|
Chapter Outline
|
Chapter 60: Behavioral Ecology
|
60.0 Introduction
- The Adaptiveness of Behavior
- The Function of Behavior
Is Its Survival Value
- Behavior Allows Animal
to Increase Its Reproductive Success fig 60.1
60.1 Evolutionary forces shape
behavior
- Behavioral Ecology
- Behavior Has Survival Value
- Evolutionary analysis of how behavior
helps an animal or its offspring stay alive
- Example: Tinbergen's gull egg shell
experiments fig 60.2
- Gull parents remove hatched eggshells from
nest
- If broken shells replaced, predation increased
- White shell interior cues predators
- Shell removal behavior is adaptive, increases
survival of offspring
- Behavioral
ecology is the study of how natural selection shapes behavior
- Adaptive
significance of behavior
- How
behavior increases survival and reproduction
- Recent
studies examine animal's fitness or reproductive success
- How
behavior is related to fitness = study of adaptation itself
- Natural
selection acts on genetic component of behavioral differences
- Behavior
favoring reproductive success becomes more prevalent fig
60.3
- Test
hypothesis by measuring fitness, demonstrating its correlation with
behavior
- May
also measure other factors associated with reproduction
- Foraging
Behavior
- Specialists
versus Generalists
- Specialists feed on only
one kind of food
- Example: Some ants eat
only spider eggs
- Example: Oystercatchers
feed on only mussels fig 60.4
- Generalists feed on many
different kinds of food
- Example: Some insects
eat leaves of a wide variety of plants
- Not as efficient as specialists
at catching any one kind of food
- Take advantage of finding
many different varieties
- Foraging trade-offs between
food energy content and availablilty
- Large food contains more
energy, harder to capture, less abundant
- Net energy = energy of
prey - energy cost of pursuit and handling
- Optimal foraging theory
- Expect evolution to favor
foraging efficiency
- Feed on prey that maximizes
energy intake per unit foraging time fig 60.5
- Predictions made by optimal
foraging theory
- Where animal will search
for food
- How long animal stays
in one area before moving to another
- Animals cannot always
maximize energy intake
- Nutrition and variety
of food must be considered
- Compromises made
because of predation by others
- Predator-Prey
Arms Race
- Predators
evolve greater effectiveness in catching prey
- Prey
evolve to better deter being preyed upon
- Prey
defense mechanisms of camouflage, mimicry, active defense
- Often
exploit behavior of predator
- Batesian
mimics protected by convergent color
- Predator
avoids attacking prey that resemble mimic's model
- Predators
increase ability to detect cryptic prey through learning
- Blue
jay trained through operant conditioning
- Finds
image of cryptically colored moth in photographic slide
- Bird
received reward for seeing moth
- Performance
improved if one species of prey shown
- Unable
to increase performance if two species shown in slides
- Specialist
predators can learn to perceive cryptic prey
- Generalist
predators unable to learn
60.2
Reproductive behavior involves many choices influenced by natural selection
- Territorial
Behavior
- Animals
Move Over a Large Area
- Home
range: Daily activity site
- May
overlap with others in time or space
- Portion
of range is exclusive and actively defended
- Territoriality fig
60.6
- Individual
exclusively uses area with some limited resource
- Resources
may include food or potential mates
- Defense
of area via displays or overt aggression
- Example;
Bird song to defend territory
- Done
to prevent takeover of territory by neighboring birds
- Intruders
not deterred may be attacked
- Defense
of territory has cost
- Singing
is energetically expensive
-
Attacks can lead to injury
- Advertisement
by song or display may attract predators
- Economic
risks of territorial behavior
- Energy
costs versus energy benefits
- Example:
Flowers and nectar-feeding birds fig 60.7
- Cost
depends on amount of food available, efficiency of collection
-
If flowers scarce, not worth defending since they do not provide enough
energy
-
If abundant, not worth defending, easy to get enough energy
-
Defense practical for only for intermediate quantity of flowers
- The Ecology
of Reproduction
- Decisions
Made About Mate Choice During Breeding Season
- Reproductive
strategy: Behaviors that maximize reproductive success
- Include
mate choice, number of mates and parental care
-
Evolved in response to ecology, food resources, nest sites, distribution
of mates
- Mate
choice first observed by Darwin fig 60.8
- Males
and females differ in reproductive strategies
- Female's
evaluate male's quality, decide whether or not to mate
- Superior
mates should leave more offspring
- Measurement
of mate quality
- Good
genes passed to offspring
-
Material gains like food resources or nesting sites
- Parental
Investment and Mate Choice
- Question
which sex should show mate choice
- Compare
contributions of each parent to raising offspring
- Estimate
energy spent by male and female in offspring care
- Parent
with the greatest cost should make choice for mate
- Females
generally show higher parental investment
- Size
of gametes: Egg significantly larger than sperm
- Nutritional
value of gametes: Egg more than sperm
- Care
costly to females that gestate and lactate
- Males
may show mate choice if they have high parental investment
- Example:
Male cricket spermatophore = 30% of body weight
- Provides
nutrition for female2) Helps develop eggs
- Females
compete for males
- Males
choose large females to produce more offspring fig 60.9
- Males
make investment by defending and feeding young
- Reproductive
Competition and Sexual Selection
- Reproductive
Competition
- Competitive
interactions over access to mates
- Females
frequently choose largest male as mate
- May
be associated with competition between other males
- Larger
males win disputes over smaller, younger males
- Larger
males more successful at defending territory used as nesting site
- Few
males in population may sire most of offspring fig 60.10
- Competition
does not always involve aggression
- Example:
Elaborate feathers and vocalizations of male bird of paradise
- Females
choose most impressive male
- Impressive
feathers, vocalizations may pose survival problem for male fig
60.11
- Males
become more conspicuous to predators
- Male
survival therefore placed at risk
- Process
not a natural selection process
- Sexual
selection involved in evolution of male ornamentation
- Involves
intrasexual selection, between individuals of same sex
- Involves
intersexual selection, choice of mate
- Causes
development of secondary sexual characteristics fig 60.12
- Exaggeration
of trait could occur if mate showed preference for that trait
- Tail
length in males increases as long as females choose it
- Choice
of tail length stops when it decreases their survival
- Secondary
sexual characteristics may reflect true quality
- May
advertise superior genes
- Resistance
to parasites reflected in bright coloration
- Symmetry
greater in longer feathers, symmetry indicates ability to resist stress
- Evolution
of courtship displays
- Female
predisposition to be stimulated by certain signals
- Signals
include color, vocalization, body ornaments
- Males
evolve attractive signal by exploiting females response to signals
- Example:
Frog vocalizations fig 60.11
- Males
add notes to make signals more attractive to females
- Added
notes not used by ancestral species
-
Females still find added notes attractive
-
Female sensory system reaction fostered evolution of notes by male
- The
Benefits of Mate Choice
- Individual
receives mate's good genes to promote survival and fitness of offspring
- Example:
Fruit flies
- More
progeny survive when female fruit flies choose mates
- Fewer
survive when mates chosen at random
- Example:
Spadefoot toads
- Females
select large males for mates
-
Sperm from large males produce tadpoles that mature more rapidly
-
Tadpoles more likely to metamorphose before pond dries up
- Genes
coding for survival passed from males to offspring
-
Mate may provide resources needed for reproduction
- Territory
male defends contain high quality resources
- May
include nutritional materials or nesting sites
- Few
excellent long-term studies of mating behavior and reproductive success
- Example:
Red deer
- Size,
age, territory defense ability, number of females critical to male
reproductive success
- Female
success determined by quality of feeding grasses, time of birth, longevity
- Mating
Systems
- Species
Variation in Number of Individuals Mated With
- Three
primary mating systems
- Monogamy:
One male to one female fig 60.13
- Polygamy:
One male to more than one female fig 60.14
- Polyandry:
One female to more than one male
- System
evolves to maximize reproductive fitness, influenced by ecology
- Area
with enough resources can support more than one female
- If
quality of area varies, female is better off with already paired male
in good area, than unpaired male in poor area
- Needs
of young also constrain mating decisions
- Monogamy
favored if both parents needed
- Altricial
young need extensive care, both parents needed (monogamy)
- Precocial
young require little care, decreasing need for males (polygamy)
- Timing
of female reproduction also affects mating system
- All
females receptive at same time, males unable to secure large number
of mates
- May
dictate whether males can take advantage of ecological opportunities
60.3
There is considerable controversy about the evolution of social behavior
- The Evolution
of Animal Societies
- Most
Animals Live in Social Groups
- Society:
Cooperative group of individuals of same species
- Sociobiology:
Biological basis of social behavior
- Study
animal social behavior as biological process
- Has
genetic basis shaped by evolution
- Predicts
that behavioral characteristics are adaptive and suited to mode of living
- Group
Living
- Is
basically a selfish behavior
- Results
in greater protection from predators fig 60.15
- Individual
may acquire feeding information from others
- Disadvantages
- Parasites
and disease spreads more readily
- Must
balance disadvantages and advantages
- Example:
Cliff swallows fig 60.16
- Large
groups have increased feeding rates
- Greater
number of young succumb to ectoparasites
- The
Evolution of Altruism
- Altruism:
Self-sacrificing behavior
- Important
aspect of cooperation
- Involved
with assisting other individuals in reproducing
- Group
selection incorrectly used to explain regulation of population size
- Non-territorial,
non-mating males don't reproduction to limit population size
- Good
for species, as not to exhaust limited resources
- Flaw:
Altruistic trait could not be passed to next generation since male with
trait does not reproduce
- Reciprocity
- Partnership
formed to exchange altruistic acts
- Reciprocal
altruism: Altruists are mutually reciprocated
- Individuals
of altruistic pair are unrelated
- Share
no common genes
- Non-reciprocators
are cut off from receiving future aid
- If
altruistic act is inexpensive, gain to cheater is not worth future lack
of reciprocation
- Example:
Vampire bats fig 60.16
- Bats
that have fed well give up small amount to roostmate
- Individual
that does not reciprocate excluded from future sharing
- Kin
Selection
- Haldane's
remark to lay down his life for two brothers or eight first cousins
- Shares
50% of genes with brothers
- Passes
on as many genes as eight first cousins, each shares 1/8 of his genes
- Hamilton's
theory: Evolution favors strategy that increases net flow of a combination
of genes to the
next generation
- Costs
and benefits of altruism
- Direct
aid to kin = reduction in own fitness outweighed by increased reproductive
success of relatives
- Selection
favors behavior maximizing propagation of alleles
- Kin
selection theory: Favor propagation of genes by directing altruism to
relatives
- Inclusive
fitness: Genes propagated by reproduction plus effect of help on reproducing
by relatives
- Does
not equal number of direct genes via own offspring plus genes from
non-offspring relatives
-
Fitness has both personal and kin-selected components
-
Altruism is likely to be directed to close relatives
-
Hamilton's rule: b/c > 1/r
-
b = benefit of altruistic act
-
c = cost of altruistic act
- r
= coefficient of relatedness
- Insect
Societies
- Organization
of Eusocial Insect Societies
- Composition
of a honeybee hive fig 60.17
- Single
queen, sole egg-layer
- Up
to 50,000 offspring of queen, mostly female workers with nonfunctional
ovaries
- Sterility
of workers is altruistic
-
Offspring give up reproduction to help mother rear more sisters
- Sociality
evolved in two insect orders
- Hymenoptera
include ants, bees, wasps
- Isoptera
includes termites
- Eusocial
insects are truly social with division of labor
- Include
all ants, some bees, some wasps, all termites
- Division
of reproductive labor (fertile queen, sterile workers)
- Provide
cooperative care of brood
- Have
overlap of generations, queen lives alongside offspring
- Composed
of castes, highly integrated groups of individuals
- Possess
haplodiploidy system of sex determination
- Workers
share as much as 75% of genes
- Males
are haploid, females are diploid
- Altruism
allows workers to maximize inclusive fitness
- Queen
maintains dominance by "queen substance" pheromone
- Suppresses
ovaries in female workers, makes them sterile workers
- Male
drones produced only for mating
- With
hive growth in spring, some females do not receive enough queen substance
- Colony
prepares for swarming
-
Workers establish several queen chambers
-
Old queen and some females workers move to a new hive
-
New queens battle, winner mates and rules old hive
- Natural
History of Leaf Cutter Ants
- Colonies
of millions of ants grow crops of fungi underground from leaf pieces
- Division
of labor related to worker size fig 60.18
- Workers
travel from nest to tree or bush, cut leaves into small pieces, carry
to nest
- Smaller
workers chew leaves into mulch
- Still
smaller workers implant fungal hyphae into mulch
- Nurse
workers carry larvae to choice spots in fungal garden to graze
- Queens
produced that disperse from parent nest and start new colonies
- Few
other invertebrates are eusocial
- Species
of shrimp that lives in sponge
- Also
some thrips and a species of weevil
- Support
theory of cooperation proposed by kin selection
60.4
Vertebrates exhibit a broad range of social behaviors
- Vertebrate
Societies
- Vertebrate
Societies Are Less Rigidly Organized than Insect Societies
- Vertebrates
have larger brains, more complex behavior
- Exhibit
lower degree of altruism
- Apparently
due to lower amount of shared genes
- Maximum
shared 50%
- Social
systems still show reciprocity and kin-selected altruism
- Exhibit
greater degree of conflict and aggression within society
- Conflicts
center around food resources and mates
- Altruism
in Vertebrates
- Cooperative
breeding systems in birds
- Example:
Scrubjays
- Helpers
at the nest assist one breeding pair
- Help
feed offspring, watch for predators, defend territory
- Can
reproduce but do not for a period of time
- Nest
with helpers have more offspring tbl 60.1
-
Helpers are often fledged offspring of those they help
-
Resembles family situation
- Example:
White-fronted bee-eaters
- Nests
located on face of cliff
-
Up to 25 families comprise single colony
-
Helpers assist breeding pairs
-
More likely to help when greater degree of relatedness
- Example:
African kingfishers
- Helpers
may be related or unrelated to assisted breeding pair
- Pursue
different breeding strategies
- Evolution
of cooperative breeding explained via inclusive fitness concept
- Vertebrate
sociality
- Activity
of certain individuals benefit group at expense to individual
- Individual
exposed to predators, environment
-
Draws attention to self, thus exposed to greater danger than non-sentries
-
Behavior seems contrary to individual's self-interest
- Example:
Meerkat alarm calling fig 60.3
- Individuals
act as sentries for group
-
May give alarm call when predator sighted
-
Draws attention to itself to protect others
-
Places self in jeopardy, reveals own location
- Example:
Belding's ground squirrel alarm calling
- Alarm
call given when predator sighted, caller at risk
- Colonies
female-based, males not related to any females
- Females
with relatives nearby more likely to sound alarm than females with no
kin nearby
- Alarm
calling represents nepotism, favors relatives
- Evolution
of system explained by kin selection model
- Organization
of Vertebrate Societies
- Vertebrate
societies have characteristic organization fig 60.19
- Group
has certain size, stability of members
- Characteristic
number of breeding males and females
- Specific
type of mating system
- Social
organization of group influenced by ecological factors, food type and predation
- Example:
African weaver birds
- Forest
species
- Builds
camouflaged solitary nest
-
Monogamous mating
- Eat
and feed young with insects
- Savanna
species fig 60.20
- Nest
in colonies in trees
-
Polygynous mating
- Feed
in flocks on seeds
- Feeding
and nesting depend on area ecology
- Hiding
nest not an option on open savanna
- Protection
on savanna via colonial nesting in rare spiny trees
-
Abundant seeds readily collected by single female, male's help not needed
-
Males freed from parenting, compete with other males, breed more females
- Example:
Naked mole rats
- Organized
very much like insect societies
- Form
large underground colonies, running tunnels, central nesting area
- May
contain up to 80 individuals in one colony
-
Feed on bulbs, roots, tubers found by constant tunneling
- Have
functional division of labor
- Some
work as tunnelers, others perform other tasks depending on body size
- Large
individuals defend colony, dig tunnels
- Have
reproductive division of labor like eusocial insects
- All
breeding via single female with one or two male consorts
- Workers
are of both sexes
- Colonies
may share up to 80% of alleles, due to inbreeding
- Kin
selection important in evolution of this society
- Human Sociobiology
- Theories
of Animal Sociobiology and Human Applications
- Comparative
aspects of sociobiology
- Theoretical
concepts applied to behavior in different species
- Altruism
in different species explained by kin selection
- Social
behavior has biological basis
- Examine
human activities in same light
- Social
species with unparalleled complexity
- Only
species with intelligence to contemplate social behavior of other species
- Exhibit
kin-selected altruism, reciprocity, elaborate social contracts
- Show
extensive parental care of offspring
- Have
conflicts between parents and offspring, violence, warfare
- Possess
variety of mating systems
- Exhibit
unevolutionary behaviors like adoption
- Biological
and Cultural Evolution
- Two processes
led to adaptive change2. Biological evolution
- Primate
heritage shared with chimpanzees
- Traits
are definitely adaptive in non-human primates
- Include
kin-selected and reciprocal altruism
- Similar
traits likely evolved in early humans
- Advantage
in reproduction conferred to individuals with these traits
- Traits
now part of human genome, may influence behavior
- Cultural
evolution
- Transfer
of information needed for survival across generations
- Nongenetic
mode of adaptation
-
Includes use of tools, shelter construction, marriage practices
-
Passed from generation to generation by tradition
-
Identifying the Biological Components of Human Behavior
-
Difficult to identify
- Study
cross-cultural traits
- May
have been affected by natural selection
- May
result from genes fixed in human populations
- Examples:
- Most mammals
and human species are polygamous
- Many cultures exhibit same greeting pattern
- Development
of evolutionary psychology
- Understand
origins of human mind
- Diversity
of cultures developed from adaptations to ancestral hunter-gatherer lifestyle
- Human
behavior reflects ancient, adaptive traits
- Even
behaviors like jealousy and infidelity increased fitness of ancestors
- Traits
now part of human psyche


