Abstract
Group-living species show a diversity of social organization, from simple mated pairs to complex communities of interdependent individuals performing specialized tasks. The advantages of living in cooperative groups are well understood, but why some species breed in small aggregations while others evolve large, complex groups with clearly divided roles is unclear. We address this problem by reconstructing the evolutionary pathways to cooperative breeding across 4,730 bird species. We show that differences in the way groups form at the origin of cooperative breeding predicts the level of group complexity that emerges. Groups that originate through the retention of offspring have a clear reproductive divide with distinct breeder and helper roles. This is associated with reproductive specialization, where breeders invest more in fecundity and less in care. In contrast, groups formed through the aggregation of unrelated adults are smaller and lack specialization. These results help explain why some species have not transitioned beyond simple groups while others have taken the pathway to increased group complexity.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data generated and analysed during in this study are available via the Dryad Digital Repository https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sn02v6x11.
Code availability
The R code detailed all analyses in this study is available via the Dryad Digital Repository https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sn02v6x11.
References
Wilson, E. O. Sociobiology (Belknap Press, 1975).
Bourke, A. F. G. Principles of Social Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
Koenig, W. D. & Dickinson, J. L. (eds) Cooperative Breeding in Vertebrates: Studies of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).
Brown, J. L., Brown, E. R., Brown, S. D. & Dow, D. D. Helpers: effects of experimental removal on reproductive success. Science 215, 421–422 (1982).
Heinsohn, R. Cooperative enhancement of reproductive success in white-winged choughs. Evol. Ecol. 6, 97–114 (1992).
Emlen, S. T. The evolution of helping. I. An ecological constraints model. Am. Nat. 119, 29–39 (1982).
Covas, R., Plessis, du, M. A. & Doutrelant, C. Helpers in colonial cooperatively breeding sociable weavers Philetairus socius contribute to buffer the effects of adverse breeding conditions. Behav. Ecol. Sociol. 63, 103–112 (2008).
Duffy, J. E. & Macdonald, K. S. Kin structure, ecology and the evolution of social organization in shrimp: a comparative analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 575–584 (2010).
Sun, S.-J. et al. Climate-mediated cooperation promotes niche expansion in burying beetles. eLife 3, e02440 (2014).
Cornwallis, C. K. et al. Cooperation facilitates the colonization of harsh environments. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0057 (2017).
Branstetter, M. G. et al. Dry habitats were crucibles of domestication in the evolution of agriculture in ants. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170095 (2017).
Rubenstein, D. R. & Abbot, P. (eds) Comparative Social Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).
Lukas, D. & Clutton-Brock, T. Social complexity and kinship in animal societies. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1129–1134 (2018).
Heinsohn, R., Dunn, R., Legge, S. & Double, M. Coalitions of relatives and reproductive skew in cooperatively breeding white-winged choughs. Proc. R. Soc. B 267, 243–249 (2000).
Macedo, R. H. & Bianchi, C. A. Communal breeding in tropical Guira cuckoos Guira guira: sociality in the absence of a saturated habitat. J. Avian Biol. 28, 207–215 (1997).
Lima, M. R., Macedo, R. H., Muniz, L., Pacheco, A. & Graves, J. A. Group composition, mating system, and relatedness in the communally breeding Guira cuckoo (Guira guira) in central Brazil. Auk 128, 475–486 (2011).
Blackmore, C. J., Peakall, R. & Heinsohn, R. The absence of sex-biased dispersal in the cooperatively breeding grey-crowned babbler. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 69–78 (2011).
Bowen, B. D., Koford, R. R. & Vehrencamp, S. L. Dispersal in the communally breeding groove-billed ani (Crotophaga sulcirostris). Condor 91, 52–64 (1989).
West, S. A., Fisher, R. M., Gardner, A. & Kiers, E. T. Major evolutionary transitions in individuality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10112–10119 (2015).
Hamilton, W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J. Theor. Biol. 7, 1–16 (1964).
Cooper, G. A. & West, S. A. Division of labour and the evolution of extreme specialization. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1161–1167 (2018).
Hughes, W. O. H., Oldroyd, B. P., Beekman, M. & Ratnieks, F. L. W. Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science 320, 1213–1216 (2008).
Fisher, R. M., Cornwallis, C. K. & West, S. A. Group formation, relatedness, and the evolution of multicellularity. Curr. Biol. 23, 1120–1125 (2013).
Vehrencamp, S. L. A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies. Anim. Behav. 31, 667–682 (1983).
Brown, J. L. Helping and Communal Breeding in Birds (Princeton Univ. Press, 1987).
Hartley, I. R. & Davies, N. B. Limits to cooperative polyandry in birds. Proc. R. Soc. B 257, 67–73 (1994).
Stacey, P. B. & Koenig, W. D. (eds) Cooperative Breeding in Birds: Long-term Studies of Ecology and Behavior (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).
Cockburn, A. Prevalence of different modes of parental care in birds. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 1375–1383 (2006).
Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).
Riehl, C. Evolutionary routes to non-kin cooperative breeding in birds. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20132245 (2013).
Chak, S. T. C., Duffy, J. E., Hultgren, K. M. & Rubenstein, D. R. Evolutionary transitions towards eusociality in snapping shrimps. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0096 (2017).
Boomsma, J. J. Kin selection versus sexual selection: why the ends do not meet. Curr. Biol. 17, R673–R683 (2007).
Cornwallis, C. K., West, S. A., Davis, K. E. & Griffin, A. S. Promiscuity and the evolutionary transition to complex societies. Nature 466, 969–972 (2010).
Davies, N. B. Dunnock Behaviour and Social Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992)
Lukas, D. & Clutton-Brock, T. Cooperative breeding and monogamy in mammalian societies. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 2151–2156 (2012).
Koenig, W. D., Shen, S., Krakauer, A. H. & Haydock. J. in Reproductive Skew in Vertebrates: Proximate and Ultimate Causes (eds Hager, R. & Jones, C. B.) 227–264 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).
Riehl, C. Kinship and incest avoidance drive patterns of reproductive skew in cooperatively breeding birds. Am. Nat. 190, 774–785 (2017).
Heg, D. & van Treuren, R. Female–female cooperation in polygynous oystercatchers. Nature 391, 687–691 (1998).
Quinn, J. S., Haselmayer, J., Dey, C. & Jamieson, I. G. Tolerance of female co-breeders in joint-laying pukeko: the role of egg recognition and peace incentives. Anim. Behav. 83, 1035–1041 (2012).
Vehrencamp, S. L. Relative fecundity and parental effort in communally nesting anis, Crotophaga sulcirostris. Science 197, 403–405 (1977).
Stearns, S. C. The Evolution of Life Histories (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992).
Keller, L. & Genoud, M. Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of ageing. Nature 389, 958–960 (1997).
Schneirla, T. C. A comparison of species and genera in the ant subfamily Dorylinae with respect to functional pattern. Insectes Soc. 4, 259–298 (1957).
Boomsma, J. J. & Gawne, R. Superorganismality and caste differentiation as points of no return: how the major evolutionary transitions were lost in translation. Biol. Rev. 98, 28–54 (2018).
Alexander, R. D., Noonan, K. M. & Crespi, B. J. in The Biology of the Naked Mole-Rat (eds Sherman, P. W. et al.) 3–44 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1991).
Downing, P. A., Cornwallis, C. K. & Griffin, A. S. How to make a sterile helper. Bioessays 39, 1600136 (2016).
Cockburn, A. Evolution of helping behavior in cooperatively breeding birds. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29, 141–177 (1998).
Vehrencamp, S. L. Evolutionary routes to joint-female nesting in birds. Behav. Ecol. 11, 334–344 (2000).
Rubenstein, D. R., Botero, C. A. & Lacey, E. A. Discrete but variable structure of animal societies leads to the false perception of a social continuum. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160147 (2016).
Downing, P. A., Griffin, A. S. & Cornwallis, C. K. Group formation and the evolutionary pathway to complex sociality in birds. Dryad Digital Repository https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sn02v6x11 (2019).
Castro, I., Minot, E. O., Fordham, R. A. & Birkhead, T. R. Polygynandry, face-to-face copulation and sperm competition in the Hihi Notiomystis cincta (Aves: Meliphagidae). Ibis 138, 765–771 (1996).
Brekke, P., Cassey, P., Ariani, C. & Ewen, J. G. Evolution of extreme-mating behaviour: patterns of extrapair paternity in a species with forced extrapair copulation. Behav. Ecol. Sociol. 67, 963–972 (2013).
Brouwer, L. & Griffith, S. C. Extra-pair paternity in birds. Mol. Ecol. 28, 4864–4882 (2019).
Hadfield, J. D. & Nakagawa, S. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 494–508 (2010).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013).
Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7, 457–511 (1992).
Ross, L., Gardner, A., Hardy, N. & West, S. A. Ecology, not the genetics of sex determination, determines who helps in eusocial populations. Curr. Biol. 23, 2383–2387 (2013).
Pagel, M. & Meade, A. Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible‐jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. Am. Nat. 167, 808–825 (2006).
Meade, A. & Pagel, M. BayesTraits V3 Manual http://www.evolution.rdg.ac.uk/BayesTraitsV3.0.1/Files/BayesTraitsV3.Manual.pdf (2016).
Revell, L. J. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2012).
Koricheva, J., Gurevitch, J. & Mengersen, K. (eds) Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).
Rosenthal, R. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research (Sage Publications, 1991).
Acknowledgements
We thank S. West and G. Wild for providing comments on the manuscript. We also thank the Swedish research council (grant no. 2017-03880), the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (grant no. 2018.0138), a National Environment Research Council studentship and a Royal Society University Research Fellowship for funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.S.G., C.K.C. and P.A.D. conceived the study. P.A.D. designed the study and collected the data. P.A.D. and C.K.C. analysed the data. All authors contributed to writing the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 The evolution of group size.
Differences in the maximum (a) and mean (b) group sizes of family and non-family groups. Dots represent raw data for individual species with the back transformed mode and 95% CI estimated using a BPMM.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Patterns of survival in groups.
(a) The change in survival in relation to group size (Zr) in family and non-family groups. (b) The relationship between the change in survival in relation to group size (Zr) and how maternal care changes with group size (Zr). In larger family groups (blue dots) survival increases and maternal care decreases. Dots represent raw data for individual species and parameter estimates are the back transformed posterior mode and 95% CI estimated using BPMMs.
Extended Data Fig. 3
Publication bias tests and heterogeneity for each of the Fisher Z transformed correlation coefficients used as effect sizes in our study.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary methods and Tables 6–8.
Supplementary Tables
Supplementary Tables 1–5, 9 and 10.
Supplementary Data 1
Details of how each effect size used in the analyses was calculated.
Supplementary Data 2
R code needed to recreate the analyses.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Downing, P.A., Griffin, A.S. & Cornwallis, C.K. Group formation and the evolutionary pathway to complex sociality in birds. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 479–486 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1113-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1113-x
This article is cited by
-
Traffic in the sky: ranking the hazard bird species to aircraft-collision in Brazil
Ornithology Research (2024)
-
Inclusive fitness forces of selection in an age-structured population
Communications Biology (2023)
-
Cryptic kin discrimination during communal lactation in mice favours cooperation between relatives
Communications Biology (2023)
-
Ten recent insights for our understanding of cooperation
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2021)