|
|
Czaran, T. (1999). Game theory and evolutionary ecology: Evolutionary Games & Population Dynamics by J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund, and Game Theory & Animal Behaviour, edited by L.A. Dugatkin and H.K. Reeve. Trends. Ecol. Evol, 14(6), 246–247.
|
|
|
|
Dall, S. R. X., Houston, A. I., & McNamara, J. M. (2004). The behavioural ecology of personality: consistent individual differences from an adaptive perspective. Ecol. Letters, 7, 734–739.
Abstract: Individual humans, and members of diverse other species, show consistent differences in
aggressiveness, shyness, sociability and activity. Such intraspecific differences in
behaviour have been widely assumed to be non-adaptive variation surrounding
(possibly) adaptive population-average behaviour. Nevertheless, in keeping with recent
calls to apply Darwinian reasoning to ever-finer scales of biological variation, we sketch
the fundamentals of an adaptive theory of consistent individual differences in behaviour.
Our thesis is based on the notion that such .personality differences. can be selected for if
fitness payoffs are dependent on both the frequencies with which competing strategies
are played and an individual`s behavioural history. To this end, we review existing models
that illustrate this and propose a game theoretic approach to analyzing personality
differences that is both dynamic and state-dependent. Our motivation is to provide
insights into the evolution and maintenance of an apparently common animal trait:
personality, which has far reaching ecological and evolutionary implications.
|
|
|
|
Fenton, B., & Ratcliffe, J. (2004). Animal behaviour: eavesdropping on bats. Nature, 429(6992), 612–613.
|
|
|
|
Reluga, T. C., & Viscido, S. (2005). Simulated evolution of selfish herd behavior. J. Theor. Biol., 234(2), 213–225.
Abstract: Single species aggregations are a commonly observed phenomenon. One potential explanation for these aggregations is provided by the selfish herd hypothesis, which states that aggregations result from individual efforts to reduce personnel predation risk at the expense of group-mates. Not all movement rules based on the selfish herd hypothesis are consistent with observed animal behavior. Previous work has shown that herd-like aggregations are not generated by movement rules limited to local interactions between nearest neighbors. Instead, rules generating realistic herds appear to require delocalized interactions. To date, it has been an open question whether or not the necessary delocalization can emerge from local interactions under natural selection. To address this question, we study an individual-based model with a single quantitative genetic trait that controls the influence of neighbors as a function of distance. The results indicate that predation-based selection can increase the influence of distant neighbors relative to near neighbors. Our results lend support for the idea that selfish herd behavior can arise from localized movement rules under natural selection.
|
|
|
|
Chalmeau, R., & Gallo, A. (1995). Cooperation in primates: Critical analysis of behavioural criteria. Behav. Process., 35(1-3), 101–111.
Abstract: Concerning hunting in chimpanzees, cooperation has generally been attributed to the behaviour of two or more individuals acting together to achieve a common goal (Boesch and Boesch, 1989). The common goal is often considered as the concrete result of a common action by two or several individuals. Although this result could be used as a criterion for cooperation, it could also be an outcome due to chance. We suggest that the goal, viewed as a concrete benefit shared by the partners, is not a requisite of cooperation but rather a possible consequence of a common action largely submitted to social constraints. Individuals engaged in a cooperative task in order to solve a problem have to exchange information to adjust to each other's behaviour. However, evidence of communication between partners during simultaneous cooperation is rare. An experiment in which two chimpanzees each had to simultaneously pull a handle to get a fruit was performed. We analysed not only the concrete result of the partners' activity but also what the individuals took into account before pulling a handle. We tried to specify what the chimpanzees learned by means of a series of logical propositions which we were able to confront the experimental results.
|
|
|
|
Hamilton, W. D. (1971). Geometry for the selfish herd. J. Theor. Biol., 31(2), 295–311.
Abstract: This paper presents an antithesis to the view that gregarious behaviour is evolved through benefits to the population or species. Following Galton (1871) and Williams (1964) gregarious behaviour is considered as a form of cover-seeking in which each animal tries to reduce its chance of being caught by a predator.
It is easy to see how pruning of marginal individuals can maintain centripetal instincts in already gregarious species; some evidence that marginal pruning actually occurs is summarized. Besides this, simply defined models are used to show that even in non-gregarious species selection is likely to favour individuals who stay close to others.
Although not universal or unipotent, cover-seeking is a widespread and important element in animal aggregation, as the literature shows. Neglect of the idea has probably followed from a general disbelief that evolution can be dysgenic for a species. Nevertheless, selection theory provides no support for such disbelief in the case of species with outbreeding or unsubdivided populations.
The model for two dimensions involves a complex problem in geometrical probability which has relevance also in metallurgy and communication science. Some empirical data on this, gathered from random number plots, is presented as of possible heuristic value.
|
|
|
|
Bell, A. M. (2007). Evolutionary biology: animal personalities (Vol. 447).
|
|
|
|
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1996). Why Culture is Common, but Cultural Evolution is Rare. Proc Br Acad, 88, 73–93.
Abstract: If culture is defined as variation acquired and maintained by social learning, then culture is common in nature. However, cumulative cultural evolution resulting in behaviors that no individual could invent on their own is limited to humans, song birds, and perhaps chimpanzees. Circumstantial evidence suggests that cumulative cultural evolution requires the capacity for observational learning. Here, we analyze two models the evolution of psychological capacities that allow cumulative cultural evolution. Both models suggest that the conditions which allow the evolution of such capacities when rare are much more stringent than the conditions which allow the maintenance of the capacities when common. This result follows from the fact that the assumed benefit of the capacities, cumulative cultural adaptation, cannot occur when the capacities are rare. These results suggest why such capacities may be rare in nature.
|
|
|
|
Rogers, A. R. (1988). Does Biology Constrain Culture? Am Anthropol, 90(4), 819–831.
Abstract: Most social scientists would agree that the capacity for human culture was probably fashioned by natural selection, but they disagree about the implications of this supposition. Some believe that natural selection imposes important constraints on the ways in which culture can vary, while others believe that any such constraints must be negligible. This article employs a “thought experiment” to demonstrate that neither of these positions can be justified by appeal to general properties of culture or of evolution. Natural selection can produce mechanisms of cultural transmission that are neither adaptive nor consistent with the predictions of acultural evolutionary models (those ignoring cultural evolution). On the other hand, natural selection can also produce mechanisms of cultural transmission that are highly consistent with acultural models. Thus, neither side of the sociobiology debate is justified in dismissing the arguments of the other. Natural selection may impose significant constraints on some human behaviors, but negligible constraints on others. Models of simultaneous genetic/cultural evolution will be useful in identifying domains in which acultural evolutionary models are, and are not, likely to be useful.
|
|
|
|
Müller, A. E., & Thalmann, U. (2000). Origin and evolution of primate social organisation: a reconstruction. Biological Reviews, 75, 405–435.
Abstract: Abstract
The evolution and origin of primate social organisation has attracted the attention of many researchers, and a solitary pattern, believed to be present in most nocturnal prosimians, has been generally considered as the most primitive system. Nocturnal prosimians are in fact mostly seen alone during their nightly activities and therefore termed “solitary foragers”, but that does not mean that they are not social. Moreover, designating their social organisation as “solitary”, implies that their way of life is uniform in all species. It has, however, emerged over the last decades that all of them exhibit not only some kind of social network but also that those networks differ among species. There is a need to classify these social networks in the same manner as with group-living (gregarious) animals if we wish to link up the different forms of primate social organisation with ecological, morphological or phylogenetic variables. In this review, we establish a basic classification based on spatial relations and sociality in order to describe and cope properly with the social organisation patterns of the different species of nocturnal prosimians and other mammals that do not forage in cohesive groups. In attempting to trace the ancestral pattern of primate social organisation, the Malagasy mouse and dwarf lemurs and the Afro-Asian bushbabies and lorises are of special interest because they are thought to approach the ancestral conditions most closely. These species have generally been believed to exhibit a dispersed harem system as their pattern of social organisation (“dispersed” means that individuals forage solitarily but exhibit a social network). Therefore, the ancestral pattern of primate social organisation was inferred to be a dispersed harem. In fact, new field data on cheirogaleids combined with a review of patterns of social organisation in strepsirhines (lemurs, bushbabies and lorises) revealed that they exhibit either dispersed multi-male systems or dispersed monogamy rather than a dispersed harem system. Therefore, the concept of a dispersed harem system as the ancestral condition of primate social organisation can no longer be supported. In combination with data on social organisation patterns in “primitive” placentals and marsupials, and in monotremes, it is in fact most probable that promiscuity is the ancestral pattern for mammalian social organisation. Subsequently, a dispersed multi-male system derived from promiscuity should be regarded as the ancestral condition for primates. We further suggest that the gregarious patterns of social organisation in Aotus and Avahi, and the dispersed form in Tarsius evolved from the gregarious patterns of diurnal primates rather than from the dispersed nocturnal type. It is consequently proposed that, in addition to Aotus and Tarsius, Avahi is also secondarily nocturnal.
|
|
