IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v21y2010i2p284-303.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolutionary forces favoring intragroup coalitions among spotted hyenas and other animals

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer E. Smith
  • Russell C. Van Horn
  • Katherine S. Powning
  • Alison R. Cole
  • Katharine E. Graham
  • Sandra K. Memenis
  • Kay E. Holekamp

Abstract

Coalitionary support in agonistic interactions represents cooperation because intervening in a fight is potentially costly to the donor of support but benefits the recipient. Here, we first review the characteristics of, and evolutionary forces favoring, intragroup coalitions in 49 species and find that patterns of intragroup coalition formation are remarkably similar between primates and nonprimates. We then test hypotheses suggesting kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and direct benefits as adaptive explanations for coalitionary interventions among adult female spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) belonging to a large social group in Kenya. As predicted by kin selection theory, females supported close kin most often, and the density (connectedness) of cooperation networks increased with genetic relatedness. Nevertheless, kinship failed to protect females from coalitionary attacks. We found no evidence of enduring alliances based on reciprocal support among unrelated adult females. Instead, donors generally minimized costs to themselves, intervening most often during low-intensity fights and when feeding opportunities were unavailable. Females also gained direct benefits from directing coalitionary attacks toward subordinates. Finally, females monitored the number of dominant bystanders in the "audience" at fights and modified their level of cooperation based on this knowledge. Overall, hyenas made flexible decisions regarding whether or not to intervene in fights, modifying their tendency to cooperate based on multiple types of information about their immediate social and ecological environments. Taken together, these findings indicate that the combined evolutionary forces of kin selection and direct benefits derived from reinforcing the status quo drive coalitionary interventions among adult female spotted hyenas. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer E. Smith & Russell C. Van Horn & Katherine S. Powning & Alison R. Cole & Katharine E. Graham & Sandra K. Memenis & Kay E. Holekamp, 2010. "Evolutionary forces favoring intragroup coalitions among spotted hyenas and other animals," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(2), pages 284-303.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:21:y:2010:i:2:p:284-303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arp181
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Annie Bissonnette & Mathias Franz & Oliver Schülke & Julia Ostner, 2014. "Socioecology, but not cognition, predicts male coalitions across primates," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(4), pages 794-801.
    2. Jennifer E Smith & B Natterson-Horowitz & Michael E Alfaro, 2022. "The nature of privilege: intergenerational wealth in animal societies [Intergenerational wealth transmission and the dynamics of inequality in small-scale societies]," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(1), pages 1-6.
    3. Matthieu Barbier & James R Watson, 2016. "The Spatial Dynamics of Predators and the Benefits and Costs of Sharing Information," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Jessica L. Barker & Pat Barclay & H. Kern Reeve, 2012. "Within-group competition reduces cooperation and payoffs in human groups," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 735-741.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:21:y:2010:i:2:p:284-303. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.