FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2029897654> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2029897654 endingPage "76" @default.
• W2029897654 startingPage "75" @default.
• W2029897654 abstract "Recently, Danchin and Wagner[1Danchin E Wagner H Trends Ecol. Evol. 1997; 12: 342-347Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (339) Google Scholar]reviewed the different hypotheses for explaining the evolution of colonial breeding in vertebrates, concluding that no general framework has resulted after decades of research. As an alternative they proposed the `commodity selection' approach: individuals could select colony sites by evaluating their quality through conspecific cues that combine the effects of all potential costs and benefits of coloniality. This is undoubtedly a promising path that will increase the understanding of some complex and unresolved aspects of coloniality. However, this single approach may misdirect further research efforts towards the study of the proximate causes of individual decisions, replacing the examination of costs and benefits — which could certainly distinguish the different pressures leading to coloniality. Danchin and Wagner rejected the `economic framework' (relationship of costs and benefits), because `their balance is extremely difficult to assess'[1Danchin E Wagner H Trends Ecol. Evol. 1997; 12: 342-347Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (339) Google Scholar]. However, this balance is clearly obtained by calculating the lifetime reproductive success (LRS) of individuals breeding in different aggregation levels (solitary and in colonies of different size)[2Brown, C.R. and Bomberger Brown, M.B. (1996) Coloniality in the Cliff Swallow. The Effect of Group Size on Social Behavior, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar, 3Clode D Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993; 8: 336-338Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar]. This approach allows us to identify the optimal breeding strategy, whatever the costs and benefits involved. The only difficulty is that it requires long-term population studies for obtaining accurate components of individual fitness such as productivity and survival of parents and offspring, which are necessary for modeling LRS[3Clode D Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993; 8: 336-338Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar]. The identification of costs and benefits is difficult, sometimes because of the lack of exclusive predictions[1Danchin E Wagner H Trends Ecol. Evol. 1997; 12: 342-347Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (339) Google Scholar], but also because studies are usually of short duration. For example, the role of predation is dismissed as a factor leading to the existence of enormous seabird colonies breeding in predator-safe islands and cliffs[4Anderson D.J Ibis. 1991; 133: 26-29Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar], while the present-day location and size of these colonies could be the result of predation pressure in the past[5Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M. (1994) in Seabirds on Islands (Nettleship, D.N., Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M., eds), pp. 39–67, BirdLifeGoogle Scholar]. This pressure can be observed in recently established populations of some species[3Clode D Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993; 8: 336-338Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar]; in fact, many established seabird colonies disappear after predators gain access to them (e.g. Ref. [6Birkhead T.R Nettleship D.N Wilson Bull. 1995; 107: 397-412Google Scholar]). According to Danchin and Wagner, coloniality is the result of multiple interacting costs and benefits, which may vary according to species, populations and individuals, and short-term studies testing a single hypothesis frequently lead to contradictory results. However, for the same reasons, contradictory results could also derive from the `commodity selection' approach if researchers are focused on a `wrong' cue. The authors propose reproductive success and potential partner quality as important conspecific cues for breeding patch (colony) selection. However, the role of current reproductive success on individual fitness could vary greatly between species with different life histories. For instance, in some territorial[7Wiklund C.G Ecology. 1995; 76: 1994-1996Crossref Scopus (14) Google Scholar]and colonial species[3Clode D Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993; 8: 336-338Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar], predation largely determines LRS. In these species, evaluating the risk of predation in each patch could be more important than accurately evaluating breeding success[8Boulinier T et al.J. Avian Biol. 1996; 27: 252-256Crossref Scopus (161) Google Scholar]. As birds tend to abandon colonies the next year after a predation event, the number of birds at a colony early in the season could be a good indicator of predation-safety and a motor for conspecific attraction. On the other hand, in a number of colonial species, extra-pair fertilizations are negligible (e.g. Refs [9Mauck R.A Waite T.A Parker P.G Auk. 1995; 112: 473-482Crossref Scopus (45) Google Scholar, 10Negro J.J et al.Anim. Behav. 1996; 51: 935-943Crossref Scopus (64) Google Scholar]), so it seems unlikely that the pursuit of extra-pair copulations[11Wagner R.H J. Theor. Biol. 1993; 163: 333-346Crossref Scopus (97) Google Scholar]has been a primary cause of coloniality in these species[2Brown, C.R. and Bomberger Brown, M.B. (1996) Coloniality in the Cliff Swallow. The Effect of Group Size on Social Behavior, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar, 3Clode D Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993; 8: 336-338Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar]. Obviously, testing the hypotheses of `commodity selection' requires the identification of cues for each species, and probably populations, being then no more simple than the determination of costs and benefits. The `commodity selection' is not an alternative, but rather a complementary approach to the previous framework for studying the evolution of coloniality. The balance of coloniality as derived from LRS modeling allows us to identify the optimum aggregation level. The study of costs and benefits may determine the pressures responsible for the origin of these aggregations. On the other hand, the `commodity selection' refers to mechanisms leading to individual decisions (where to breed and where to move to improve fitness), opening new perspectives for the comprehension of related ecological problems, such as breeding and natal dispersal and the delay of the first reproduction[12Boulinier T Danchin E Evol. Ecol. 1997; 11: 505-517Crossref Scopus (242) Google Scholar], both in colonial and territorial species." @default.
• W2029897654 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2029897654 creator A5020721924 @default.
• W2029897654 creator A5062544546 @default.
• W2029897654 creator A5062578802 @default.
• W2029897654 date "1998-02-01" @default.
• W2029897654 modified "2023-10-04" @default.
• W2029897654 title "The evolution of coloniality: does commodity selection explain it all?" @default.
• W2029897654 cites W1971279190 @default.
• W2029897654 cites W2005556572 @default.
• W2029897654 cites W2044213568 @default.
• W2029897654 cites W2048783488 @default.
• W2029897654 cites W2092480213 @default.
• W2029897654 cites W2160814865 @default.
• W2029897654 cites W2161666159 @default.
• W2029897654 cites W2322253051 @default.
• W2029897654 cites W2330918470 @default.
• W2029897654 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01300-1" @default.
• W2029897654 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21238206" @default.
• W2029897654 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W2029897654 type Work @default.
• W2029897654 sameAs 2029897654 @default.
• W2029897654 citedByCount "13" @default.
• W2029897654 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2029897654 hasAuthorship W2029897654A5020721924 @default.
• W2029897654 hasAuthorship W2029897654A5062544546 @default.
• W2029897654 hasAuthorship W2029897654A5062578802 @default.
• W2029897654 hasBestOaLocation W20298976541 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C118084267 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C2779439359 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C118084267 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C154945302 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C162324750 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C18903297 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C2779439359 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C2779473830 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C34447519 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C41008148 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C55493867 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C81917197 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C83867959 @default.
• W2029897654 hasConceptScore W2029897654C86803240 @default.
• W2029897654 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2029897654 hasLocation W20298976541 @default.
• W2029897654 hasLocation W20298976542 @default.
• W2029897654 hasOpenAccess W2029897654 @default.
• W2029897654 hasPrimaryLocation W20298976541 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W1202469404 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W1565049854 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W2017424450 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W2022300457 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W2027998578 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W2032521526 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W2048334118 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W2067577249 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W2070683104 @default.
• W2029897654 hasRelatedWork W4251439108 @default.
• W2029897654 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W2029897654 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2029897654 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2029897654 magId "2029897654" @default.
• W2029897654 workType "article" @default.