Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25850564›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2015

Antagonistic effect of helpers on breeding male and female survival in a cooperatively breeding bird.

Matthieu Paquet, Claire Doutrelant, Ben J Hatchwell, Claire N Spottiswoode, Rita Covas

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The evolution of cooperative breeding in family groups: when should parents tolerate unhelpful helpers?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Hard-working helpers contribute to long breeder lifespans in cooperative birds.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Structural equation modeling reveals determinants of fitness in a cooperatively breeding bird.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
  13. Interplay of cooperative breeding and predation risk on egg allocation and reproductive output.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Matthieu PaquetCEFE-CNRS, 1919 Route de Mende, 34293, Montpellier, France.
Claire DoutrelantCEFE-CNRS, 1919 Route de Mende, 34293, Montpellier, France.
Ben J HatchwellDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, UK.
Claire N SpottiswoodePercy FitzPatrick Institute, DST-NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Rita CovasPercy FitzPatrick Institute, DST-NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
University of Cape Town · ZACentre d'Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

1. Cooperatively breeding species are typically long lived and hence, according to theory, are expected to maximize their lifetime reproductive success through maximizing survival. Under these circumstances, the presence of helpers could be used to lighten the effort of current reproduction for parents to achieve higher survival. 2. In addition, individuals of different sexes and ages may follow different strategies, but whether male and female breeders and individuals of different ages benefit differently from the presence of helpers has often been overlooked. Moreover, only one study that investigated the relationship between parental survival and the presence of helpers used capture-mark-recapture analyses (CMR). These methods are important since they allow us to account for the non-detection of individuals that are alive in the population but not detected, and thus, the effects on survival and recapture probability to be disentangled. 3. Here, we used multi-event CMR methods to investigate whether the number of helpers was associated with an increase in survival probability for male and female breeders of different ages in the sociable weaver Philetairus socius. In this species, both sexes reduce their feeding rate in the presence of helpers. We therefore predicted that the presence of helpers should increase the breeders' survival in both sexes, especially early in life when individuals potentially have more future breeding opportunities. In addition, sociable weaver females reduce their investment in eggs in the presence of helpers, so we predicted a stronger effect of helpers on female than male survival. 4. As expected we found that females had a higher survival probability when breeding with more helpers. Unexpectedly, however, male survival probability decreased with increasing number of helpers. This antagonistic effect diminished as the breeders grew older. 5. These results illustrate the complexity of fitness costs and benefits underlying cooperative behaviours and how these may vary with the individuals' sex and age. They also highlight the need for further studies on the sex-specific effects of helpers on survival.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorLongevityReproductionAnimalsFemaleMaleSexual Behavior, AnimalSongbirdsSparrowscooperative breedingfamily conflictsinvestmentlife-history strategiessex-specific selection

Identifiers

PMID25850564
PMCPMC4557059
OpenAlexW2021171997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.