was prevented from providing help, the other group members compensated by increasing defence of the territory, which suggests that the contribution of the passive helper was beneficial. As predicted by the pay-to-stay hypothesis, helpers increased helping behaviour after being prevented from helping. However, we found no indications that dominants punished the focal helper for not having helped before. Punishment may not be measurable, though, because of an appeasement function of helping behaviour. In accordance with this hypothesis, agonistic interactions between focal helpers and dominants were reduced when helpers helped. Apparently, helpers prevent punishment by increasing helping and submissive behaviours. Our data support the pay-to-stay hypothesis and suggest a new mechanism for the regulation of cooperative investment by subordinates: pre-emptive appeasement of dominants through helping and submissive behaviour. (C) 2004 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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