Lactation patterns of pinnipeds are not explained by optimization of maternal energy delivery rates

Within pinnipeds, phocids and otariids show differing maternal care strategies. Phocids rear young out of body stores in a yearly cycle with a single stay ashore when the mother fasts while lactating, whereas otariids provision their young by repeated foraging trips to sea alternating with brief stays ashore where they suckle their young. In a previous optimality model, these differences have been interpreted as adaptations based on differing energy requirements of large (phocid) and smaller (otariid) species, and the time budget of the large elephant and the much smaller Antarctic fur seal were correctly predicted. Our refined model—extended to pinniped species of all sizes—predicts lactation strategies to shift from attendance cycles to 1-year cycles with increasing body mass and provides an explanation for the finding that phocid pups are weaned at lower relative mass than otariid pups. However, other predictions do not correspond to empirical findings. In particular, the model does not explain the behavior of large otariids and small phocids. Thus, maternal metabolic requirements alone appear insufficient to explain observed lactation patterns. In the light of our results, we discuss more generally the scope and limitations of optimality models when applied in a comparative framework to a group of related species.     

Reduced costs of mixed-species pairings in flycatchers: by-product or female strategy?

Heterospecific matings are generally assumed to be unconditionally disadvantageous due to reduced viability or fertility of hybrid offspring. For female collared flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis) mated to male pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca), the cost of heterospecific pair formation is reduced due to high levels of conspecific extra-pair paternity and a male-biased offspring sex ratio. In order to investigate whether these cost-reducing mechanisms are the result of female mating strategies, rather than being a by-product of species incompatibilities, we manipulated the plumage of male collared flycatchers before pair formation to make them resemble male pied flycatchers. Since species incompatibilities are absent in this design, any systematic effect of manipulation on sex ratio or paternity would indicate a role of female mating strategy. Paternity was determined by means of a likelihood approach that controls the errors made in assigning a chick to be ‘within-pair’ or ‘extra-pair’. Neither the sex ratio nor the male share of paternity was affected by the manipulation in a systematic manner. We therefore conclude that our experimental data provide no support for the suggestion that female behavioural strategies are markedly adjusted in response to formation of mixed-species pairs. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Evolution of self-organized division of labor in a response threshold model

Division of labor in social insects is determinant to their ecological success. Recent models emphasize that division of labor is an emergent property of the interactions among nestmates obeying to simple behavioral rules. However, the role of evolution in shaping these rules has been largely neglected. Here, we investigate a model that integrates the perspectives of self-organization and evolution. Our point of departure is the response threshold model, where we allow thresholds to evolve. We ask whether the thresholds will evolve to a state where division of labor emerges in a form that fits the needs of the colony. We find that division of labor can indeed evolve through the evolutionary branching of thresholds, leading to workers that differ in their tendency to take on a given task. However, the conditions under which division of labor evolves depend on the strength of selection on the two fitness components considered: amount of work performed and on worker distribution over tasks. When selection is strongest on the amount of work performed, division of labor evolves if switching tasks is costly. When selection is strongest on worker distribution, division of labor is less likely to evolve. Furthermore, we show that a biased distribution (like 3:1) of workers over tasks is not easily achievable by a threshold mechanism, even under strong selection. Contrary to expectation, multiple matings of colony foundresses impede the evolution of specialization. Overall, our model sheds light on the importance of considering the interaction between specific mechanisms and ecological requirements to better understand the evolutionary scenarios that lead to division of labor in complex systems. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00265-012-1343-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Nonequilibrium coexistence in a competition model with nutrient storage

Resource competition theory predicts that, in equilibrium, the number of coexisting species cannot exceed the number of limiting resources. In some competition models, however, competitive interactions may result in nonequilibrium dynamics, allowing the coexistence of many species on few resources. The relevance of these findings is still unclear, since some assumptions of the underlying models are unrealistic. Most importantly, these models assume that individual growth directly reflects the availability of external resources, whereas real organisms can store resources, thereby decoupling their growth from external fluctuations. Here we study the effects of resource storage by extending the well-known Droop model to the context of multiple species and multiple resources. We demonstrate that the extended Droop model shows virtually the same complex dynamics as models without storage. Depending on the model parameters, one may obtain competitive exclusion, stable equilibrium coexistence, periodic and non-periodic oscillations, and chaos. Again, nonequilibrium dynamics allows for the coexistence of many species on few resources. We discuss our findings in the light of earlier work on resource competition, highlighting the role of luxury consumption, trade-offs in competitive abilities, and ecological stoichiometry.     

Adaptive speciation theory: a conceptual review

Speciation—the origin of new species—is the source of the diversity of life. A theory of speciation is essential to link poorly understood macro-evolutionary processes, such as the origin of biodiversity and adaptive radiation, to well understood micro-evolutionary processes, such as allele frequency change due to natural or sexual selection. An important question is whether, and to what extent, the process of speciation is ‘adaptive’, i.e., driven by natural and/or sexual selection. Here, we discuss two main modelling approaches in adaptive speciation theory. Ecological models of speciation focus on the evolution of ecological differentiation through divergent natural selection. These models can explain the stable coexistence of the resulting daughter species in the face of interspecific competition, but they are often vague about the evolution of reproductive isolation. Most sexual selection models of speciation focus on the diversification of mating strategies through divergent sexual selection. These models can explain the evolution of prezygotic reproductive isolation, but they are typically vague on questions like ecological coexistence. By means of an integrated model, incorporating both ecological interactions and sexual selection, we demonstrate that disruptive selection on both ecological and mating strategies is necessary, but not sufficient, for speciation to occur. To achieve speciation, mating must at least partly reflect ecological characteristics. The interaction of natural and sexual selection is also pivotal in a model where sexual selection facilitates ecological speciation even in the absence of diverging female preferences. In view of these results, it is counterproductive to consider ecological and sexual selection models as contrasting and incompatible views on speciation, one being dominant over the other. Instead, an integrative perspective is needed to achieve a thorough and coherent understanding of adaptive speciation.