The ecology and evolution of human‐wildlife cooperation

Connecting and integrating cooperation within and between species

There has long been a fundamental divide in the study of cooperation: researchers focus either on cooperation within species, including but not limited to sociality, or else on cooperation between species, commonly termed mutualism. Here, we explore the ecologically and evolutionarily significant ways in which within- and between-species cooperation interact. We highlight two primary cross-linkages. First, cooperation of one type can change the context in which cooperation of the other type functions, and thus potentially its outcome. We delineate three possibilities: (i) within-species cooperation modulates benefits for a heterospecific partner; (ii) between-species cooperation affects the dynamics of within-species cooperation; and (iii) both processes take place interactively. The second type of cross-linkage emerges when resources or services that cooperation makes available are obtainable either from members of the same species or from different species. This brings cooperation at the two levels into direct interaction, to some extent obscuring the distinction between them. We expand on these intersections between within- and between-species cooperation in a diversity of taxa and interaction types. These interactions have the potential to weave together social networks and trophic dynamics, contributing to the structure and functioning of ecological communities in ways that are just beginning to be explored. This article is part of the theme issue 'Connected interactions: enriching food web research by spatial and social interactions'.

A synthesis of coevolution across levels of biological organization

In evolutionary ecology, coevolution is typically defined as reciprocal evolution of interacting species. However, outside the context of interacting species, the term "coevolution" is also used at levels of biological organization within species (e.g., between males and females, between cells, and between genes or proteins). Furthermore, although evolution is typically defined as "genetic change over time", coevolution need not involve genetic changes in the interacting parties, since cultures can also evolve. In this review, I propose that coevolution be defined more broadly as "reciprocal adaptive evolution at any level of biological organisation". The classification of reciprocal evolution at all levels of biological organization as coevolution would maintain consistency in terminology. More importantly, the broader definition should facilitate greater integration of coevolution research across disciplines. For example, principles usually discussed only in the context of coevolution between species or coevolution between genes (e.g., tight and diffuse coevolution, and compensatory coevolution, respectively) could be more readily applied to new fields. The application of coevolutionary principles to new contexts could also provide benefits to society, for instance in deducing the dynamics of coevolution between cancer cells and cells of the human immune system.

Culturally determined interspecies communication between humans and honeyguides

Species interactions that vary across environments can create geographical mosaics of genetic coevolution. However, traits mediating species interactions are sometimes culturally inherited. Here we show that traditions of interspecies communication between people and wild birds vary in a culturally determined geographical mosaic. Honey hunters in different parts of Africa use different calls to communicate with greater honeyguides (Indicator indicator) that lead them to bees' nests. We show experimentally that honeyguides in Tanzania and Mozambique discriminate among honey hunters' calls, responding more readily to local than to foreign calls. This was not explained by variation in sound transmission and instead suggests that honeyguides learn local human signals. We discuss the forces stabilizing and diversifying interspecies communication traditions, and the potential for cultural coevolution between species.

Human-wild bird cooperation

Honeyguides learn distinct signals made by honey hunters from different cultures.

Ancestry testing of "Old Tom," a killer whale central to mutualistic interactions with human whalers

Cooperative hunting between humans and killer whales (Orcinus orca) targeting baleen whales was reported in Eden, New South Wales, Australia, for almost a century. By 1928, whaling operations had ceased, and local killer whale sightings became scarce. A killer whale from the group, known as "Old Tom," washed up dead in 1930 and his skeleton was preserved. How these killer whales from Eden relate to other populations globally and whether their genetic descendants persist today remains unknown. We extracted and sequenced DNA from Old Tom using ancient DNA techniques. Genomic sequences were then compared with a global dataset of mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. Old Tom shared a most recent common ancestor with killer whales from Australasia, the North Atlantic, and the North Pacific, having the highest genetic similarity with contemporary New Zealand killer whales. However, much of the variation found in Old Tom's genome was not shared with these widespread populations, suggesting ancestral rather than ongoing gene flow. Our genetic comparisons also failed to find any clear descendants of Tom, raising the possibility of local extinction of this group. We integrated Traditional Custodian knowledge to recapture the events in Eden and recognize that Indigenous Australians initiated the relationship with the killer whales before European colonization and the advent of commercial whaling locally. This study rectifies discrepancies in local records and provides new insight into the origins of the killer whales in Eden and the history of Australasian killer whales.

Guides and cheats: producer-scrounger dynamics in the human-honeyguide mutualism

Foraging animals commonly choose whether to find new food (as 'producers') or scavenge from others (as 'scroungers'), and this decision has ecological and evolutionary consequences. Understanding these tactic decisions is particularly vital for naturally occurring producer-scrounger systems of economic importance, because they determine the system's productivity and resilience. Here, we investigate how individuals' traits predict tactic decisions, and the consistency and pay-offs of these decisions, in the remarkable mutualism between humans (Homo sapiens) and greater honeyguides (Indicator indicator). Honeyguides can either guide people to bees' nests and eat the resulting beeswax (producing), or scavenge beeswax (scrounging). Our results suggest that honeyguides flexibly switched tactics, and that guiding yielded greater access to the beeswax. Birds with longer tarsi scrounged more, perhaps because they are more competitive. The lightest females rarely guided, possibly to avoid aggression, or because genetic matrilines may affect female body mass and behaviour in this species. Overall, aspects of this producer-scrounger system probably increase the productivity and resilience of the associated human-honeyguide mutualism, because the pay-offs incentivize producing, and tactic-switching increases the pool of potential producers. Broadly, our findings suggest that even where tactic-switching is prevalent and producing yields greater pay-offs, certain phenotypes may be predisposed to one tactic.

Aggressive Mimicry and the Evolution of the Human Cognitive Niche

The evolutionary origins of deception and its functional role in our species is a major focus of research in the science of human origins. Several hypotheses have been proposed for its evolution, often packaged under either the Social Brain Hypothesis, which emphasizes the role that the evolution of our social systems may have played in scaffolding our cognitive traits, and the Foraging Brain Hypothesis, which emphasizes how changes in the human dietary niche were met with subsequent changes in cognition to facilitate foraging of difficult-to-acquire foods. Despite substantive overlap, these hypotheses are often presented as competing schools of thought, and there have been few explicitly proposed theoretical links unifying the two. Utilizing cross-cultural data gathered from the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), we identify numerous (n = 357) examples of the application of deception toward prey across 145 cultures. By comparing similar behaviors in nonhuman animals that utilize a hunting strategy known as aggressive mimicry, we suggest a potential pathway through which the evolution of deception may have taken place. Rather than deception evolving as a tactic for deceiving conspecifics, we suggest social applications of deception in humans could have evolved from an original context of directing these behaviors toward prey. We discuss this framework with regard to the evolution of other mental traits, including language, Theory of Mind, and empathy.

Safeguarding human–wildlife cooperation

Human–wildlife cooperation occurs when humans and free‐living wild animals actively coordinate their behavior to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. These interactions provide important benefits to both the human and wildlife communities involved, have wider impacts on the local ecosystem, and represent a unique intersection of human and animal cultures. The remaining active forms are human–honeyguide and human–dolphin cooperation, but these are at risk of joining several inactive forms (including human–wolf and human–orca cooperation). Human–wildlife cooperation faces a unique set of conservation challenges, as it requires multiple components—a motivated human and wildlife partner, a suitable environment, and compatible interspecies knowledge—which face threats from ecological and cultural changes. To safeguard human–wildlife cooperation, we recommend: (i) establishing ethically sound conservation strategies together with the participating human communities; (ii) conserving opportunities for human and wildlife participation; (iii) protecting suitable environments; (iv) facilitating cultural transmission of traditional knowledge; (v) accessibly archiving Indigenous and scientific knowledge; and (vi) conducting long‐term empirical studies to better understand these interactions and identify threats. Tailored safeguarding plans are therefore necessary to protect these diverse and irreplaceable interactions. Broadly, our review highlights that efforts to conserve biological and cultural diversity should carefully consider interactions between human and animal cultures.

Please see AfricanHoneyguides.com/abstract‐translations for Kiswahili and Portuguese translations of the abstract.