Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating

  • Ronald Noë
  • Peter Hammerstein
Article

Abstract

The formation of collaborating pairs by individuals belonging to two different classes occurs in the contexts of reproduction and intea-specific cooperation as well as of inter-specific mutualism. There is potential for partner choice and for competition for access to preferred partners in all three contexts. These selective forces have long been recognised as important in sexual selection, but their impact is not yet appreciated in cooperative and mutualistic systems. The formation of partnerships between members of different classes has much in common with the conclusion of trade agreements in human markets with two classes of traders, like producers and consumers, or employers and employees. Similar game-theoretical models can be used to predict the behaviour of rational traders in human markets and the evolutionarily stable strategies used in biological markets. We present a formal model in which the influence of the market mechanism on selection is made explicit. We restrict ourselves to biological markets in which: (1) Individuals do not compete over access to partners in an agonistic manner, but rather by outcompeting each other in those aspects that are preferred by the choosing party. (2) The commodity the partner has to offer cannot be obtained by the use of force, but requires the consent of the partner. These two restrictions ensure a dominant role for partner choice in the formation of partnerships. In a biological market model the decision to cooperate is based on the comparison between the offers of several potential partners, rather than on the behaviour of a single potential partner, as is implicitly assumed in currently accepted models of cooperation. In our example the members of one class A offer a commodity of fixed value in exchange for a commodity of variable value supplied by the other class, B. We show that when the B-class outnumbers the A-class sufficiently and the cost for the A-class to sample the offers of the B-class are low, the choosiness of the A-class will lead to selection for the supply of high value commodities by the B-class (Fig. 3a). Under the same market conditions, but with a high sampling cost this may still be the evolutionariy stable outcome, but another pair of strategies proves to be stable too: relaxed choosiness of class A coupled with low value commodities supplied by class B (Fig. 3b). We give a number of examples of mating, cooperative and mutualistic markets that resemble the low sampling cost situation depicted in Fig. 3a.

Key words

Market genes ESS Cooperation Mutualism Sexual selection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann SA (1962) A field study of the sociobiology of the rhesus monkey Macaca mulatta. Ann N Y Acad Sci 102:338–435Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod R, Dion D (1988) The further evolution of cooperation. Science 242:1385–1390Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–1396Google Scholar
  4. Barnard CJ, Sibly RM (1981) Producers and scroungers: a general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Anim Behav 29:543–550Google Scholar
  5. Beattie AJ (1985) Evolutionary ecology of ant-plant mutualisms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd R (1992) The evolution of reciprocity when conditions vary. In: Harcourt AH, Waal FBM de (eds) Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 473–489Google Scholar
  7. Breton LM, Addicott JF (1992) Density-dependent mutualism in an aphid-ant interaction. Ecology 73:2175–2180Google Scholar
  8. Bristow CM (1991) Why are so few aphids ant-tended? In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 104–119Google Scholar
  9. Buckley RC (1983) Interaction between ants and membracid bugs decreases growth and seed set of host plant bearing extrafloral nectaries. Oecologia 58:132–136Google Scholar
  10. Buckley RC (1987) Interactions involving plants, Homoptera and ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:111–135Google Scholar
  11. Bull JJ, Rice WR (1991) Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation. J Theor Biol 149:63–74Google Scholar
  12. Cushman JH, Addicott JF (1989) Intra- and interspecific competition for mutualists: ants as a limited and limiting resource for aphids. Oecologia 79:315–321Google Scholar
  13. Cushman JH, Addicott JF (1991) Conditional interactions in antplant-herbivore mutualisms. In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 92–103Google Scholar
  14. Cushman JH, Beattie AJ (1991) Mutualisms: assessing the benefits to hosts and visitors. Trends Ecol Evol 6:186–189Google Scholar
  15. Cushman JH, Whitham TG (1989) Conditional mutualism in a membracid-ant association: temporal age-specific and density-dependent effects. Ecology 70:1040–1047Google Scholar
  16. Cushman JH, Whitham TG (1991) Competition mediating the outcome of a mutualism: protective services of ants as a limiting resource for membracids. Am Nat 138:851–865Google Scholar
  17. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. DeVries PJ (1991) Evolutionary and ecological patterns in myrmecophilous riodinid butterflies. In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 143–156Google Scholar
  19. Dugatkin LA, Wilson DS (1991) ROVER: a strategy for exploiting cooperators in a patchy environment. Am Nat 138:687–701Google Scholar
  20. Dugatkin LA, Mesterton-Gibbons M, Houston AI (1992) Beyond the Prisoner's Dilemma: toward models to discriminate among mechanisms of cooperation in nature. Trends Ecol Evol 7:202–205Google Scholar
  21. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223Google Scholar
  22. Enquist M, Leimar O (1993) The evolution of cooperation in mobile organisms. Anim Behav 45:747–757Google Scholar
  23. Eshel I, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1982) Assortment of encounters and evolution of cooperativeness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79:1331–1335Google Scholar
  24. Fiedler K (1991) Systematic, evolutionary, and ecological implications of myrmecophily within the Lycaenidae (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Bonn Zool Monogr 31:1–210Google Scholar
  25. Fiedler K, Maschwitz U (1988) Functional analysis of the myrmecophilous relationships between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Lycaenids (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). II Lycaenid larvae as trophobiotic partners of ants — a quantitative approach. Oecologia 75:204–206Google Scholar
  26. Fiedler K, Maschwitz U (1989a) The symbiosis between the weaver ant Oecophylla smaragdina and Anthene emolus, an obligate myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly. J Nat Hist 23:833–846Google Scholar
  27. Fiedler K, Maschwitz U (1989b) Functional analysis of the myrmecophilous relationships between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Lycaenids (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). I Release of food recruitment in ants by Lycaenid larvae and pupae. Ethology 80:71–80Google Scholar
  28. Fischer EA (1980) The relationship between mating system and simultaneous hermaphroditism in the coral reef fish, Hypoplectrus nigricans (Serranidae). Anim Behav 28:620–633Google Scholar
  29. Fischer EA (1988) Simultaneous hermaphroditism, tit-for-tat, and the evolutionary stability of social systems. Ethol Sociobiol 9:119–136Google Scholar
  30. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Friedman JW, Hammerstein P (1991) To trade or not to trade, that is the question In: Selten R (ed) Game equilibrium models I. Evolution and game dynamics. Springer, Berlin, pp 257–275Google Scholar
  32. Gwynne DT (1984) Sexual selection and sexual differences in mormon crickets (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Anabrus simplex). Evolution 38:1011–1022Google Scholar
  33. Gwynne DT (1986) Courtship feeding in katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): investment in offspring or obtaining fertilizations? Am Nat 128:342–352Google Scholar
  34. Gwynne DT (1988) Courtship feeding in katydids benefits the mating male's offspring. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:373–377Google Scholar
  35. Gwynne DT (1990) Testing parental investment and the control of sexual selection in katydids: the operational sex ratio. Am Nat 136:474–484Google Scholar
  36. Gwynne DT (1991) Sexual competition among females: what causes courtship-role reversal? Trends Ecol Evol 6:118–121Google Scholar
  37. Harvey PH, Bradbury JW (1991) Sexual selection. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. An evolutionary approach, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 203–233Google Scholar
  38. Heller K-G, Helversen D von (1991) Operational sex ratio and individual mating frequencies in two bushcricket species (Orthoptera, Tettigonioidea, Poecilimon). Ethology 89:211–228Google Scholar
  39. Hill WL (1991) Correlates of male mating success in the ruff Philomachus pugnax, a lekking shorebird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:367–372Google Scholar
  40. Höglund J, Lundberg A (1989) Plumage color correlates with body size in the ruff (Philomachus pugnax). Auk 106:275–283Google Scholar
  41. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. Janetos AC (1980) Strategies of female choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:107–112Google Scholar
  43. Kiss A (1981) Melezitose, aphids and ants. Oikos 37:382Google Scholar
  44. Kitthing RL (1981) Egg clustering and the southern hemisphere lycaenids: comments on a paper by N. E. Stamp. Am Nat 118:423–425Google Scholar
  45. Kunkel H, Kloft W (1977) Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Honigtau-Forschung. Apidologie 8:369–391Google Scholar
  46. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic characters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721–3725Google Scholar
  47. Lande R (1987) Genetic correlations between the sexes in the evolution of sexual dimorphism and mating preferences. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, Chichester, pp 83–94Google Scholar
  48. Leimar O, Axén AH (1993) Strategic behaviour in an interspecific mutualism: interactions between lycaenid larvae and ants. Anim Behav 46:1177–1182Google Scholar
  49. Lyon BE, Montgomerie RD (1986) Delayed plumage maturation in passerine birds: reliable signaling by subordinate males? Evolution 40:605–615Google Scholar
  50. Maynard Smith J (1991) Theories of sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 6:146–151Google Scholar
  51. McGrew WC (1988) Parental division of infant caretaking varies with family composition in cotton-top tamarins. Anim Behav 36:285–286Google Scholar
  52. Morton ES (1987) Variation in mate guarding intensity by male purple martins. Behaviour 101:211–224Google Scholar
  53. Morton ES, Derrickson KC (1990) The biological significance of age-specific return schedules in breeding purple martins. Condor 92:1040–1050Google Scholar
  54. Morton ES, Forman L, Braun M (1990) Extrapair fertilizations and the evolution of colonial breeding in purple martins. Auk 107:275–283Google Scholar
  55. Noë R (1990) A Veto game played by baboons: a challenge to the use of the Prisoner's Dilemma as a paradigm for reciprocity and cooperation. Anim Behav 39:78–90Google Scholar
  56. Noë R (1992) Alliance formation among male baboons: shopping for profitable partners. In: Harcourt AIL, Waal FBM de (eds) Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 285–321Google Scholar
  57. Noë R, Schaik CP van, Hooff Jaram van (1991) The market effect: an explanation for pay-off asymmetries among collaborating animals. Ethology 87:97–118Google Scholar
  58. Partridge L, Halliday T (1984) Mating patterns and mate choice In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. An evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 222–250Google Scholar
  59. Pierce NE (1987) The evolution and biogeography of associations between lycaenid butterflies and ants. In: Harvey PH, Partridge L (eds) Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, vol 4. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 89–116Google Scholar
  60. Pierce NE, Kitching RL, Buckley RC, Taylor MFJ, Benbow KIT (1987) The costs and benefits of cooperation between the Australian lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras, and its attendant ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:237–248Google Scholar
  61. Pierce NE, Nash DR, Baylis M, Carper ER (1991) Variation in the attractiveness of lycaenid butterfly larvae to ants. In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–142Google Scholar
  62. Reyer H-U (1986) Breeder-helper-interactions in the pied kingfisher reflect the costs and benefits of cooperative breeding. Behaviour 96:277–303Google Scholar
  63. Rhijn JG van (1973) Behavioural dimorphism in male ruffs Philomachus pugnax (L). Behaviour 47:153–229Google Scholar
  64. Rhijn JG van (1983) On the maintenance and origin of alternative strategies in the Ruff, Philomachus pugnax. Ibis 125:482–498Google Scholar
  65. Rhijn JG van (1991) The ruff. Individuality in a gregarious wading bird. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Robbins RK (1991) Cost and evolution of a facultative mutualism between ants and lycaenid larvae (Lepidoptera). Oikos 62:363–369Google Scholar
  67. Rohwer S, Ewald PW (1981) The cost of dominance and advantage of subordination in a badge signaling system. Evolution 35:441–454Google Scholar
  68. Sakaluk SK (1991) Post-copulatory mate guarding in decorated crickets. Anim Behav 41:207–216Google Scholar
  69. Seibert TF (1992) Mutualistic interactions of the aphid Lachnus allegheniensis (Homoptera: Aphididae) and its tending ant Formica obscuripens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 85:173–178Google Scholar
  70. Simmons LW Parker GA (1989) Nuptial feeding in insects: mating effort versus paternal investment. Ethology 81:332–343Google Scholar
  71. Sutherland WJ (1985) Measures of sexual selection. In: Dawkins R, Ridley M (eds) Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 90–101Google Scholar
  72. Sutherland WJ (1987) Random and deterministic components of variance in mating success. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, Chichester, pp 209–219Google Scholar
  73. Thornhill R (1976) Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behavior in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Am Nat 110: 529–548Google Scholar
  74. Thornhill R (1984) Alternative female choice tactics in the scorpionfly Hylobittacus apicalis (Mecoptera) and their implications. Am Zool 24:367–383Google Scholar
  75. Thornhill R, Sauer P (1992) Genetic sire effects on the fighting ability of sons and daughters and mating success of sons in a scorpionfly. Anim Behav 43:255–264Google Scholar
  76. Way MJ (1954) Studies of the association of the ant Oecophylla longinoda and the scale insect Saissetia zanzibarensis. Bull Entomol Res 45:113–134Google Scholar
  77. Whitehead J M (1987) Vocally mediated reciprocity between neighbouring groups of mantled howling monkeys, Alouatta palliata palliata. Anim Behav 35:1615–1628Google Scholar
  78. Wickler W (1985) Stepfathers in insects and their pseudo-parental investment. Z Tierpsychol 69:72–78Google Scholar
  79. Wittenberger JF (1983) Tactics of mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 435–447Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Noë
    • 1
  • Peter Hammerstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Abteilung Wickler, SeewiesenMax-Planck-Institut für VerhaltensphysiologieStarnbergGermany

Personalised recommendations