Parental provisioning drives brain size in birds

Family living and cooperative breeding in birds are associated with the number of avian predators

Cooperative breeding occurs when individuals contribute parental care to offspring that are not their own. Numerous intra- and interspecific studies have aimed to explain the evolution of this behavior. Recent comparative work suggests that family living (i.e., when offspring remain with their parents beyond independence) is a critical stepping stone in the evolution of cooperative breeding. Thus, it is key to understand the factors that facilitate the evolution of family living. Within-species studies suggest that protection from predators is a critical function of group living, through both passive benefits such as dilution effects and active benefits such as prosocial antipredator behaviors in family groups. However, the association between predation risk and the formation and prevalence of family groups and cooperative breeding remains untested globally. Here, we use phylogenetic comparative analyses including 2,984 bird species to show that family living and cooperative breeding are associated with increased occurrence of avian predators. These cross-species findings lend support to previous suggestions based on intraspecific studies that social benefits of family living, such as protection against predation, could favor the evolution of delayed dispersal and cooperative breeding.

Nest complexity correlates with larger brain size but smaller body mass across bird species

Amniotes differ substantially in absolute and relative brain size after controlling for allometry, and numerous hypotheses have been proposed to explain brain size evolution. Brain size is thought to correlate with processing capacity and the brain's ability to support complex manipulation such as nest-building skills. The increased complexity of nest structure is supposed to be a measure of an ability to manipulate nesting material into the required shape. The degree of nest-structure complexity is also supposed to be associated with body mass, partly because small species lose heat faster and delicate and insulated nests are more crucial for temperature control of eggs during incubation by small birds. Here, we conducted comparative analyses to test these hypotheses by investigating whether the complexity of species-typical nest structure can be explained by brain size and body mass (a covariate also to control for allometric effects on brain size) across 1353 bird species from 147 families. Consistent with these hypotheses, our results revealed that avian brain size increases as the complexity of the nest structure increases after controlling for a significant effect of body size, and also that a negative relationship exists between nest complexity and body mass.

Does the expensive brain hypothesis apply to amphibians and reptiles?

Vertebrate brains show extensive variation in relative size. The expensive brain hypothesis argues that one important source of this variation is linked to a species' ability to generate the energy required to sustain the brain, especially during periods of unavoidable food scarcity. Here we ask whether this hypothesis, tested so far in endothermic vertebrates, also applies to ectotherms, where ambient temperature is an additional major aspect of energy balance. Phylogenetic comparative analyses of reptiles and amphibians support the hypothesis. First, relative brain size increases with higher body temperature in those species active during the day that can gain free energy by basking. Second, relative brain size is smaller among nocturnal species, which generally face less favorable energy budgets, especially when maintaining high body temperature. However, we do not find an effect of seasonal variation in ambient temperature or food on brain size, unlike in endotherms. We conclude that the factors affecting energy balance in ectotherms and endotherms are overlapping but not identical. We therefore discuss the idea that when body temperatures are seasonally very low, cognitive benefits may be thwarted and selection on larger brain size may be rare. Indeed, mammalian hibernators may show similarities to ectotherms.

What is cooperative breeding in mammals and birds? Removing definitional barriers for comparative research

Cooperative breeding (i.e. when alloparents care for the offspring of other group members) has been studied for nearly a century. Yet, inconsistent definitions of this breeding system still hamper comparative research. Here, we identify two major inconsistencies, discuss their consequences and propose a way forward. First, some researchers restrict the term 'cooperative breeding' to species with non-breeding alloparents. We show that such restrictive definitions lack distinct quantitative criteria to define non-breeding alloparents. This ambiguity, we argue, reflects the reproductive-sharing continuum among cooperatively breeding species. We therefore suggest that cooperative breeding should not be restricted to the few species with extreme reproductive skew and should be defined independent of the reproductive status of alloparents. Second, definitions rarely specify the type, extent and prevalence of alloparental care required to classify species as cooperative breeders. We thus analysed published data to propose qualitative and quantitative criteria for alloparental care. We conclude by proposing the following operational definition: cooperative breeding is a reproductive system where >5% of broods/litters in at least one population receive species-typical parental care and conspecifics provide proactive alloparental care that fulfils >5% of at least one type of the offspring's needs. This operational definition is designed to increase comparability across species and disciplines while allowing to study the intriguing phenomenon of cooperative breeding as a behaviour with multiple dimensions.

Extended parental provisioning and variation in vertebrate brain sizes

Large brains provide adaptive cognitive benefits but require unusually high, near-constant energy inputs and become fully functional well after their growth is completed. Consequently, young of most larger-brained endotherms should not be able to independently support the growth and development of their own brains. This paradox is solved if the evolution of extended parental provisioning facilitated brain size evolution. Comparative studies indeed show that extended parental provisioning coevolved with brain size and that it may improve immature survival. The major role of extended parental provisioning supports the idea that the ability to sustain the costs of brains limited brain size evolution.