| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–21] |
|
Hemelrijk, C. K. (2002). Self-Organization and Natural Selection in the Evolution of Complex Despotic Societies. Biol Bull, 202(3), 283–288.
Abstract: Differences between related species are usually explained as separate adaptations produced by individual selection. I discuss in this paper how related species, which differ in many respects, may evolve by a combination of individual selection, self-organization, and group-selection, requiring an evolutionary adaptation of only a single trait. In line with the supposed evolution of despotic species of macaques, we take as a starting point an ancestral species that is egalitarian and mildly aggressive. We suppose it to live in an environment with abundant food and we put the case that, if food becomes scarce and more clumped, natural selection at the level of the individual will favor individuals with a more intense aggression (implying, for instance, biting and fierce fighting). Using an individual-centered model, called DomWorld, I show what happens when the intensity of aggression increases. In DomWorld, group life is represented by artificial individuals that live in a homogeneous world. Individuals are extremely simple: all they do is flock together and, upon meeting one another, they may perform dominance interactions in which the effects of winning and losing are self-reinforcing. When the intensity of aggression in the model is increased, a complex feedback between the hierarchy and spatial structure results; via self-organization, this feedback causes the egalitarian society to change into a despotic one. The many differences between the two types of artificial society closely correspond to those between despotic and egalitarian macaques in the real world. Given that, in the model, the organization changes as a side effect of the change of one single trait proper to an egalitarian society, in the real world a despotic society may also have arisen as a side effect of the mutation of a single trait of an egalitarian species. If groups with different intensities of aggression evolve in this way, they will also have different gradients of hierarchy. When food is scarce, groups with the steepest hierarchy may have the best chance to survive, because at least a small number of individuals in such a group may succeed in producing offspring, whereas in egalitarian societies every individual is at risk of being insufficiently fed to reproduce. Therefore, intrademic group selection (selection within an interbreeding group) may have contributed to the evolution of despotic societies. N1 -
|
|
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis.
|
|
Silk, J. B. (2002). Kin Selection in Primate Groups. Int. J. Primatol., 23(4), 849–875.
Abstract: Altruism poses a problem for evolutionary biologists because natural selection is not expected to favor behaviors that are beneficial to recipients, but costly to actors. The theory of kin selection, first articulated by Hamilton (1964), provides a solution to the problem. Hamilton's well-known rule (br > c) provides a simple algorithm for the evolution of altruism via kin selection. Because kin recognition is a crucial requirement of kin selection, it is important to know whether and how primates can recognize their relatives. While conventional wisdom has been that primates can recognize maternal kin, but not paternal kin, this view is being challenged by new findings. The ability to recognize kin implies that kin selection may shape altruistic behavior in primate groups. I focus on two cases in which kin selection is tightly woven into the fabric of social life. For female baboons, macaques, and vervets maternal kinship is an important axis of social networks, coalitionary activity, and dominance relationships. Detailed studies of the patterning of altruistic interactions within these species illustrate the extent and limits of nepotism in their social lives. Carefully integrated analyses of behavior, demography, and genetics among red howlers provide an independent example of how kin selection shapes social organization and behavior. In red howlers, kin bonds shape the life histories and reproductive performance of both males and female. The two cases demonstrate that kin selection can be a powerful source of altruistic activity within primate groups. However, to fully assess the role of kin selection in primate groups, we need more information about the effects of kinship on the patterning of behavior across the Primates and accurate information about paternal kin relationships.
Keywords: Biomedical and Life Sciences
|
|
Parrish, J. K., Viscido, S. V., & Grunbaum, D. (2002). Self-Organized Fish Schools: An Examination of Emergent Properties. Biol Bull, 202(3), 296–305.
Abstract: Heterogeneous, “aggregated” patterns in the spatial distributions of individuals are almost universal across living organisms, from bacteria to higher vertebrates. Whereas specific features of aggregations are often visually striking to human eyes, a heuristic analysis based on human vision is usually not sufficient to answer fundamental questions about how and why organisms aggregate. What are the individual-level behavioral traits that give rise to these features? When qualitatively similar spatial patterns arise from purely physical mechanisms, are these patterns in organisms biologically significant, or are they simply epiphenomena that are likely characteristics of any set of interacting autonomous individuals? If specific features of spatial aggregations do confer advantages or disadvantages in the fitness of group members, how has evolution operated to shape individual behavior in balancing costs and benefits at the individual and group levels? Mathematical models of social behaviors such as schooling in fishes provide a promising avenue to address some of these questions. However, the literature on schooling models has lacked a common framework to objectively and quantitatively characterize relationships between individual-level behaviors and group-level patterns. In this paper, we briefly survey similarities and differences in behavioral algorithms and aggregation statistics among existing schooling models. We present preliminary results of our efforts to develop a modeling framework that synthesizes much of this previous work, and to identify relationships between behavioral parameters and group-level statistics. N1 -
|
|
Seeley, T. D. (2002). When Is Self-Organization Used in Biological Systems? Biol Bull, 202(3), 314–318.
Abstract: Self-organization, or decentralized control, is widespread in biological systems, including cells, organisms, and groups. It is not, however, the universal means of organization. I argue that a biological system will be self-organized when it possesses a large number of subunits, and these subunits lack either the communicational abilities or the computational abilities, or both, that are needed to implement centralized control. Such control requires a well informed and highly intelligent supervisor. I stress that the subunits in a self-organized system do not necessarily have low cognitive abilities. A lack of preadaptations for evolving a system-wide communication network can prevent the evolution of centralized control. Hence, sometimes even systems whose subunits possess high cognitive abilities will be self-organized. N1 -
|
|
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., James, R., Ruxton, G. D., & Franks, N. R. (2002). Collective Memory and Spatial Sorting in Animal Groups. J. Theor. Biol., 218(1), 1–11.
Abstract: We present a self-organizing model of group formation in three-dimensional space, and use it to investigate the spatial dynamics of animal groups such as fish schools and bird flocks. We reveal the existence of major group-level behavioural transitions related to minor changes in individual-level interactions. Further, we present the first evidence for collective memory in such animal groups (where the previous history of group structure influences the collective behaviour exhibited as individual interactions change) during the transition of a group from one type of collective behaviour to another. The model is then used to show how differences among individuals influence group structure, and how individuals employing simple, local rules of thumb, can accurately change their spatial position within a group (e.g. to move to the centre, the front, or the periphery) in the absence of information on their current position within the group as a whole. These results are considered in the context of the evolution and ecological importance of animal groups.
|
|
Rogers, L. J. (2002). Evolution of Side Biases: Motor versus Sensory Lateralization. In M. K. Mandal, M. B. Bulman-Fleming, & G. Tiwari (Eds.), Side Bias: A Neuropsychological Perspective (3-p. 40). Springer Netherlands.
|
|
Dingemanse, N. J., Both, C., Drent, P. J., van Oers, K., & van Noordwijk, A. J. (2002). Repeatability and heritability of exploratory behaviour in great tits from the wild. Anim. Behav., 64(6), 929–938.
Abstract: We investigated whether individual great tits, Parus major, vary consistently in their exploratory behaviour in a novel environment and measured the repeatability and heritability of this trait. Wild birds were caught in their natural habitat, tested in the laboratory in an open field test on the following morning, then released at the capture site. We measured individual consistency of exploratory behaviour for recaptured individuals (repeatability) and estimated the heritability with parent-offspring regressions and sibling analyses. Measures of exploratory behaviour of individuals at repeated captures were consistent in both sexes and study areas (repeatabilities ranged from 0.27 to 0.48). Exploration scores did not differ between the sexes, and were unrelated to age, condition at fledging or condition during measurement. Heritability estimates were 0.22-0.41 (parent-offspring regressions) and 0.37-0.40 (sibling analyses). We conclude that (1) consistent individual variation in open field behaviour exists in individuals from the wild, and (2) this behavioural variation is heritable. This is one of the first studies showing heritable variation in a behavioural trait in animals from the wild, and poses the question of how this variation is maintained under natural conditions. Copyright 2002 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
Barton, R. (2002). The evolutionary ecolgy of the primate brain. In P. C. Lee (Ed.), Comparative Primate Socioecology (pp. 167–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
Garamszegi, L. Z., Møller, A. P., & Erritzøe, J. (2002). Coevolving avian eye size and brain size in relation to prey capture and nocturnality. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 269(1494), 961–967.
Abstract: Behavioural adaptation to ecological conditions can lead to brain size evolution. Structures involved in behavioural visual information processing are expected to coevolve with enlargement of the brain. Because birds are mainly vision–oriented animals, we tested the predictions that adaptation to different foraging constraints can result in eye size evolution, and that species with large eyes have evolved large brains to cope with the increased amount of visual input. Using a comparative approach, we investigated the relationship between eye size and brain size, and the effect of prey capture technique and nocturnality on these traits. After controlling for allometric effects, there was a significant, positive correlation between relative brain size and relative eye size. Variation in relative eye and brain size were significantly and positively related to prey capture technique and nocturnality when a potentially confounding variable, aquatic feeding, was controlled statistically in multiple regression of independent linear contrasts. Applying a less robust, brunching approach, these patterns also emerged, with the exception that relative brain size did not vary with prey capture technique. Our findings suggest that relative eye size and brain size have coevolved in birds in response to nocturnal activity and, at least partly, to capture of mobile prey.
Keywords: adaptation; behaviour; brain size; coevolution; eye size; vision
|