Reciprocal altruism

Last updated
Diagram showing reciprocal altruism Reciprocal altruism summary.svg
Diagram showing reciprocal altruism

In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.

Contents

The concept was initially developed by Robert Trivers to explain the evolution of cooperation as instances of mutually altruistic acts. The concept is close to the strategy of "tit for tat" used in game theory. In 1987, Trivers presented at a symposium on reciprocity, noting that he initially titled his article "The Evolution of Delayed Return Altruism," but reviewer W. D. Hamilton suggested renaming it "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism." While Trivers adopted the new title, he retained the original examples, causing confusion about reciprocal altruism for decades. Rothstein and Pierotti (1988) addressed this issue at the symposium, proposing new definitions that clarified the concepts. They argued that Delayed Return Altruism was a superior term and introduced "pseudo-reciprocity" to replace it.

Theory

The concept of "reciprocal altruism", as introduced by Trivers, suggests that altruism, defined as an act of helping another individual while incurring some cost for this act, could have evolved since it might be beneficial to incur this cost if there is a chance of being in a reverse situation where the individual who was helped before may perform an altruistic act towards the individual who helped them initially. [1] This concept finds its roots in the work of W.D. Hamilton, who developed mathematical models for predicting the likelihood of an altruistic act to be performed on behalf of one's kin. [2]

Putting this into the form of a strategy in a repeated prisoner's dilemma would mean to cooperate unconditionally in the first period and behave cooperatively (altruistically) as long as the other agent does as well. [1] If chances of meeting another reciprocal altruist are high enough, or if the game is repeated for a long enough amount of time, this form of altruism can evolve within a population.

This is close to the notion of "tit for tat" introduced by Anatol Rapoport, [3] although there still seems a slight distinction in that "tit for tat" cooperates in the first period and from thereon always replicates an opponent's previous action, whereas "reciprocal altruists" stop cooperation in the first instance of non-cooperation by an opponent and stay non-cooperative from thereon. This distinction leads to the fact that in contrast to reciprocal altruism, tit for tat may be able to restore cooperation under certain conditions despite cooperation having broken down.

Christopher Stephens shows a set of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions "... for an instance of reciprocal altruism: [4]

  1. the behaviour must reduce a donor's fitness relative to a selfish alternative; [4]
  2. the fitness of the recipient must be elevated relative to non-recipients; [4]
  3. the performance of the behaviour must not depend on the receipt of an immediate benefit; [4]
  4. conditions 1, 2, and 3 must apply to both individuals engaging in reciprocal helping. [4]

There are two additional conditions necessary "...for reciprocal altruism to evolve:" [4]

The first two conditions are necessary for altruism as such, while the third is distinguishing reciprocal altruism from simple mutualism and the fourth makes the interaction reciprocal. Condition number five is required as otherwise non-altruists may always exploit altruistic behaviour without any consequences and therefore evolution of reciprocal altruism would not be possible. However, it is pointed out that this "conditioning device" does not need to be conscious. Condition number six is required to avoid cooperation breakdown through forward induction—a possibility suggested by game theoretical models. [4]

In 1987, Trivers told a symposium on reciprocity that he had originally submitted his article under the title "The Evolution of Delayed Return Altruism", but reviewer W. D. Hamilton suggested that he change the title to "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism". Trivers changed the title, but not the examples in the manuscript, which has led to confusion about what were appropriate examples of reciprocal altruism for the last 50 years. In their contribution to that symposium, Rothstein and Pierotti (1988) [5] addressed this issue and proposed new definitions concerning the topic of altruism, that clarified the issue created by Trivers and Hamilton. They proposed that Delayed Return Altruism was a superior concept and used the term pseudo-reciprocity in place of DRA.[ citation needed ]

Examples

The following examples could be understood as altruism. However, showing reciprocal altruism in an unambiguous way requires more evidence as will be shown later.

Cleaner fish

Cleaning symbiosis: a small cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) with advertising coloration services a big eye squirrelfish (Priacanthus hamrur) in an apparent example of reciprocal altruism. Cleaner station komodo.jpg
Cleaning symbiosis: a small cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) with advertising coloration services a big eye squirrelfish ( Priacanthus hamrur ) in an apparent example of reciprocal altruism.

An example of reciprocal altruism is cleaning symbiosis, such as between cleaner fish and their hosts, though cleaners include shrimps and birds, and clients include fish, turtles, octopuses and mammals. [6] Aside from the apparent symbiosis of the cleaner and the host during actual cleaning, which cannot be interpreted as altruism, the host displays additional behaviour that meets the criteria for delayed return altruism:

The host fish allows the cleaner fish free entrance and exit and does not eat the cleaner, even after the cleaning is done. [7] [8] [9] [10] The host signals the cleaner it is about to depart the cleaner's locality, even when the cleaner is not in its body. The host sometimes chases off possible dangers to the cleaner. [10]

The following evidence supports the hypothesis:

The cleaning by cleaners is essential for the host. In the absence of cleaners the hosts leave the locality or suffer from injuries inflicted by ectoparasites. [11] There is difficulty and danger in finding a cleaner. Hosts leave their element to get cleaned. [10] Others wait no longer than 30 seconds before searching for cleaners elsewhere. [7]

A key requirement for the establishment of reciprocal altruism is that the same two individuals must interact repeatedly, as otherwise the best strategy for the host would be to eat the cleaner as soon as cleaning was complete. This constraint imposes both a spatial and a temporal condition on the cleaner and on its host. Both individuals must remain in the same physical location, and both must have a long enough lifespan, to enable multiple interactions. There is reliable evidence that individual cleaners and hosts do indeed interact repeatedly. [9] [11] [12]

This example meets some, but not all, of the criteria described in Trivers's model. In the cleaner-host system the benefit to the cleaner is always immediate. However, the evolution of reciprocal altruism is contingent on opportunities for future rewards through repeated interactions. In one study, nearby host fish observed "cheater" cleaners and subsequently avoided them. [13] In these examples, true reciprocity is difficult to demonstrate since failure means the death of the cleaner. However, if Randall's claim that hosts sometimes chase off possible dangers to the cleaner is correct, an experiment might be constructed in which reciprocity could be demonstrated. [9] In actuality this is one of Trivers' examples of Delayed Return Altruism as discussed by Rothstein and Pierotti 1988.

Warning calls in birds

Eurasian jay, Garrulus glandarius, gives loud alarm calls from its tree perch when it sees a predator. 2012-06-09 16-04-22 Switzerland Kanton Graubunden Sagliaz cropped.JPG
Eurasian jay, Garrulus glandarius , gives loud alarm calls from its tree perch when it sees a predator.

Warning calls, although exposing a bird and putting it in danger, are frequently given by birds. An explanation in terms of altruistic behaviors given by Trivers: [1]

It has been shown that predators learn specific localities and specialize individually on prey types and hunting techniques. [14] [15] [16] [17] It is therefore disadvantageous for a bird to have a predator eat a conspecific, because the experienced predator may then be more likely to eat them. Alarming another bird by giving a warning call tends to prevent predators from specializing on the caller's species and locality. In this way, birds in areas in which warning calls are given will be at a selective advantage relative to birds in areas free from warning calls.

Nevertheless, this presentation lacks important elements of reciprocity. It is very hard to detect and ostracize cheaters. There is no evidence that a bird refrains from giving calls when another bird is not reciprocating, nor evidence that individuals interact repeatedly. Given the aforementioned characteristics of bird calling, a continuous bird emigration and immigration environment (true of many avian species) is most likely to be partial to cheaters, since selection against the selfish gene [3] is unlikely. [1]

Another explanation for warning calls is that these are not warning calls at all: A bird, once it has detected a bird of prey, calls to signal to the bird of prey that it was detected, and that there is no use trying to attack the calling bird. Two facts support this hypothesis:

Nest protecting

Arctic terns protect their offspring extremely aggressively by very quick drop-downs from a stationary flight over their enemies. Other birds often benefit from this behavior by breeding very close to the Arctic terns. Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) attacking, Amsterdam island, Svalbard.jpg
Arctic terns protect their offspring extremely aggressively by very quick drop-downs from a stationary flight over their enemies. Other birds often benefit from this behavior by breeding very close to the Arctic terns.

Red-winged blackbird males help defend neighbor's nests. There are many theories as to why males behave this way. One is that males only defend other nests which contain their extra-pair offspring. Extra-pair offspring are juveniles which may contain some of the male bird's DNA. Another is the tit-for-tat strategy of reciprocal altruism. A third theory is, males help only other closely related males. A study done by The Department of Fisheries and Wildlife provided evidence that males used a tit-for-tat strategy. The Department of Fisheries and Wildlife tested many different nests by placing stuffed crows by nests, and then observing behavior of neighboring males. The behaviors they looked for included the number of calls, dives, and strikes. After analyzing the results, there was not significance evidence for kin selection; the presence of extra-pair offspring did not affect the probability of help in nest defense. However, males reduced the amount of defense given to neighbors when neighbor males reduced defense for their nests. This demonstrates a tit-for-tat strategy, where animals help those who previously helped them. This strategy is one type of reciprocal altruism. [18]

Vampire bats

Vampire bats also display reciprocal altruism, as described by Wilkinson. [19] [20] The bats feed each other by regurgitating blood. Since bats only feed on blood and will die after just 70 hours of not eating, this food sharing is a great benefit to the receiver and a great cost to the giver. [21] To qualify for reciprocal altruism, the benefit to the receiver would have to be larger than the cost to the donor. This seems to hold as these bats usually die if they do not find a blood meal two nights in a row. Also, the requirement that individuals who have behaved altruistically in the past are helped by others in the future is confirmed by the data. [19] However, the consistency of the reciprocal behaviour, namely that a previously non-altruistic bat is refused help when it requires it, has not been demonstrated. Therefore, the bats do not seem to qualify yet as an unequivocal example of reciprocal altruism.

Primates

Grooming in primates meets the conditions for reciprocal altruism according to some studies. One of the studies in vervet monkeys shows that among unrelated individuals, grooming induce higher chance of attending to each other's calls for aid. [22] However, vervet monkeys also display grooming behaviors within group members, displaying alliances. [23] This would demonstrate vervet monkey's grooming behavior as a part of kin selection since the activity is done between siblings in this study. Moreover, following the criteria by Stephen, [4] if the study is to be an example of reciprocal altruism, it must prove the mechanism for detecting cheaters.

Bacteria

Numerous species of bacteria engage in reciprocal altruistic behaviors with other species. Typically, this takes the form of bacteria providing essential nutrients for another species, while the other species provides an environment for the bacteria to live in. Reciprocal altruism is exhibited between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and plants in which they reside. Additionally, it can be observed between bacteria and some species of flies such as Bactrocera tryoni . These flies consume nutrient-producing bacteria found on the leaves of plants; in exchange, they reside within the flies' digestive system. [24] This reciprocal altruistic behavior has been exploited by techniques designed to eliminate B. tryoni, which are fruit fly pests native to Australia. [25]

Humans

Exceptions

Some animals seem to be unable to develop reciprocal altruism. For example, pigeons defect instead of a random response or a tit-for-tat in a prisoner's dilemma game against a computer. This may be due to favoring short-term thinking over long-term thinking. [26]

Regulation by emotional disposition

In comparison to that of other animals, the human altruistic system is a sensitive and unstable one. [1] Therefore, the tendency to give, to cheat, and the response to other's acts of giving and cheating must be regulated by a complex psychology in each individual, social structures, and cultural traditions. Individuals differ in the degree of these tendencies and responses. According to Trivers, the following emotional dispositions and their evolution can be understood in terms of regulation of altruism. [1]

It is not known how individuals pick partners as there has been little research on choice. Modeling indicates that altruism about partner choices is unlikely to evolve, as costs and benefits between multiple individuals are variable. [27] Therefore, the time or frequency of reciprocal actions contributes more to an individual's choice of partner than the reciprocal act itself.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Altruism</span> Principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others

Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals largely independent of that person's opinion of or reaction to oneself. While objects of altruistic concern vary, it is an important moral value in many cultures and religions. It may be considered a synonym of selflessness, the opposite of self-centeredness.

<i>The Evolution of Cooperation</i> 1984 book by Robert Axelrod

The Evolution of Cooperation is a 1984 book written by political scientist Robert Axelrod that expands upon a paper of the same name written by Axelrod and evolutionary biologist W.D. Hamilton. The article's summary addresses the issue in terms of "cooperation in organisms, whether bacteria or primates".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Group selection</span> Proposed mechanism of evolution

Group selection is a proposed mechanism of evolution in which natural selection acts at the level of the group, instead of at the level of the individual or gene.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False cleanerfish</span> Species of fish

The false cleanerfish is a species of combtooth blenny, a mimic that copies both the dance and appearance of Labroides dimidiatus, a similarly colored species of cleaner wrasse. It likely mimics that species to avoid predation, as well as to occasionally bite the fins of its victims rather than consume parasites. Most veiled attacks occur on juvenile fish, as adults that have been attacked in the past may avoid or even attack A. taeniatus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social grooming</span> Behavior in social animals

Social grooming is a behavior in which social animals, including humans, clean or maintain one another's bodies or appearances. A related term, allogrooming, indicates social grooming between members of the same species. Grooming is a major social activity and a means by which animals who live in close proximity may bond, reinforce social structures and family links, and build companionship. Social grooming is also used as a means of conflict resolution, maternal behavior, and reconciliation in some species. Mutual grooming typically describes the act of grooming between two individuals, often as a part of social grooming, pair bonding, or a precoital activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alloparenting</span> Parenting not done by the birth parents

Alloparenting is a term for any form of parental care provided by an individual towards young that are not its own direct offspring. These are often called "non-descendant" young, even though grandchildren can be among them. Among humans, alloparenting is often performed by a child's grandparents and older siblings. Individuals providing this care are called by the neutral term "alloparent".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Altruism (biology)</span> Behaviour that increases the fitness of another while decreasing the fitness of self

In biology, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing their own. Altruism in this sense is different from the philosophical concept of altruism, in which an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. In the behavioural sense, there is no such requirement. As such, it is not evaluated in moral terms—it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action is considered altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.

In evolution, cooperation is the process where groups of organisms work or act together for common or mutual benefits. It is commonly defined as any adaptation that has evolved, at least in part, to increase the reproductive success of the actor's social partners. For example, territorial choruses by male lions discourage intruders and are likely to benefit all contributors.

Cheating is a term used in behavioral ecology and ethology to describe behavior whereby organisms receive a benefit at the cost of other organisms. Cheating is common in many mutualistic and altruistic relationships. A cheater is an individual who does not cooperate but can potentially gain the benefit from others cooperating. Cheaters are also those who selfishly use common resources to maximize their individual fitness at the expense of a group. Natural selection favors cheating, but there are mechanisms to regulate it. The stress gradient hypothesis states that facilitation, cooperation or mutualism should be more common in stressful environments, while cheating, competition or parasitism are common in benign environments.

Reciprocity in evolutionary biology refers to mechanisms whereby the evolution of cooperative or altruistic behaviour may be favoured by the probability of future mutual interactions. A corollary is how a desire for revenge can harm the collective and therefore be naturally selected against.

The concept of the evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior rather than animal behavior. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology, and in particular evolutionary psychology, have argued that, despite the complexity of human social behaviors, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior remain controversial. Social scientists have traditionally viewed morality as a construct, and thus as culturally relative, although others such as Sam Harris argue that there is an objective science of morality.

Competitive altruism is a possible mechanism for the persistence of cooperative behaviors, specifically those that are performed unconditionally. The theory of reciprocal altruism can be used to explain behaviors that are performed by a donor who receives some sort of benefit in the future. When no such compensation is received, however, reciprocity fails to explain altruistic behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Helping behavior</span> Voluntarily prosocial behaviour

Helping behavior refers to voluntary actions intended to help others, with reward regarded or disregarded. It is a type of prosocial behavior.

The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology are the general and specific scientific theories that explain the ultimate origins of psychological traits in terms of evolution. These theories originated with Charles Darwin's work, including his speculations about the evolutionary origins of social instincts in humans. Modern evolutionary psychology, however, is possible only because of advances in evolutionary theory in the 20th century.

Social preferences describe the human tendency to not only care about one's own material payoff, but also the reference group's payoff or/and the intention that leads to the payoff. Social preferences are studied extensively in behavioral and experimental economics and social psychology. Types of social preferences include altruism, fairness, reciprocity, and inequity aversion. The field of economics originally assumed that humans were rational economic actors, and as it became apparent that this was not the case, the field began to change. The research of social preferences in economics started with lab experiments in 1980, where experimental economists found subjects' behavior deviated systematically from self-interest behavior in economic games such as ultimatum game and dictator game. These experimental findings then inspired various new economic models to characterize agent's altruism, fairness and reciprocity concern between 1990 and 2010. More recently, there are growing amounts of field experiments that study the shaping of social preference and its applications throughout society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cleaning symbiosis</span> Mutually beneficial association between individuals of two species

Cleaning symbiosis is a mutually beneficial association between individuals of two species, where one removes and eats parasites and other materials from the surface of the other. Cleaning symbiosis is well-known among marine fish, where some small species of cleaner fish, notably wrasses but also species in other genera, are specialised to feed almost exclusively by cleaning larger fish and other marine animals. Other cleaning symbioses exist between birds and mammals, and in other groups.

Male reproductive alliances can best be understood within the context of traditional male–male competition, as a specific case of cooperative competition. Such cooperative behavior, however, does not necessarily result in the equal sharing of resources among cooperating individuals. Cooperation often requires that individuals decrease their own fitness to increase the fitness of another. This behavior becomes even more striking when it occurs within the context of cooperative reproduction, where individuals decrease their own reproductive fitness to improve the reproductive fitness of another.

Evolutionary biologists have developed various theoretical models to explain the evolution of food-sharing behavior—"[d]efined as the unresisted transfer of food" from one food-motivated individual to another—among humans and other animals.

Reciprocal altruism in humans refers to an individual behavior that gives benefit conditionally upon receiving a returned benefit, which draws on the economic concept – ″gains in trade″. Human reciprocal altruism would include the following behaviors : helping patients, the wounded, and the others when they are in crisis; sharing food, implement, knowledge.

Parochial altruism is a concept in social psychology, evolutionary biology, and anthropology that describes altruism towards an in-group, often accompanied by hostility towards an out-group. It is a combination of altruism, defined as behavior done for the benefit of others without direct effect on the self, and parochialism, which refers to having a limited viewpoint. Together, these concepts create parochial altruism, or altruism which is limited in scope to one's in-group. Parochial altruism is closely related to the concepts of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. Research has suggested that parochial altruism may have evolved in humans to promote high levels of in-group cooperation, which is advantageous for group survival. Parochial altruism is often evoked to explain social behaviors within and between groups, such as why people are cooperative within their social groups and why they may be aggressive towards other social groups.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Trivers, R.L. (1971). "The evolution of reciprocal altruism". Quarterly Review of Biology. 46: 35–57. doi:10.1086/406755. S2CID   19027999.
  2. ↑ Hamilton (1964). "The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior II". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 7 (1): 17–52. Bibcode:1964JThBi...7...17H. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6. PMID   5875340.
  3. 1 2 Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene (30th Anniversary ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN   0-19-929114-4.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Stephens, C. (1996). "Modelling Reciprocal Altruism". British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 47 (4): 533–551. doi:10.1093/bjps/47.4.533. S2CID   1462394.
  5. ↑ Rothstein, S. I. (1988). "Distinctions among reciprocal altruism and kin selection, and a model for the initial evolution of helping behavior". Ethology and Sociobiology. 9: 189–210. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(88)90021-0.
  6. ↑ Grutter, Alexandra S. (2002). "Cleaning symbioses from the parasites' perspective". Parasitology. 124 (7): S65–S81. doi:10.1017/S0031182002001488. PMID   12396217. S2CID   26816332.
  7. 1 2 Eibi-Eibesfeldt, T (2010). "Über Symbiosen, Parasitismus und andere besondere zwischenartliche Beziehungen tropischer Meeresfische1". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. 12 (2): 203–219. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1955.tb01523.x.
  8. ↑ Heidiger, H. (1968). "Putzer-fische im aquarium". Natur und Museum. 98: 89–96.
  9. 1 2 3 Randall, J. E. (1958). "A review of the Labrid fish genus Labriodes with descriptions of two new species and notes on ecology" (PDF). Pacific Science. 12 (4): 327–347. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-08-06.
  10. 1 2 3 Randall, J. E. (1962). "Fish service stations". Sea Frontiers. 8: 40–47.
  11. 1 2 Feder, H.M. (1966). "Cleaning symbioses in the marine environment". In Henry, S.M. (ed.). Symbiosis. Vol. 1. Academic Press. pp. 327–380. OCLC   841865823.
  12. ↑ Limbaugh, C.; Pederson, H.; Chase, F. (1961). "Shrimps that clean fishes". Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. 11 (1): 237–257.
  13. ↑ Bshary, R. (2002). "Biting cleaner fish use altruism to deceive image-scoring client reef fish". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 269 (1505): 2087–93. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2084. PMC   1691138 . PMID   12396482.
  14. ↑ Murie, Adolph (1944). Fauna of the National Parks of the United States: Fauna series. Fauna of National Parks of the United States. Vol. Faunal Series No. 5. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  15. ↑ Southern, H. N. (1954). "Tawny owls and their prey". Ibis. 96 (3): 384–410. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1954.tb02332.x.
  16. ↑ Tinbergen, N. (1968). "On war and peace in animals and man". Science. 160 (3835): 1411–8. Bibcode:1968Sci...160.1411T. doi:10.1126/science.160.3835.1411. PMID   5690147.
  17. ↑ Owen, D. F. (1963). "Similar polymorphismas in an insect and a land snail". Nature. 198 (4876): 201–3. Bibcode:1963Natur.198..201O. doi:10.1038/198201b0. S2CID   4262191.
  18. ↑ Olendorf, Robert; Getty, Thomas; Scribner, Kim (22 January 2004). "Cooperative Nest Defence in Red–winged Blackbirds: Reciprocal Altruism, Kinship or By–product Mutualism?". Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 271 (1535): 177–182. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2586. JSTOR   4142499. PMC   1691571 . PMID   15058395.
  19. 1 2 Wilkinson, G. (1984). "Reciprocal Food Sharing in the Vampire Bat". Nature. 308 (5955): 181–184. Bibcode:1984Natur.308..181W. doi:10.1038/308181a0. PMC   3574350 . PMID   23282995.
  20. ↑ Wilkinson, G. (1988). "Reciprocal Altruism in Bats and Other Mammals". Ethology and Sociobiology. 9 (2–4): 85–100. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(88)90015-5.
  21. ↑ Carter, Gerald (January 2, 2013). "Food Sharing in Vampire Bats: Reciprocal Help Predicts Donations More than Relatedness or Harassment". Proceedings of the Royal Society. 280 (1753): 20122573. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2573. PMC   3574350 . PMID   23282995.
  22. ↑ Seyfarth, Robert M; Cheney, Dorothy L (1984). "Grooming, alliances and reciprocal altruism in vervet monkeys". Nature. 308 (5959): 541–3. Bibcode:1984Natur.308..541S. doi:10.1038/308541a0. PMID   6709060. S2CID   4266889.
  23. ↑ Lee, P.C. (1987). "Sibships: Cooperation and Competition Among Immature Vervet Monkeys". Primates . 28 (1): 47–59. doi:10.1007/bf02382182. S2CID   21449948.
  24. ↑ Clarke, A.R.; Powell, K.S.; Weldon, C.W.; Taylor, P.W. (2010-11-02). "The ecology of Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae): what do we know to assist pest management?" (PDF). Annals of Applied Biology. 158 (1): 26–54. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.2010.00448.x. hdl: 10019.1/122744 . ISSN   0003-4746. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-11-04.
  25. ↑ Bateman, MA (1967). "Adaptations to temperature in geographic races of the Queensland fruit fly Dacus (Strumenta) tryoni". Australian Journal of Zoology. 15 (6): 1141. doi:10.1071/zo9671141. ISSN   0004-959X.
  26. ↑ Green, Leonard; Price, Paul C.; Hamburger, Merle E. (July 1995). "Prisoner's Dilemma and the Pigeon: Control by Immediate Consequences". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 64 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.64-1. ISSN   0022-5002. PMC   1349833 . PMID   16812760.
  27. ↑ Schino, G.; Aureli, F. (2010). "A few misunderstandings about reciprocal altruism". Commun. Integr. Biol. 3 (6): 561–3. doi:10.4161/cib.3.6.12977. PMC   3038063 . PMID   21331239.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.