Interspecific relationships of organisms: Cooperation and Commensalism. Examples and description of symbiosis in wildlife What is cooperation in biology
The relationship between organisms.
Bees and flowers
Pollination.The most striking and well-known example of symbiosis, familiar to us from children's textbooks on natural history and which we can observe in our everyday life, both on the example of indoor plants and in nature, is the community of bees and flowers. This type of symbiosis serves to continue the life of both the plants and the insects themselves. A bee takes nectar and pollen from flowers and, flying from flower to flower, delivers other pollen necessary for pollination. Thanks to such joint work, plants multiply. Thanks to the flowers, the bee herself eats sweet nectar and produces healthy honey.
To attract insects, flowers have special mechanisms - some species emit aromas and smells that attract insects from considerable distances, others take on a bright elegant color. But after pollination, nectar does not remain in the flowers. And so that the bee does not come once again to the empty plant, the flowers have many ways to inform the bees about this: they lose their aroma, drop their petals, turn their heads away or change color and fade.
In addition to bees, a huge number of other insects also participate in the pollination of plants - among the insects of our strip that are familiar to us, these are wasps, bumblebees, all kinds of beetles, etc. Scientists say that 70 percent of flowering plants exist thanks to insects. In addition, 30 percent of food products are crops pollinated by bees (V. Pokidko)
Living organisms do not settle with each other by chance, but form certain communities adapted to live together. Among the huge variety of interconnections of living beings, certain types of relationships are distinguished, which have much in common with organisms of different systematic groups. In the direction of action on the body, they are all divided positive, negative and neutral.
Positive relationship - symbiosis.
Symbiosis - cohabitation (from the Greek. sym - together, bios - life), a form of relationship in which both partners or one of them benefits from the other. There are several forms of mutually beneficial cohabitation of living organisms.
Well-known cohabitation of hermit crabs with soft coral polyps - sea anemones. Cancer settles in an empty shell of a mollusk and carries it on itself together with a polyp. Such cohabitation is mutually beneficial: moving along the bottom, the cancer increases the space used by anemone to catch prey, part of which, affected by the stinging cells of anemone, falls to the bottom and is eaten by the cancer.
Mutualism.(from lat. mutuus - mutual)
A form of mutually beneficial cohabitation is widespread when the presence of a partner becomes a prerequisite for the existence of each of them. One of the most famous examples of such relationships - lichens, representing cohabitation of the fungus and algae. In the lichen, fungal hyphae, entwining cells and threads of algae, form special suction processes that penetrate the cells. Through them, the fungus receives photosynthesis products formed by algae. Algae extracts water and mineral salts from hyphae of the fungus.
Mutualism is widespread in plant world. An example of a mutually beneficial relationship is the cohabitation of the so-called nodule bacteria and legumes (peas, beans, soybeans, clover, alfalfa, vetch, white acacia, peanuts, or peanuts). These bacteria, which are capable of assimilating the nitrogen of the air and turning it into ammonia, and then into amino acids, settle in the roots of plants. The presence of bacteria causes the growth of root tissues and the formation of thickenings - nodules.
Commensalism (from, com - together, mensa - pesa) One of the widespread forms of symbiosis is the relationship; in which one kind of sex enjoys the benefit of cohabitation, and the other does not care. In the open ocean, large marine animals (sharks, dolphins, turtles) are often accompanied by pilot fish. Obviously, the benefits of cohabitation are mainly for pilots. Such relationships between species are called parasitism. It can take many forms. For example, hyenas pick up the remnants of an undernourished lion prey.
An example of the transition of freebling to closer relations between species is the sticking fish that live in tropical and subtropical seas. Their front dorsal fin was transformed into a suction cup. The biological meaning of the attachment stuck is to facilitate the movement and resettlement of these fish.
Amensalism - this is a type of interaction when one of the species interacting is suppressed by the other, while the second kind of such a joint life does not receive any harm or benefit. This form of interaction is more common in plants. For example, photophilous herbaceous species growing under spruce are oppressed due to strong shading by their crown, while for the tree itself their proximity may be indifferent. Or penicillin negatively affects bacteria in a Petri dish, while bacteria do not affect the fungus. Amensalism is widespread in aquatic environment. So, blue-green algae, multiplying, lead to poisoning of the aquatic fauna.
Antibiotic relationship.
Antibiosis - a form of relationship in which both interacting populations or one of them are negatively affected. Adverse effects of some species on others can occur in different forms.
Predation.This is one of the most common forms of great importance in self-regulation of biocenoses. Predators are animals (as well as some plants) that feed on other animals that they catch and kill. Objects of predator hunting! extremely diverse. The lack of specialization allows predators to use a variety of foods. For example, foxes eat fruit; Bears pick berries and love to enjoy honey from forest bees. Although all predators have preferred species of prey, the mass reproduction of unusual objects of hunting makes them switch to them. So, peregrine falcons get food in the air. But with the mass breeding of lemmings, falcons begin to hunt them, grabbing prey from the ground.
Predation is one of the main forms of struggle for existence and is found in all large groups of eukaryotic organisms
A special case of predation is cannibalism - eating individuals of their own species, most often juveniles. Cannibalism is often found in spiders (females often eat males), in fish (eating fry). Mammalian females also sometimes eat their cubs.
Predation is associated with the mastery of resisting and fleeing prey. When attacking birds of a peregrine falcon, most victims die instantly from a sudden blow to the claws of a falcon.
Therefore, natural selection, acting in a predator population, will increase the effectiveness of search and fishing means.
Similar behavior has developed in primates. With the threat of a predator attack, the females with the cubs find themselves in a dense ring of males.
In the evolution of the predator-prey relationship, there is a constant improvement of both predators and their victims.
The need for nitrogen in plants growing on nutrient-poor soils, washed with water, led to the appearance of a very interesting phenomenon in them. These plants have devices for catching insects. The venereal flycatcher found in Russia leaves are collected in a basal rosette. The entire upper side and edges of each leaf are covered with glandular hairs. In the center of the leaf, the glandular hairs are short, along the edges are long. The head of the hair is surrounded by a transparent droplet of thick sticky viscous mucus. Small flies or ants sit or crawl onto a leaf and stick to it.
Eating animals - predation - is also found in fungi. Predatory fungi form hunting apparatuses in the form of small oval or spherical heads located on! short twigs of mycelium. However, the most common type of leuvushki is sticky three-dimensional networks consisting of a large number of rings formed as a result of branching hyphae. Often predatory fungi catch animals that are larger than them, for example roundworms. The capture process is similar to catching flies on sticky paper. Soon after entanglement of the worm, the fungal hyphae grow inside and quickly fill the entire body. , The whole process lasts about a day. In the absence of nematodes, fungi do not form traps. The emergence is difficult! trapping apparatus is chemically stimulated, the vital product of worms.
A study of the behavior of vampire bats. In it, scientists showed that vampires share the blood they hunted with other individuals in the group, not necessarily relatives, and thus form “social bonds” that help them survive. Vampires cannot starve for a long time, after three nights of “fasting” they die. Therefore, than with a large number of brothers shares food bat, the more “donors” will share with her in a difficult period. This behavior of vampires is far from the most unusual example of cooperation in animals. We decided to recall what forms cooperation can take in animals.
"Kindergartens"
The emperor penguin is the largest member of the penguin family, lives on ice floes around Antarctica, and migrates to stable ice next to the mainland and further to the mainland to hatch eggs and care for offspring. Mating season Emperor penguins begin at the beginning of the Antarctic winter, therefore, in the most severe frosts with strong winds, penguins are forced to spend on land. Penguins first hold the egg, and then the chicks on their paws and cover it with a leather fold, the so-called bag, which protects the egg and the chick from the cold. After 45 - 50 days, the chicks grow so much that they no longer fit in the bag. At the same time, it is still very cold outside and the chicks without shelter can freeze. And then the penguins invented an interesting way of cooperation. The chicks stray into a tight pile, a kind of "kindergarten" first, so as not to lose heat, and secondly, to protect against birds of prey - giant petrel and Antarctic skuas. The "kindergarten" is being watched by adult birds, ready, if necessary, to protect the chicks.
Not only emperor penguins look after the chicks in "kindergartens", but also other birds - gag, pegans, Canadian geese. “Kindergartens” are also found in mammals, mainly those that live in closely related groups. Lionesses in the pride not only look after the cubs together, but also feed with milk and they lion and their own and others. It is interesting that when the lionesses go hunting, the males “look after” the lionesses. Beavers living in the same hut distinguish the “attendants”, who take turns watching the beavers and often play the role of “rescuers”, since the young are not swimming very well.
However, “kindergartens” are so effective that animals living in groups, but not relatives, use this method of cooperation. For example, black-tailed deer females monitor the deer of other females from their group, and when a predator appears, they protect not only their cubs, but also aliens. “Kindergartens” even organize reptiles; among caimans one of the females takes care of her and other cubs during the first one or two months of their life.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Hunting
Predators living in groups, such as lions, hyena dogs, wolves, usually hunt together too. For example, in the pride, lionesses usually hunt, lions join them when the pride preys on large prey - a giraffe or a buffalo. Several predators creep up to the herd from different sides and quickly attack, choosing the animal closest to them as prey. Each lioness has one and the same preferred position - “from the flanks” or “center”, which the predator takes on the hunt. Lionesses “from the flanks” start hunting and drive their prey towards the “center” individuals, and those, in turn, catch the fleeing animal “on the fly” when it makes big jumps, trying to avoid pursuit.
Many different methods of group hunting were invented by killer whales, mammals from the toothed whale suborder, and the dolphin family. Killer whales are a widespread species; they live in all oceans and in many seas from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Therefore, they eat diverse, those animals that are found next to them. Killer whales prey on schooling fish like salmon or herring, sharks, stingrays, seabirds, marine mammals - various species of seals, sea otter and even whales (sperm whales, minke whales, gray whales). Accordingly, for hunting different types of prey, these animals have developed various tactics.
Orcas living off the coast of Norway prey on flocking fish in a small group. Dolphins surround the school of fish and begin to blow bubbles, make sounds or swim around the school to scare the fish and collect it in a dense ball near the surface of the water. Then the killer whales hit the jamb with their tail, stunning or killing several fish at once, and eat them. When hunting for whales, dolphins choose either a cub or a weak (sick or wounded) individual. A group of killer whales chases a female with a kitten swimming nearby until they manage to separate them. Then the killer whales surround the cub and do not let it to the surface, that is, they actually drown it. A case of killer whale hunting for a group of sperm whales is documented, during which females attacked several sperm whales, biting them and then sailing to the side. Then the killer whales killed one seriously injured whale. In Antarctica, while hunting seals lying on ice floes, a group of killer whales raises big wavesthat wash seals into the water and they become prey for dolphins.
Group protection and security
One of the advantages of living in a group is the possibility of collective protection and protection of group members from predators. For example, while meerkats from the mongoose family dig in the ground in search of insects, the group is guarded by sentries, which change approximately every hour. If the sentry notices danger, it gives a signal to the others and the whole group scatter along holes. In a group of gorillas, one or two sentries are hiding in trees not far from others, feeding or resting. In case of danger, the watchman screams at the rest of the group and screams at the aliens to try and stop them and let the group escape.Musk oxen, if they do not have the opportunity to escape from predators, to defend themselves, stray in a circle in the middle of which calves are placed. Adult animals turn to the approaching enemy and one of the males attacks the predator, immediately returning to the circle. Bison are protected in the same way. Sperm whales for protection against killer whales form a similar design: they form a circle with their heads inward, with their tail outwards and in the center of the circle they hide whales.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Building
Some animals build their homes together. The most familiar example for us is, of course, beavers. These are social animals that live in groups of five to eight individuals and live in the same hole or hut. On low, swampy shores, where it is impossible to dig a hole, beavers build a hut, which is a pile of brushwood, held together by earth and silt. The walls are also coated with clay or silt, which makes the dwelling inaccessible to predators, and also provides good thermal insulation. In winter, the temperature in the hut does not drop below zero degrees. Air enters the home through a hole in the ceiling.Public weavers build real communal nests from grass, straw and branches, in which 10 to 400 birds can live. The largest known nest of weavers is more than six meters wide and about three meters high. It has more than 100 individual nests. Good heat insulation of nests helps weavers to withstand the harsh climate of the savannahs of South Africa with a large temperature difference in winter and summer.
Thus, cooperation and altruism in the animal world forms a whole range of forms, on the one hand which are eusocial animals, on the other hand, animals living in groups, but not relatives. Than animals are genetically closer friend to a friend, the higher their altruism, up to self-sacrifice in the interests of the group. For example, the well-known honey bee that bites animals or people who ruin the hive and die at the same time. If the group consists of animals that are not relatives, then their altruism is mutual, “you are to me, I am to you”. A good example of reciprocal altruism is the vampire bats mentioned at the beginning of the article.
The emergence and evolution of altruism is now being studied a lot. Here is a good overview of research on this topic. Moreover, scientists are investigating altruistic behavior not only in animals, but also in plants and microorganisms. So the cooperation and altruism that we observe in human society, although impressive, but not unique.
Photo: Anders Mohlin / flickr.com
Ekaterina Rusakova
Collaboration, or collaboration, between animals usually involves some form of altruism. In cooperation between representatives different typescalled symbiosis relationships are built on a reciprocal basis. For example, many species of aphids provide protection by cooperating with ants; ants in this case receive food from aphids. So when the black garden ant (Lasita niger) meets bean aphids (Aphis fabae), he tickles the aphids with antennae, which causes her to secrete honey dew - a sugary liquid (a byproduct of digestion), which the ant eats.
Amphiprion (a small fish) hides from predators, swimming without any harm between the tentacles of sea anemones. This fish has developed resistance to stinging anemones, and there is no doubt that sea anemones could have developed an effective remedy against amphiprions during evolution. However, these fish do not harm the sea anemones, and some even protect their sea anemones from predators such as butterfly fish (Chaetodon), biting off the tips of the tentacles. Sea anemones also benefit from such cohabitation by eating leftover food from these fish. Thus, we see that the relationship between these animals is based on mutual benefits: sea anemone benefits by receiving food and some protection from predators, and the amphiprion, its eggs and fry are protected from predators and can develop between the tentacles of sea anemones without interference.
Cooperation between individuals of the same species often involves some form of altruism. Joint hunting in hyena dogs, lions and hyenas is usually carried out by relatives. Hyena dogs (Lycaon pictus) they usually sacrifice animals much larger than themselves, such as a zebra or wildebeest. They select a single animal and pursue it for a long time. Hunting includes cooperation in the selection of the victim and during the pursuit of it. During the chase, leaders can change and thus share the severity of the chase over a long distance. Dogs running behind sometimes cut corners, trying to block the path of the victim. Prey is divided into all members of the group, and after returning home, adults often burp food for puppies. Some adults do not participate in the hunt, but protect the young, but the returning group also feeds these animals. Thus, individual dogs show altruism in relation to other members of the group, and do not pursue only their own interests.
Altruistic behavior in collective hunts is not masked by anything, and it is easy to explain in terms of the selection of relatives. However, the joint breeding of offspring poses a more complex problem for the evolutionist. For example, a Mexican jay removes chicks collectively and lives in packs of 4 to 15 individuals. This is a sedentary species, and each flock jointly defends its territory in an oak or pine forest. A breeding couple builds a nest, and the female lays eggs only in her nest. Each flock can have from one to four nests. Not only parents, but also other members of the flock feed the hatched chicks. About 50% of the food received by the chicks is brought not by their parents, but by other birds of the flock. These nest assistants show obvious signs of altruism - at the cost of their own high costs, they help to grow other people's offspring.
It is necessary to explain why the mutation, which leads to the inability to help grow offspring of other individuals, should not spread in the population and ultimately destroy the basis of cooperative behavior. Firstly, helpers are closely related to the offspring of other members of the pack, and therefore altruistic traits are maintained in the population by selection of relatives. Secondly, nest assistants benefit from their seemingly altruistic behavior. Perhaps they enjoy the patronage of a breeding pair or gain valuable experience. Thirdly, some forms of mutual altruism are involved here. Perhaps the nesting couple suffers other birds on its territory and some depletion of resources in exchange for the help received when raising young. Before evaluating these options, it is useful to find out if different species of birds that breed offspring have any common symptoms.
A review of the literature (Emlen, 1978) suggests that in most species of birds that breed offspring together, some characters are similar. For example, most of them are sedentary and inhabit the tropics or subtropics. The living conditions there are relatively constant, and seasonal weather changes are small, which leads to competition for suitable habitats and territory; moreover, in places suitable for nesting, there is often little food. Robert Selander (1964) suggested that such conditions lead to the development of social territoriality and the joint rearing of offspring, and this point of view is confirmed by the data of a number of ethologists working with different species (Emlen, 1978). Birds co-raising offspring typically have characteristics typical of populations living in adverse conditions environment - this is low fecundity, long life expectancy, late puberty and low dispersibility (Brown, 1970). Usually young people stay in the territory of their parents and are involved as assistants. It may seem that young people who remain close to the nest increase their likelihood of survival and at the same time gain valuable experience. However, this does not explain why young people should incur additional costs by helping parents raise their next brood. It is also not obvious that breeding birds actually benefit from such helpers at the nest. Emlen summarized the advantages and disadvantages of co-breeding as follows.
There are various ways to benefit breeding birds. They can receive valuable help when caring and raising offspring. Comparison of the reproductive success of parents with and without helpers in 12 species showed that usually helpers really help. However, in five species, breeding pairs with helpers occupied a larger and better territory than pairs without helpers. Thus, the greater success of these pairs is probably due to the best quality of the territory. Or perhaps large groups (i.e. groups with assistants) can protect a large territory.
Assistants can serve for insurance, that is, they can raise chicks in the event of the death of one of the parents.
The experience gained by assistants increases their chances of successful breeding in the future. If the helpers are closely related to the producers, then their future successful breeding will increase the aggregate fitness of these producers.
Attracting or retaining helpers is an important way to increase group size. Competition between groups may mean that a large group is better able to capture and defend a better territory. There is another advantage of a large group, such as faster detection of predators, which increases the likelihood of survival of all members of the group.
Having helpers in a group can create some inconvenience. Additional birds may choose food supplies to such an extent that the likelihood of successful breeding is reduced. Increased activity near the nest can attract the attention of predators.
The inexperience of novice helpers can be harmful to offspring. This is true if experience is important in showing parental care. South Australian water chicken studies (Tribonyx mortierii) and crested jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) have shown that experienced parents achieve greater reproductive success than inexperienced (Emlen, 1978).
As part of a territory capture strategy, helpers can sabotage the efforts of a breeding pair. There is evidence that this does occur in some species. Many researchers have described serious quarrels between manufacturers and their assistants; it was noted that Arab shrubs (Turdoides squamiceps) (Zahavi, 1974), and crested jays (Woolfenden, 1973) often destroy eggs in the nests of their own group.
Non-breeding birds, becoming helpers, can derive various kinds of benefits from their position: 1) they gain experience in raising offspring; 2) receive a certain benefit from the existence in the group; 3) increase overall fitness by helping relatives; 4) inherit part of the territory of the parents.
The main damage that a non-breeding bird can suffer when it joins a breeding pair is that it will lose the opportunity or delay its own breeding. However, the chances of independent successful breeding are small due to difficulties in finding a mating partner, founding an independent territory and mating as a beginner.
Theoretically, altruistic behavior can be distinguished among other types of social interaction, given the proportional distribution of benefits between both participants. Hamilton (Hamilton, 1964) suggested the terminology given in tab. 9.5, to describe the four main types of interactions. This classification can be successfully used to describe the situation with assistants at the nest. If the relationship between the breeding bird and its helper is indeed a cooperative relationship, then it can be expected that both birds benefit by increasing individual fitness. This happens in situations where living together in a group is beneficial for both a breeding couple and its assistants. For example, a group may own better territory than a couple, or more successfully repel attacks by predators. The assistance provided by non-breeding birds can be considered both as payment for joining a group (Gaston, 1976) and as a form of training (Emlen, 1978), since the helper ultimately assumes the role of a breeding female.
In cases where the helper’s behavior is purely altruistic, breeding birds gain a certain gain, while the helper’s individual fitness decreases. The helper’s overall fitness increases when she helps relatives; such a strategy could appear in the process of selecting relatives. An alternative strategy in which young birds mate and settle on their own from the very beginning is apparently not viable. Assistants, apparently, have to wait until a free territory appears.
Selfish assistants benefit from joining a breeding pair, but they reduce the reproductive success of a breeding pair. In some woodpeckers (Skutch, 1969) and white-winged nymphs (Rowler, 1965), inexperienced helpers are usually useless. Excessive birds on the territory can deplete food supplies, and excessive fussing at the nest can attract predators. Why should parents tolerate the presence of helper birds if they are of no use? One possible reason is an interest in a kind of genetic well-being; in addition, it is perhaps a form of extended care for offspring.
If neither the producers nor the assistants receive any benefit, then such a relationship can be considered hostile. However, parents may be tolerant of assistants, even if their presence is harmful, for the reasons discussed in the previous paragraph. Assistants may not gain anything in a short time, but they are able to sabotage the efforts of a breeding couple and eventually take over this territory (Zahavi, 1974, 1976).
All living organisms in nature are interconnected by a variety of relationships called biotic. Their appearance is due to the need to obtain food, to facilitate reproduction and distribution, to eliminate competitors. No species is useless or meaningless, for which there are numerous examples. Protocooperation - one of the types of biotic interaction - is considered by scientists to be almost the most curious connection between organisms.
What it is
Protocooperation is a biotic relationship in which cooperation of different types brings substantial benefits to all parties, but is not required for any of them. That is, the participants in the interaction are able to exist separately, however, the joint functioning greatly improves the quality of their life. Another name for the type of connection is optional symbiosis. Examples of protocooperation in nature show that such relationships are very important and very common. They arise both within the various kingdoms of living organisms, and between them.
Protocooperation: animal examples
One of the most famous examples of facultative symbiosis is the association of hermit crabs and sea anemones. In the crayfish themselves, the shell is very soft, and without a “neighbor” they have less chance of survival. Actinium has a small space for food production. Protocooperation provides cancer protection from predators, and sea anemones increase hunting space.
Some species of birds provide similar services to rhinos. Moreover, they voluntarily perform protective functions, screaming warning rhinos about danger.
Protocooperation: plant examples
It is readily used by farmers, planting beans along with cereals. The former provide the latter with easily digestible nitrogen, the latter provide the beans with a support to resist the winds and receive more sunlight.
Optional symbiosis between different kingdoms
Very often between plants and insects occurs protocooperation. Examples can be given a variety of. The most striking illustration is the optional symbiosis between ants and some herbs, in particular, thyme and European ungulate. In the latter, flowers are inconspicuous, inconspicuous, and even located very close to the ground. But they are rich in nectar, for which ants come, pollinating flowers at the same time. Note that the hoof can do without pollination without these insects, in their absence the wind serves as an instrument, although with a noticeably lower efficiency. Ants also contribute to the spread of seeds: they contain an aryllus, for the sake of which insects pull away planting material without damaging it.
Protocooperation between higher plants (oak, pine, birch and many perennial herbs) and mushrooms is very common. This connection is called mycorrhiza. When it is established, the fungal mycelium can even penetrate inside the root, on which the hairs stop developing. The mushroom is fed from a higher plant, supplying it with water and mineral salts in return. Moreover, both communication participants can do without each other, but in the aggregate they develop much better and faster.
Features of protocooperation
The protocooperation, the examples of which we have cited, is characterized by the non-specificity of species entering into such relationships. This means that participants are able to unite with different partners, often temporarily, while they need some specific qualities of the second side. For example, birds in winter, finding food in non-snowy areas, often combine with ungulates. Those provide access to feeding, breaking a layer of snow or ice, and birds warn "associates" of possible dangers.
Unsteady line
It is often difficult for biologists to determine where commensalism is, where mutualism is, and where is protocooperation. There are many examples of such vague relationships. Mention may be made of flying insects. On the one hand, this process is a by-product of feeding the same bees, so that it can be attributed to protocooperation. On the other hand, insects cannot survive without pollen, so the connection can be considered as mutualistic. To simplify the understanding of the fine line between these two types of biotic connections, it is considered that if only one species of insect or insect can feed on only one species of plant, then this relationship refers to mutualism. If pollinators are different, as are the types of vegetation, then
The same remark applies to commensalism, in which cooperation is beneficial to one side and indifferent to the other. For example, the existence of non-pathogenic microorganisms in the human body. They eat at the expense of the carrier, they do no harm, but the person receives far from all benefits and unequal: some to some extent protect him from pathogens, some retain neutrality.
Biologists are also aware of intermediate examples between mutualism and protocooperation. One of the species participating in the communication can do without the second, but its “partner” cannot survive without the other side.
The text of the article below departs from the general principles specified in the community rules, but I believe that this text will give a general understanding of the benefits of the altruistic model of interaction, i.e. implementation of the concept of cooperation both in life and in business.
Cooperation in animals
Studying the evolution of altruism and cooperation is central theme evolutionary ethics, and this is one of those areas in which biology - natural science - has recently begun to boldly invade the “forbidden” territory, where philosophers, theologians and humanities have so far reigned supreme. No wonder passions are boiling around evolutionary ethics. But I won’t talk about these passions, because they boil beyond the bounds of science, and we biologists are interested in something completely different. We are interested in why, on the one hand, most living beings behave selfishly, but, on the other hand, there are many who commit altruistic acts, that is, sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.
Biologists trying to explain the origin of cooperation and altruism have two main questions.
On the one hand, it is quite obvious that almost all the life tasks facing organisms are, in principle, much easier to solve by joint efforts than alone. Cooperation, that is, joint problem solving, usually implying a certain amount of altruism on the part of cooperators, could be an ideal solution for most problems for a huge number of organisms. Why, then, is the biosphere so unlike the paradise of the earth, why has it not turned into a kingdom of universal love, friendship and mutual assistance? This is the first question.
The second question is the opposite of the first. How can cooperation and altruism come about in the course of evolution, if the driving force of evolution is basically an egoistic mechanism natural selection? A primitive, simplified understanding of evolutionary mechanisms has repeatedly pushed different people to the absolutely incorrect conclusion that the very idea of \u200b\u200baltruism is incompatible with evolution. This was facilitated by such, in my opinion, not very successful metaphors, such as “struggle for existence " and especially the "survival of the fittest." If the fittest always survives, what kind of altruism can we talk about?
But this, as I said, is an extremely primitive and incorrect understanding of evolution. What is the mistake here? The mistake here is in mixing levels at which we consider evolution. It can be considered at the level of genes, individuals, groups, populations, species, maybe even ecosystems. But the results of evolution are recorded (remembered) only at the level of genes. Therefore, the primary, basic level from which we must begin consideration is the genetic level. At the gene level, evolution is based on the competition of different variants, or alleles, of the same gene for dominance in the gene pool of the population. And at this level there is no altruism and, in principle, cannot be. The gene is always selfish. If a “good” allele appears that, to the detriment of itself, allows another allele to multiply, then this altruistic allele will inevitably be forced out of the gene pool and simply disappear.
But if we look from the level of competing alleles to the level of competing individuals, the picture will be different. Because the interests of the gene do not always coincide with the interests of the body. How can they not match? The fact is that they themselves do not coincide with the physical framework in which they exist. A gene, or more precisely, an allele, is not a single object; it is present in the gene pool in the form of multiple copies. And the body is a single object, and it usually carries only one or two of these copies. In many situations, it is beneficial for a selfish gene to sacrifice one or two copies of itself in order to provide an advantage to the rest of their copies, which are contained in other organisms.
Biologists began to approach this idea already in the 30s of the last century. The most important contribution to the understanding of the evolution of altruism was made at different times by three great biologists: Ronald Fisher, John Haldane and William Hamilton.
In which group of animals did the evolution of altruism lead to the largest-scale consequences? I think many will agree with me if I say that they are hymenopteran insects that developed the so-called eusociality (true sociality): ants, bees, wasps, bumblebees. In these insects, most females give up their own breeding to help their mother raise other daughters. Why hymenoptera?
It is all about the features of the inheritance of sex in this order of insects. Hymenoptera females have a double set of chromosomes and develop from fertilized eggs. Males are haploid (have a single set of chromosomes) and develop from the unfertilized eggs.
Because of this, a paradoxical situation arises: sisters turn out to be closer relatives than mother and daughter. In most animals, the degree of kinship between sisters and between mothers and daughters is the same (50% of the total genes, the r value in the Hamilton formula is ½). Hymenoptera sisters have 75% of the total genes (r \u003d ¾), because each sister receives from her father not half of his chromosomes randomly selected, but the entire genome. Mother and daughter hymenoptera have, like in other animals, only 50% of the total genes.
So it turns out that for the effective transfer of their genes to the next generation, hymenoptera females, all other things being equal, are more profitable to raise sisters than daughters.
The mechanism of kinship selection, apparently, is the basis of many cases of altruism in nature. In addition to kinship selection, there are a number of mechanisms, some of which help, while others, on the contrary, impede the evolution of altruism.
Examples of cooperation in species communities.
An analysis of the social ecology of many animal species shows that communities with developed cooperation are most often related groups.
Vampires Cooperation can take such extreme forms as the direct exchange of food, described, in addition to public insects, in some canids, chimpanzees, and living in large colonies of vampire bats. The latter are the clearest example of "altruistic" behavior, since it comes it is about salvation from starvation: without drinking blood for two consecutive nights, the vampire dies, unless he begs food from another individual. The community structure of these animals is also interesting because it combines the cooperation of relatives and the so-called “reciprocal (cross) altruism”: alien, unrelated animals constantly help each other. Such relations between unrelated members of the community can remain in the population only in cases where the partners know each other well and coexist for a long time.
AT tropical America Vampire colonies live in hollows of trees and fly out at night to feed on the blood of horses and cows. A colony consists of groups of 8–12 females and an equal number of cubs. Young females usually remain with their mothers, and thus several generations live together in the same tree. Males violently defend territories — hollow sections where females hang in clusters. From time to time, females change trees, passing into other groups, but at the same time strong bonds are established between the individual individuals. So, two females spent 12 years in a row taking vacations nearby (vampire life expectancy is up to 18 years).
The researcher kept in captivity female vampires, both related and unrelated to each other, the latter being closely related to each other. The animals were fed with blood, and every night one of the animals was sent to starve to a separate cage. After his return to the group, they watched the exchange of food. It turned out that he was fed by both relatives and unrelated animals, with whom a system of constant mutual exchange was established.
Studies of demographic indicators in vampire populations led the author to conclude that this strategy, in which reciprocal food exchange, i.e. reciprocal altruism, and the selection of relatives, is evolutionarily stable, which means, on the whole, apparently, is fixed by selection.
Chimpanzee Chimpanzee communities of 50 or more are characterized by a unique social structure: each occupies the territory from which all other chimpanzee males are driven out. Within this territory, group members are in constant motion, searching for food. If it is small, some individuals can separate from the group and go to independent food search. In periods of abundance, monkeys gather in large groups for feeding, mating, grooming and resting. This tactic of "merger - separation", in which the community is constantly falling apart and reunited again, rarely found among public animals. Another feature is even less common - exogamy of females, i.e. mating in an alien group. Sexually mature females migrate to another community. In contrast males spend their whole life in the territory where they were born. Observations also showed that small groups (3-4 individuals) are optimal for food search, however, males from such small groups use special sound signals - “hooting” —notify members of other small groups belonging to this community and attract them to fruit trees , dividing with newcomers sometimes I write quite scarce. Even more surprising is not only the lack of competition, but also a peculiar tolerance for mating other males in chimpanzee communities. The possibility of mating in these monkeys is extremely limited: on average only three females in a community are receptive on average, and, therefore, only three males can become the founders of a new lineage of descendants this year. However, even dominant males do not interfere with the mating of other members of the community. Moreover, according to the observations of Goodall (1992), a semi-paralyzed male who had not been involved in reproduction for a long time and could not occupy a high position in the community, helped his younger brother and ultimately helped him achieve alpha male status.
At the same time, in chimpanzee communities, manifestations of mutual assistance can be combined with extreme cruelty to members of other communities and even to cubs (infanticide).
Sociobiologists explain such paradoxes from the standpoint of the theory of “selection of relatives”, taking into account the peculiarities of the “reproductive strategy” of this type. Chimpanzee females usually come to this community from others, and most often they are not related by kinship. The males of the community, on the contrary, are in close genetic kinship, since they come from the same line of “patriarchs”. It is possible that this genetic kinship underlies the apparent altruism of males. Any two males in the community possess some and maybe a considerable number of common genes.
Any improvement in nutritional conditions and the ability to reproduce For one of the members of the group will simultaneously increase the overall fitness of his relative. In general, genetic kinship and overall fitness can be key factors in the evolution of this type of community.
It is possible that the same reasons can also explain intolerance towards alien cubs observed in many animal species. In predators living in groups, such as lions, young animals are usually killed by animals that rejoin the group in the hope of their own reproductive success.
It should be noted that in elephants and dolphins, unlike chimpanzees, there are not male, but maternal clans. Meanwhile, the behavior of their members can be “dictated” by the same socio-biological laws.
In many animal species, social strategies based on kinship and “friendship” relations between group members can be considered evolutionarily stable (see above), but often these relationships are surprisingly complex and confusing. It often turns out that cooperation in some areas of activity is combined with rather fierce competition in others. The functional role of this or that form of behavior, the benefits of such behavior for the community, the ways of its formation are also far from always clear.
