CommentaryPartner preferences in by-product mutualisms and the case of predator inspection in fish
References (0)
Cited by (33)
Reciprocal cooperation in avian mobbing: playing nice pays
2008, Trends in Ecology and EvolutionAnimal Cognition: Rooks Team up to Solve a Problem
2008, Current BiologyCitation Excerpt :Of particular interest for cognitive scientists are systems in which individuals flexibly decide whether or not to cooperate in a given situation and selectively choose among potential cooperation partners that possess different qualities. Such flexible decisions have been described for species of different taxonomic groups, ranging from mammals to birds and fish, that team up for accessing food, raising young, avoiding predators and defending resources [3–5]. Well-known examples are the cooperative hunting of carnivores [6] and coalition formation during fights in primates [7].
Does defection during predator inspection affect social structure in wild shoals of guppies?
2008, Animal BehaviourCitation Excerpt :The free-shoaling nature of our set-up prevented teasing apart the partner preferences of individual fish but future work should seek to explore this. Fifth, it has been proposed that cooperation in predator inspection may be a form of by-product mutualism (Connor 1996; Stephens et al. 1997). Unlike reciprocal altruism, in this theory, inspection is individually more beneficial than observing the inspection of another, removing the temptation to defect.
Invested, extracted and byproduct benefits: A modified scheme for the evolution of cooperation
2007, Behavioural ProcessesSynergy and discounting of cooperation in social dilemmas
2006, Journal of Theoretical BiologyRisk and reciprocity in Meriam food sharing
2002, Evolution and Human Behavior
- f1
Correspondence: R. C. Connor, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, U.S.A. (email: [email protected]).