Author
Listed:
- Jessica Meade
- Ben J. Hatchwell
Abstract
Helpers in cooperatively breeding species may gain direct fitness benefits that increase their survival probability and/or reproductive success. However, survival and productivity may be influenced by many other factors, including variation in dispersal, nepotistic interactions, or individual condition. High helper survival relative to nonhelpers has been reported in the long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus, a cooperative breeder where helpers are failed breeders that redirect care toward kin. Using capture-mark-recapture analysis of a long-term data set, we confirm this result and show that it is not attributable to differential dispersal. Then, using only males with first-order relatives (to control for any effects of nepotism), we investigated the survival of 3 groups of failed breeders (i.e., potential helpers): survival of helpers was highest (61%) but, contrary to predictions based on direct benefits, survival of 2 categories of nonhelpers differed; those with helping opportunities had the lowest survival rate (24%), whereas those without helping opportunities had intermediate survival (52%). We suggest that the groups varied in condition; helpers are in good condition, males with helping opportunities who did not help are in poor condition, and nonhelpers without helping opportunities comprise a mixture of birds in good and poor condition. This conclusion was supported by differences in the timing of breeding (a proxy for condition) between groups: helpers bred earliest and nonhelpers with helping opportunities bred latest. Furthermore, we found no evidence that helpers gained any future reproductive benefits. We suggest that condition rather than benefits accrued as a direct result of helping influenced helper survival. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Jessica Meade & Ben J. Hatchwell, 2010.
"No direct fitness benefits of helping in a cooperative breeder despite higher survival of helpers,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(6), pages 1186-1194.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:21:y:2010:i:6:p:1186-1194
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:6:p:1186-1194. 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.