Résultat de la recherche
Distinguishing four fundamental approaches to the evolution of helping
The evolution and stability of helping behaviour has attracted great research efforts across disciplines. However, the field is also characterized by a great confusion over terminology and a number of disagreements, often between disciplines but also along taxonomic boundaries. In an attempt to clarify several issues, we identify four distinct research fields concerning the evolution of helping: (1) basic social evolution theory that studies helping within the framework of Hamilton’s inclusive fitness concept, i.e. direct and indirect benefits, (2) an ecological approach that identifies settings that promote life histories or interaction patterns that favour unconditional cooperative and altruistic behaviour, e.g. conditions that lead to interdependency or interactions among kin, (3) the game theoretic approach that identifies strategies that provide feedback and control mechanisms (protecting from cheaters) favouring cooperative behaviour (e.g. pseudo-reciprocity, reciprocity), and (4) the social scientists’ approach that particularly emphasizes the special cognitive requirements necessary for human cooperative strategies. The four fields differ with respect to the ‘mechanisms’ and the ‘conditions’ favouring helping they investigate. Other major differences concern a focus on either the life-time fitness consequences or the immediate payoff consequences of behaviour, and whether the behaviour of an individual or a whole interaction is considered. We suggest that distinguishing between these four separate fields and their complementary approaches will reduce misunderstandings, facilitating further integration of concepts within and across disciplines.
Differences in Diet Between Six Neighbouring Groups of Vervet Monkeys
The comparative approach provides a powerful tool to study evolutionary questions on both intra- and interspecific variation. It has been applied to a great variety of taxa, including primates. Primate studies differ from those on most other taxa in two ways: first, data from most study sites contain information about only one group. Second, primatologists have used the comparative approach also to identify local traditions, that is, behaviours that spread through social learning. Here, we evaluate the appropriateness of such data by comparing the diet composition of six neighbouring groups of vervet monkeys, Cercopithecus aethiops. We used scan samples to collect diet data, and abundance measures and phenology to assess the availability of the 14 most important tree species utilised during the study. We calculated indices of diet overlap, which were highly variable and could be remarkably low. Furthermore, we found significant differences between group diets with respect to the relative utilisation of 13 of the 14 tree species. For all 13 species, we found positive correlations between local abundance and appearance in the diet, consistent with the importance of local ecology for diet composition. Nevertheless, more detailed comparisons of pairs of groups often revealed significant mismatches between the relative importance of a tree species and its local abundance. In conclusion, local variation merits increased attention by primatologists. While our results are compatible with the possibility that traditions exist on a local (group) rather than population scale, alternative explanations have to be considered.