Division of labour within cooperatively breeding groups

Within cooperative societies, group members share in caring for offspring. Although division of labour among group members has been relatively well studied in insects, less is known about vertebrates. Most studies of avian helping focus solely on the extent to which helpers provision the offspring, however, helpers can participate in everything from nest building to predator defence. Bad provisioners may, for example, not be as 'uncooperative' as they appear. if they are good defenders. Thus, the distribution of helping tasks between group members should have important implications for our interpretation of group dynamics. Here, we compare two distinct forms of helping behaviour in the cooperatively breeding noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala): chick provisioning and mobbing nest predators. We show that the way in which individual helpers invest in these two helping behaviours varies enormously across individuals and among social groups. Good provisioners often contributed relatively little to mobbing and vice versa. Indeed, (18%) of helpers only mobbed, 22% just provisioned, whereas 60% of helpers performed both forms of helping. Across nests, provisioning was significantly negatively correlated with mobbing effort. We suggest that small differences in the costs or benefits of different aspects of helping (due to differences in age, relatedness or social status) have a big impact on the division of labour within a group. Consequently, social groups can be made up from individuals who often specialise in one helping behaviour, and/or helpers who perform a number of behaviours to differing degrees. Division of labour within social groups will, therefore, have important consequences for the maintenance of cooperatively breeding in vertebrates.

The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: Spider societies as a test case

Many models have been advanced to suggest how different expressions of sociality have evolved and are maintained. However these models ignore the function of groups for the particular species in question. Here we present a new perspective on sociality where the function of the group takes a central role. We argue that sociality may have primarily a reproductive, protective, or foraging function, depending on whether it enhances the reproductive, protective or foraging aspect of the animal's life (sociality may serve a mixture of these functions). Different functions can potentially cause the development of the same social behaviour. By identifying which function influences a particular social behaviour we can determine how that social behaviour will change with changing conditions, and which models are most pertinent. To test our approach we examined spider sociality, which has often been seen as the poor cousin to insect sociality. By using our approach we found that the group characteristics of eusocial insects is largely governed by the reproductive function of their groups, while the group characteristics of social spiders is largely governed by the foraging function of the group. This means that models relevant to insects may not be relevant to spiders. It also explains why eusocial insects have developed a strict caste system while spider societies are more egalitarian. We also used our approach to explain the differences between different types of spider groups. For example, differences in the characteristics of colonial and kleptoparasitic groups can be explained by differences in foraging methods, while differences between colonial and cooperative spiders can be explained by the role of the reproductive function in the formation of cooperative spider groups. Although the interactions within cooperative spider colonies are largely those of a foraging society, demographic traits and colony dynamics are strongly influenced by the reproductive function. We argue that functional explanations help to understand the social structure of spider groups and therefore the evolutionary potential for speciation in social spiders.