Abstract
Crook published a landmark study on the social organization of weavers (or weaverbirds, family Ploceidae) that contributed to the emergence of sociobiology, behavioral ecology, and phylogenetic comparative methods. By comparing ecology, spatial distribution, and mating systems, Crook suggested that the spatial distribution of food resources and breeding habitats influence weaver aggregation during both the nonbreeding season (flocking vs. solitary foraging) and the breeding season (colonial vs. solitary breeding), and the latter in turn impacts mating systems and sexual selection. Although Crook’s study stimulated much follow-up research, his conclusions have not been scrutinized using phylogenetically controlled analyses. We revisited Crook’s hypotheses using modern phylogenetic comparative methods on an extended data set of 107 weaver species. We showed that both diet and habitat type are associated with spatial distribution and that the latter predicts mating system, consistent with Crook’s propositions. The best-supported phylogenetic path model also supported Crook’s arguments and uncovered a direct relationship between nonbreeding distribution and mating system. Taken together, our phylogenetically corrected analyses confirm Crook’s conjectures on the roles of ecology in social organizations of weavers; however, our analyses also uncovered an association between nonbreeding distributions and mating systems, which was not envisaged by Crook.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 250-263 |
Number of pages | 14 |
Journal | American Naturalist |
Volume | 200 |
Issue number | 2 |
Early online date | 23 Jun 2022 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 31 Aug 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We thank Araxi Urrutia, Jose Valdebenito Chavez, Naerhulan Halimubieke, Sean McGregor, and Vladimír Remeš for their advice regarding data collection and phylogenetic analyses and Mallory Eckstut (https://www.liwen bianji.cn/) and Richard M Gunner for linguistics comments. We appreciate the comments of Erol Akçay, Albert J. Uy, Sjouke A. Kingma, and an anonymous reviewer for their advice on the manuscript. Special thanks to Kelai Lee for preparing figures 1 and 2. The research was funded by the British Ornithologists’ Union’s Career Development Bursary to Z.S.; the Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Ministry of Education to Y.L.; and the Hungarian Scientific Funding Agency, Nemzeti Kuta-tási, Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal (NKFIH; ÉLVONAL KKP-126949, K-116310) to T.S. T.S. was also supported by the Royal Society (Wolfson Merit Award WM170050, APEX APX\R1\191045). A.L. was supported by an NKFIH grant (KH 130430) and the TKP2020-IKA-07 project financed under the 2020-4.1.1-TKP2020 Thematic Excellence Program, NKFIH.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The University of Chicago.
Keywords
- coloniality
- pair bonding
- parental care
- sexual selection
- sexual size dimorphism
- social behavior
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics