Back

Evolution of sex differences in cooperation:the role of trade-offs with dispersal

Capilla-Lasheras, P.; Bircher, N.; Brown, A.; Harrison, X.; Reed, T. E.; York, J.; Cram, D.; Rutz, C.; Walker, L.; Naguib, M.; Young, A.

2024-01-06 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2023.09.13.557370 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AbstractExplaining the evolution of sex differences in cooperation remains a major challenge. Comparative studies highlight that offspring of the more philopatric sex tend to be more cooperative within their family groups than those of the more dispersive sex but we do not understand why. The leading Philopatry hypothesis proposes that the more philopatric sex cooperates more because their higher likelihood of natal breeding increases the direct fitness benefits of natal cooperation. However, the Dispersal trade-off hypothesis proposes that the more dispersive sex cooperates less because preparations for dispersal, such as extra-territorial prospecting, trade-off against natal cooperation. Here, we test both hypotheses in cooperatively breeding white-browed sparrow weavers (Plocepasser mahali), using a novel high-resolution automated radio-tracking method. First, we show that males are the more dispersive sex (a rare reversal of the typical avian sex-difference in dispersal) and that, consistent with the predictions of both hypotheses, females contribute substantially more than males to cooperative care while within the natal group. However, the Philopatry hypothesis cannot readily explain this female-biased cooperation, as females are not more likely than males to breed within their natal group. Instead, our radio-tracking findings support the Dispersal trade-off hypothesis: males conduct pre-dispersal extra-territorial prospecting forays at higher rates than females and prospecting appears to trade-off against natal cooperation. Our findings thus highlight that the evolution of sex differences in cooperation could be widely attributable to trade-offs between cooperation and dispersal; a potentially general explanation that does not demand that cooperation yields direct fitness benefits.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
47.6%
2
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
3
Current Biology
665 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.3%
4
Biology Letters
76 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.8%
5
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.0%
6
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.0%
7
The American Naturalist
125 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.0%
8
Ecology Letters
135 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
9
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
10
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
11
Evolution Letters
85 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.0%
12
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.0%
13
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.6%
14
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.1%
17
Animal Behaviour
73 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
18
Behavioral Ecology
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
19
Functional Ecology
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 80%
0.6%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.6%