Correlated pay-offs are key to cooperation

With a little help from her friends (and family) part I: the ecology and evolution of non-maternal care in mammals

In the class Mammalia, most young are cared for exclusively by their mothers. In species where mothers receive help, however, non-maternal caregivers may play a crucial role in development and life history trajectories. In turn, recipients of such care may have important impacts on caregivers of all types. In Part I of this overview, we briefly review the evolutionary barriers to widespread non-maternal care in mammals, and explain why the exceptions are of particular theoretical importance. We also summarize the current understanding of the selective forces leading to non-maternal care, and the taxa and types of caretakers amongst which it occurs. Finally, we argue for a fresh look at the categorization schemes that have traditionally been used to separate various types of mammalian non-maternal caregivers. This two-part introduction is aimed at scientists from multiple disciplines who study diverse organismal systems. It draws from the social and biological sciences literatures to provide an overview of this special issue of Physiology and Behavior's suite of methodological offerings and theoretical underpinnings.

Sharing the burden: on the division of parental care and vocalizations during incubation

In species with biparental care, individuals only have to pay the costs for their own parental investment, whereas the contribution of their partner comes for free. Each parent hence benefits if its partner works harder, creating an evolutionary conflict of interest. How parents resolve this conflict and how they achieve the optimal division of parental tasks often remains elusive. In this study, we investigated whether lesser black-backed gulls (Larus fuscus) divide parental care during incubation equally and whether this correlates with the extent of vocalizations between pair-members during incubation. We then investigated whether pairs showing more evenly distributed incubation behavior had a higher reproductive success. To this end, we recorded incubation behavior and vocalizations for 24-h time periods. Subsequently, we experimentally increased or decreased brood sizes in order to manipulate parental effort, and followed offspring development from hatching till fledging. Although incubation bouts were, on average, slightly longer in females, patterns varied strongly between pairs, ranging from primarily female incubation over equal sex contributions to male-biased incubation. Pairs contributing more equally to incubation vocalized more during nest relief and had a higher reproductive output when brood sizes were experimentally increased. Thus, vocalizations and a more equal division of parental care during incubation may facilitate higher levels of care during the nestling period, as suggested by a greater reproductive success when facing high brood demand, or they indicate pair quality.

Enduring rules of care within pairs - how blue tit parents resume provisioning behaviour after experimental disturbance

Sexual conflict over parental investment can result in suboptimal reproductive output. A recent hypothesis suggests that equality in investment, and hence conflict resolution, may be reached via coordination of parental activities like alternating nest visits. However, how robust patterns of care within couples are against temporal disturbances that create asymmetries in parental investment remains as yet to be shown. We here experimentally created such a social disturbance in a wild population of biparental blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) when provisioning their nestlings. We randomly caught and subsequently released one of the parents when nestlings were 6 and 12 days old respectively. On average, the parent that was caught did not resume care for nearly two hours. We then compared the levels of individual investment and within-pair coordination before, during and after the absence of the disturbed parent. We show that the remaining parent partially compensated by increasing its provisioning rate, but this compensatory response was strongest in females when nestlings were 6 days old. Once the caught parent returned to feed its nestlings, both parents resumed provisioning at a similar rate as before the disturbance. Likewise, the within-pair alternation level quickly resembled the pre-manipulated level, independent of nestling age or which sex was caught. Thus our experiment highlights the resilience of parental behaviour against temporal disturbances of individual parents.

Brood parasitism, relatedness and sociality: a kinship role in female reproductive tactics

Conspecific brood parasitism (CBP) is a reproductive tactic in which parasitic females lay eggs in nests of other females of the same species that then raise the joint brood. Parasites benefit by increased reproduction, without costs of parental care for the parasitic eggs. CBP occurs in many egg-laying animals, among birds most often in species with large clutches and self-feeding young: two major factors facilitating successful parasitism. CBP is particularly common in waterfowl (Anatidae), a group with female-biased natal philopatry and locally related females. Theory suggests that relatedness between host and parasite can lead to inclusive fitness benefits for both, but if host costs are high, parasites should instead target unrelated females. Pairwise relatedness (r) in host-parasite (h-p) pairs of females has been estimated using molecular genetic methods in seven waterfowl (10 studies). In many h-p pairs, the two females were unrelated (with low r, near the local population mean). However, close relatives (r = 0.5) were over-represented in h-p pairs, which in all 10 studies had higher mean relatedness than other females. In one species where this was studied, h-p relatedness was higher than between nesting close neighbours, and hosts parasitized by non-relatives aggressively rejected other females. In another species, birth nest-mates (mother-daughters, sisters) associated in the breeding area as adults, and became h-p pairs more often than expected by chance. These and other results point to recognition of birth nest-mates and perhaps other close relatives. For small to medium host clutch sizes, addition of a few parasitic eggs need not reduce host offspring success. Estimates in two species suggest that hosts can then gain inclusive fitness if parasitized by relatives. Other evidence of female cooperation is incubation by old eider Somateria mollissima females of clutches laid by their relatives, and merging and joint care of broods of young. Merging females tended to be more closely related. Eiders associate with kin in many situations, and in some geese and swans, related females may associate over many years. Recent genetic evidence shows that also New World quails (Odontophoridae) have female-biased natal philopatry, CBP and brood merging, inviting further study and comparison with waterfowl. Kin-related parasitism also occurs in some insects, with revealing parallels and differences compared to birds. In hemipteran bugs, receiving extra eggs is beneficial for hosts by diluting offspring predation. In eggplant lace bugs Gargaphia solani, host and parasite are closely related, and kin selection favours egg donation to related females. Further studies of kinship in CBP, brood merging and other contexts can test if some of these species are socially more advanced than presently known.

Relatedness decreases and reciprocity increases cooperation in Norway rats

Kin selection and reciprocity are two mechanisms underlying the evolution of cooperation, but the relative importance of kinship and reciprocity for decisions to cooperate are yet unclear for most cases of cooperation. Here, we experimentally tested the relative importance of relatedness and received cooperation for decisions to help a conspecific in wild-type Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus). Test rats provided more food to non-kin than to siblings, and they generally donated more food to previously helpful social partners than to those that had refused help. The rats thus applied reciprocal cooperation rules irrespective of relatedness, highlighting the importance of reciprocal help for cooperative interactions among both related and unrelated conspecifics.

Testing the Sexual and Social Benefits of Cooperation in Animals

Theoretical models show that sexual and social selection can stabilise cooperation. However, field tests of these mechanisms have been difficult to conduct and the results are mixed. We discuss the conceptual and practical difficulties associated with testing the role of social and sexual selection on cooperation and argue that there are alternative ways of examining these hypotheses. Specifically, approaches based on the classic theories of sexual selection and signalling, and recent developments in the field of behavioural syndromes, provide mechanisms to insure the reliability of cooperation. In addition, methodological developments (social networks and microtracking) and long-term datasets, allow measuring partner choice in a cooperation context and the resulting fitness benefits for both the cooperators and the individuals that associate with them.

Quantitative Matching of Clutch Size in Reciprocating Hermaphroditic Worms

Reciprocity [1] is one of the most controversial evolutionary explanations of cooperation among non-kin [2, 3]. For some authors, cognitive capacity of non-human organisms is limiting, and more parsimonious mechanisms should apply [3-5]; for others, the debate is mainly semantic [2, 6], and empirical evidence can be found in a wide range of taxa [7]. However, while the ability to alternate cooperative behaviors does not settle the reciprocity controversy, the capacity to adjust cooperative behavior to the value of received help could prove decisive. Marine polychaete worms Ophryotrocha diadema, as several simultaneous hermaphrodites, do not self-fertilize and have unilateral mating (i.e., they behave either as females or as males during each mating event). They are also external fertilizers and thus cannot store allosperm, which contribute to make them ideal model organisms to investigate reciprocity, since partners usually alternate sexual roles with each other, repeatedly exchanging egg clutch of variable size [8-12]. However, whether the alternation of sexual roles is the result of conditional reciprocity rather than by-product reciprocity has never been tested [13]. Here, we show that O. diadema worms reciprocate eggs conditionally to the partner's behavior and adjust the quality of cooperation according to that of their partners. Moreover, only egg reciprocation offers similar fitness returns via both the female and the male function with respect to non-reciprocating laying strategies. These results document that fine-tuned forms of conditional reciprocity can emerge in cognitively unsophisticated animals, broadening the criteria to recognize conditional reciprocity among animals.

Cooperation dynamics of generalized reciprocity in state-based social dilemmas

We introduce a framework for studying social dilemmas in networked societies where individuals follow a simple state-based behavioral mechanism based on generalized reciprocity, which is rooted in the principle "help anyone if helped by someone." Within this general framework, which applies to a wide range of social dilemmas including, among others, public goods, donation, and snowdrift games, we study the cooperation dynamics on a variety of complex network examples. By interpreting the studied model through the lenses of nonlinear dynamical systems, we show that cooperation through generalized reciprocity always emerges as the unique attractor in which the overall level of cooperation is maximized, while simultaneously exploitation of the participating individuals is prevented. The analysis elucidates the role of the network structure, here captured by a local centrality measure which uniquely quantifies the propensity of the network structure to cooperation by dictating the degree of cooperation displayed both at the microscopic and macroscopic level. We demonstrate the applicability of the analysis on a practical example by considering an interaction structure that couples a donation process with a public goods game.

How to quantify animal activity from radio-frequency identification (RFID) recordings

Automated animal monitoring via radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology allows efficient and extensive data sampling of individual activity levels and is therefore commonly used for ecological research. However, processing RFID data is still a largely unresolved problem, which potentially leads to inaccurate estimates for behavioral activity. One of the major challenges during data processing is to isolate independent behavioral actions from a set of superfluous, nonindependent detections. As a case study, individual blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) were simultaneously monitored during reproduction with both video recordings and RFID technology. We demonstrated how RFID data can be processed based on the time spent in- and outside a nest box. We then validated the number and timing of nest visits obtained from the processed RFID dataset by calibration against video recordings. The video observations revealed a limited overlap between the time spent in- and outside the nest box, with the least overlap at 23 s for both sexes. We then isolated exact arrival times from redundant RFID registrations by erasing all successive registrations within 23 s after the preceding registration. After aligning the processed RFID data with the corresponding video recordings, we observed a high accuracy in three behavioral estimates of parental care (individual nest visit rates, within-pair alternation and synchronization of nest visits). We provide a clear guideline for future studies that aim to implement RFID technology in their research. We argue that our suggested RFID data processing procedure improves the precision of behavioral estimates, despite some inevitable drawbacks inherent to the technology. Our method is useful, not only for other cavity breeding birds, but for a wide range of (in)vertebrate species that are large enough to be fitted with a tag and that regularly pass near or through a fixed antenna.

Ultimate and proximate mechanisms of reciprocal altruism in rats

The reciprocal exchange of goods and services among social partners is a conundrum in evolutionary biology because of its proneness to cheating, but also the behavioral and cognitive mechanisms involved in such mutual cooperation are hotly debated. Extreme viewpoints range from the assumption that, at the proximate level, observed cases of "direct reciprocity" can be merely explained by basic instrumental and Pavlovian association processes, to the other extreme implying that "cultural factors" must be involved, as is often attributed to reciprocal cooperation among humans. Here we argue that neither one nor the other extreme conception is likely to explain proximate mechanisms underlying reciprocal altruism in animals. In particular, we outline that Pavlovian association processes are not sufficient to explain the documented reciprocal cooperation among Norway rats, as has been recently argued.

Helping in humans and other animals: a fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue

Humans are arguably unique in the extent and scale of cooperation with unrelated individuals. While pairwise interactions among non-relatives occur in some non-human species, there is scant evidence of the large-scale, often unconditional prosociality that characterizes human social behaviour. Consequently, one may ask whether research on cooperation in humans can offer general insights to researchers working on similar questions in non-human species, and whether research on humans should be published in biology journals. We contend that the answer to both of these questions is yes. Most importantly, social behaviour in humans and other species operates under the same evolutionary framework. Moreover, we highlight how an open dialogue between different fields can inspire studies on humans and non-human species, leading to novel approaches and insights. Biology journals should encourage these discussions rather than drawing artificial boundaries between disciplines. Shared current and future challenges are to study helping in ecologically relevant contexts in order to correctly interpret how payoff matrices translate into inclusive fitness, and to integrate mechanisms into the hitherto largely functional theory. We can and should study human cooperation within a comparative framework in order to gain a full understanding of the evolution of helping.

Coevolution between positive reciprocity, punishment, and partner switching in repeated interactions

Cooperation based on mutual investments can occur between unrelated individuals when they are engaged in repeated interactions. Individuals then need to use a conditional strategy to deter their interaction partners from defecting. Responding to defection such that the future payoff of a defector is reduced relative to cooperating with it is called a partner control mechanism. Three main partner control mechanisms are (i) to switch from cooperation to defection when being defected ('positive reciprocity'), (ii) to actively reduce the payoff of a defecting partner ('punishment'), or (iii) to stop interacting and switch partner ('partner switching'). However, such mechanisms to stabilize cooperation are often studied in isolation from each other. In order to better understand the conditions under which each partner control mechanism tends to be favoured by selection, we here analyse by way of individual-based simulations the coevolution between positive reciprocity, punishment, and partner switching. We show that random interactions in an unstructured population and a high number of rounds increase the likelihood that selection favours partner switching. In contrast, interactions localized in small groups (without genetic structure) increase the likelihood that selection favours punishment and/or positive reciprocity. This study thus highlights the importance of comparing different control mechanisms for cooperation under different conditions.

Promoting cooperation by preventing exploitation: The role of network structure

A growing body of empirical evidence indicates that social and cooperative behavior can be affected by cognitive and neurological factors, suggesting the existence of state-based decision-making mechanisms that may have emerged by evolution. Motivated by these observations, we propose a simple mechanism of anonymous network interactions identified as a form of generalized reciprocity-a concept organized around the premise "help anyone if helped by someone'-and study its dynamics on random graphs. In the presence of such a mechanism, the evolution of cooperation is related to the dynamics of the levels of investments (i.e., probabilities of cooperation) of the individual nodes engaging in interactions. We demonstrate that the propensity for cooperation is determined by a network centrality measure here referred to as neighborhood importance index and discuss relevant implications to natural and artificial systems. To address the robustness of the state-based strategies to an invasion of defectors, we additionally provide an analysis which redefines the results for the case when a fraction of the nodes behave as unconditional defectors.

Decreasing parental task specialization promotes conditional cooperation

How much to invest in parental care and by who remain puzzling questions fomented by a sexual conflict between parents. Negotiation that facilitates coordinated parental behaviour may be key to ease this costly conflict. However, understanding cooperation requires that the temporal and sex-specific variation in parental care, as well as its multivariate nature is considered. Using a biparental bird species and repeated sampling of behavioural activities throughout a major part of reproduction, we show a clear division of tasks between males and females in provisioning, brooding and foraging. Such behavioural specializations fade with increasing nestling age, which stimulates the degree of alternated feeding visits, as a recently promoted form of conditional cooperation. However, such cooperation is thought to benefit offspring development, which is not supported by our data. Thus, from a proximate point of view, conditional cooperation via alternation critically depends on the division of parental tasks, while the ultimate benefits have yet to be shown.

Genetics and developmental biology of cooperation

Despite essential progress towards understanding the evolution of cooperative behaviour, we still lack detailed knowledge about its underlying molecular mechanisms, genetic basis, evolutionary dynamics and ontogeny. An international workshop "Genetics and Development of Cooperation," organized by the University of Bern (Switzerland), aimed at discussing the current progress in this research field and suggesting avenues for future research. This review uses the major themes of the meeting as a springboard to synthesize the concepts of genetic and nongenetic inheritance of cooperation, and to review a quantitative genetic framework that allows for the inclusion of indirect genetic effects. Furthermore, we argue that including nongenetic inheritance, such as transgenerational epigenetic effects, parental effects, ecological and cultural inheritance, provides a more nuanced view of the evolution of cooperation. We summarize those genes and molecular pathways in a range of species that seem promising candidates for mechanisms underlying cooperative behaviours. Concerning the neurobiological substrate of cooperation, we suggest three cognitive skills necessary for the ability to cooperate: (i) event memory, (ii) synchrony with others and (iii) responsiveness to others. Taking a closer look at the developmental trajectories that lead to the expression of cooperative behaviours, we discuss the dichotomy between early morphological specialization in social insects and more flexible behavioural specialization in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Finally, we provide recommendations for which biological systems and species may be particularly suitable, which specific traits and parameters should be measured, what type of approaches should be followed, and which methods should be employed in studies of cooperation to better understand how cooperation evolves and manifests in nature.

The concepts of asymmetric and symmetric power can help resolve the puzzle of altruistic and cooperative behaviour

Evolutionary theory predicts competition in nature yet altruistic and cooperative behaviour appears to reduce the ability to compete in order to help others compete better. This evolutionary puzzle is usually explained by kin selection where close relatives perform altruistic and cooperative acts to help each other and by reciprocity theory (i.e. direct, indirect and generalized reciprocity) among non-kin. Here, it is proposed that the concepts of asymmetry and symmetry in power and dominance are critical if we are ever to resolve the puzzle of altruism and cooperation towards non-kin. Asymmetry in power and dominance is likely to emerge under competition in nature as individuals strive to gain greater access to the scarce resources needed to survive and reproduce successfully. Yet asymmetric power presents serious problems for reciprocity theory in that a dominant individual faces a temptation to cheat in interactions with subordinates that is likely to far outweigh any individual selective benefits gained through reciprocal mechanisms. Furthermore, action taken by subordinates to deter non-reciprocation by dominants is likely to prove prohibitively costly to their fitness, making successful enforcement of reciprocal mechanisms unlikely. It is also argued here that many apparently puzzling forms of cooperation observed in nature (e.g. cooperative breeding in which unrelated subordinates help dominants to breed) might be best explained by asymmetry in power and dominance. Once it is recognized that individuals in these cooperative interactions are subject to the constraints and opportunities imposed on them by asymmetric power then they can be seen as pursuing a 'least bad' strategy to promote individual fitness - one that is nevertheless consistent with evolutionary theory. The concept of symmetric power also provides important insights. It can inhibit reciprocal mechanisms in the sense that symmetric power makes it easier for a cheat to appropriate common resources while incurring fewer penalties. Nevertheless under certain restrictive conditions, symmetric power is seen as likely to promote direct reciprocity through 'tit for tat'.

Experimental evidence for reciprocity in allogrooming among wild-type Norway rats

If individuals help more those who have previously helped them, stable cooperation may ensue through alternation of roles between donors and recipients. Allogrooming, which is costly to donors and beneficial to recipients, is often exchanged between social partners. Arguably, allogrooming and allopreening are the most frequently exchanged social services and have been used as a standard model of reciprocal cooperation. However, evidence for the application of reciprocity rules among social partners allogrooming each other hitherto is merely correlational. Here, we tested whether female Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) apply the decision rule characterising direct reciprocity: help someone who has helped you before, by experimentally manipulating both the need for allogrooming and the behavioural response. Furthermore, we checked whether trading of grooming services is influenced by the rank of the social partner. We show that rats groom social partners reciprocally and prefer to do so up the hierarchy, i.e. they groom dominant partners more often than subordinates, while reciprocating with both. This provides experimental evidence that animals render a costly social service by applying reciprocity decision rules when showing a natural hygienic behaviour. The fact that allogrooming is more readily shown up the hierarchy may suggest an appeasing function.

Working dogs cooperate among one another by generalised reciprocity

Cooperation by generalised reciprocity implies that individuals apply the decision rule "help anyone if helped by someone". This mechanism has been shown to generate evolutionarily stable levels of cooperation, but as yet it is unclear how widely this cooperation mechanism is applied among animals. Dogs (Canis familiaris) are highly social animals with considerable cognitive potential and the ability to differentiate between individual social partners. But although dogs can solve complex problems, they may use simple rules for behavioural decisions. Here we show that dogs trained in an instrumental cooperative task to provide food to a social partner help conspecifics more often after receiving help from a dog before. Remarkably, in so doing they show no distinction between partners that had helped them before and completely unfamiliar conspecifics. Apparently, dogs use the simple decision rule characterizing generalised reciprocity, although they are probably capable of using the more complex decision rule of direct reciprocity: "help someone who has helped you". However, generalized reciprocity involves lower information processing costs and is therefore a cheaper cooperation strategy. Our results imply that generalised reciprocity might be applied more commonly than direct reciprocity also in other mutually cooperating animals.

Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species

Cooperation is widespread both within and between species, but are intraspecific and interspecific cooperation fundamentally similar or qualitatively different phenomena? This review evaluates this question, necessary for a general understanding of the evolution of cooperation. First, we outline three advantages of cooperation relative to noncooperation (acquisition of otherwise inaccessible goods and services, more efficient acquisition of resources, and buffering against variability), and predict when individuals should cooperate with a conspecific versus a heterospecific partner to obtain these advantages. Second, we highlight five axes along which heterospecific and conspecific partners may differ: relatedness and fitness feedbacks, competition and resource use, resource-generation abilities, relative evolutionary rates, and asymmetric strategy sets and outside options. Along all of these axes, certain asymmetries between partners are more common in, but not exclusive to, cooperation between species, especially complementary resource use and production. We conclude that cooperation within and between species share many fundamental qualities, and that differences between the two systems are explained by the various asymmetries between partners. Consideration of the parallels between intra- and interspecific cooperation facilitates application of well-studied topics in one system to the other, such as direct benefits within species and kin-selected cooperation between species, generating promising directions for future research.