Sibling competition and cooperation over parental care
Sibling competition and cooperation over parental care
复制标题
兄弟姐妹在父母照顾方面的竞争与合作
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Dreiss
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Roulin;A. Dreiss
直到20世纪60年代和70年代，进化生物学家认为家庭互动是和谐的，父母会最大限度地增加后代的存活数量(缺少1947年)。然而，在亲属选择和亲子关系信通技术(flflICT)理论发展之后(哈密尔顿，1964年；特里弗斯，1974)，很明显，家庭成员可能在父母资源的分配上有共同的利益，而且这种欺诈fl信通技术可能在兄弟姐妹之间特别暴力。兄弟姐妹竞争指的是兄弟姐妹之间争夺有限的父母资源(方框8.1)。兄弟姐妹竞争的原因源于子女对父母的需求--他们从父母那里获得的资源比父母愿意提供的资源更多。这种资源的供需不匹配是三个关键的生活史策略(Stearns 1992)的结果。首先，因为生殖活动是昂贵的，所以选择亲本在不同的生殖事件之间优化分配资源，而不是在当前的尝试中最大限度地努力。第二，父母面临着后代数量和质量之间的权衡，因此他们通常通过产生几个中等质量的后代来最大化他们的fi，而不是通过产生更少的更高质量的后代。第三，父母生下的子女往往比他们能够养育的独立子女多，这要么是因为资源变得比父母预期的更稀缺，要么是因为边缘子女是为了防止核心子女过早失败而创造的(福布斯1991)。资源的分配导致了家庭成员之间三种形式的flICT：兄弟姐妹之间相互竞争共享资源(本章)，后代与他们的父母就父母应该在提供的资源上投入多少达成一致(第7章)，在有双亲照顾的物种中，母亲和父亲正在决定双方应该承担多少努力(第9章)。观察到即使是关系密切的个体也在激烈地争夺资源，这在乍一看似乎是违反直觉的。阿拉伯谚语“我反对我的兄弟，我和我的兄弟，反对我的堂兄弟，我和我的兄弟，我的堂兄弟反对陌生人”这句阿拉伯谚语很好地说明了，即使个人经常支持近亲，兄弟姐妹也可能在有限的共享资源有限的有限空间里进行欺诈fiNed的竞争。因此，在对亲属进行利他行为以获得间接遗传益处和与他们竞争以获得直接物质好处之间存在权衡(MockfiParker 1997；West等人)。2002年)。这使得对兄弟姐妹之间的相互作用的研究面临着从合作到fiErce竞争的挑战(Drummond 2001；Roulin 2002)，因此它可以帮助理解近亲之间SelfiShness和利他主义的演变(方框8.1)。正如莫克和帕克(1997)所强调的那样，汉密尔顿的亲缘选择理论不仅设定了促进利他主义的条件，而且还规定了自我行为的进化极限。遵循汉密尔顿的规则，当利他主义的好处乘以利他主义捐赠者和接受者之间的相关性系数fifi超过其成本时，编码利他主义的等位基因将在人群中传播。相反，相反的哈密尔顿规则指出，如果选择fi的好处fits超过受害者的利益乘以fi的系数fi，则编码sel的等位基因将传播。
Until the 1960s and 1970s, evolutionary biologistsenvisioned family interactions as harmonious, withparents maximizing the number of surviving off-spring (Lack 1947). However, after the developmentof the theories of kin selection and parent–offspringconflict (Hamilton 1964; Trivers 1974), it becameevident that family members might have conflict-ing interests concerning the allocation of parentalresources and that such conflicts may be partic-ularly violent between siblings. Sibling competi-tion refers to rivalry between siblings over accessto limited parental resources (Box 8.1). The causeof sibling rivalry stems from offspring demand-ing more resources from their parents than par-ents are willing to supply. This mis-match betweensupply and demand of resources is the outcomeof three key life history strategies (Stearns 1992).First, because reproductive activities are costly, par-ents are selected to optimally allocate resourcesbetween the different reproductive events ratherthan to maximize effort at the current attempt.Second, parents face a trade-off between offspringnumber and quality, and hence they usually max-imize their fitness by producing several medium-quality offspring rather than by producing fewerhigher-quality offspring. Third, parents often cre-ate more offspring than they can rear to inde-pendence either because resources become scarcerthan anticipated by the parents or because marginaloffspring are created as an insurance against earlyfailure of the core offspring (Forbes 1991). Thelimitation of resources leads to three forms ofconflict between family members: siblings com-pete among each other to share resources (thischapter), offspring are in conflict with their par-ents over how much parents should invest in pro-viding resources (Chapter 7), and in species withbiparental care the mother and father are in conflictover how much effort each party should assume(Chapter 9).The observation that even closely related indi-viduals compete intensely for resources may seemcounterintuitive at first sight. The Arabic proverb ‘Iagainst my brothers, my brothers and I against mycousins and I, my brothers, and my cousins againstthe strangers’ perfectly illustrates that even thoughindividuals often support close relatives, siblingsmay compete when confined in a restricted spacewhere shared resources are limited. There is thusa trade-off between behaving altruistically towardsrelatives to derive indirect genetic benefits and com-peting with them to obtain direct material bene-fits (Mock and Parker 1997; West et al. 2002). Thismakes the study of sibling interactions challeng-ing as such interactions range from cooperation tofierce competition (Drummond 2001; Roulin 2002),and hence it can help understand the evolution ofselfishness and altruism among close relatives (Box8.1). As emphasized by Mock and Parker (1997),Hamilton’s kin selection theory not only sets theconditions promoting altruism but also specifies theevolutionary limits on selfish behaviour. FollowingHamilton’s rule an allele coding for altruism willspread in a population when the benefit of beingaltruistic multiplied by the coefficient of related-ness between the altruistic donor and its recipientexceeds its costs. Conversely, the inverse Hamil-ton’s rule states that an allele coding for selfishnesswill spread if the benefits of being selfish exceed thecosts to the victim multiplied by the coefficient of
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Royle, Nick J.;Schuett, Wiebke;Dall, Sasha R. X.
通讯作者：
Dall, Sasha R. X.