Post on 05-May-2023
Care for kin: within group relatedness and allomaternal care are 1
positively correlated and conserved throughout mammalian 2
phylogeny 3
Electronic supplementary material 2: Materials & Methods 4
Michael Briga, Ido Pen, Jonathan Wright
5
1. Literature search and estimates of relatedness 6
We considered all studies of placental mammals living in the wild in known social 7
arrangements, which was defined as an aggregation of at least two adult females with at least 8
one of them having dependent young, for which there was an estimate of the mean relatedness 9
for adult females based on microsatellite marker data. We excluded kin structures inferred 10
from behavioural data or other marker data, because these are considered less accurate (e.g. 11
[1, 2]. We searched the literature on October 22nd
2011 using the Web of Science database of 12
Web of Knowledge (http://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA_GeneralSearch_input.do?product= 13
UA&SID=V1JOIaGjakmPKkOBhBF&search_mode=GeneralSearch). We checked all 14
citations of the following statistical methods to estimate relatedness: [3-11]. This is an 15
exhaustive list that includes the most commonly used estimators of relatedness [12]. Most 16
studies (41 out of 48) used the Queller & Goodnight [3] index. For three species, studies that 17
report the mean did not report the standard error. For these, we took the mean standard 18
deviation of all studies in our dataset and divided it by the square-root of the number of social 19
units estimated in that particular study. 20
21
2. The social unit 22
In most species in the dataset, social units were readily identifiable based upon their spatial 23
segregation. However, some species live in flexible fission-fusion societies with a hierarchical 24
structure (e.g. delphinids [13] and elephants [14]). In these cases, we used the most prevalent 25
social unit (see S1 p.1). Average group sizes and their standard errors were taken from the 26
same study population as relatedness estimates are based on and if possible in the same study 27
years. For four species, studies that report the means did not report the standard error. For 28
these, we took the mean standard deviation of all studies in our dataset and divided it by the 29
square-root of the number of social units estimated in that particular study. 30
3. Allomaternal care 31
In this study we focus on allomaternal care only and did not investigate paternal care. This is 32
because females provide care in all mammal species. Male care is rather rare: only 9% of 33
mammal species exhibit biparental care [15]. We only used observations of allomaternal care 34
in the wild. That is because observations from captive animals may not be representative for a 35
species’ natural behaviour. Allomaternal care behaviours include allonursing, allofeeding, 36
allocarrying of young (e.g. in callitrichid primates), escorting and guarding or ‘babysitting’ of 37
young (e.g. in cetacea and probscidea). It is a common approach in comparative analyses to 38
categorize cooperative breeding as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Since allomaternal care includes such 39
a variety of behaviours then any quantitative data from the wild, if available (which is rare for 40
non-cooperative breeders), is often not comparable between species. 41
Data for allomaternal care is primarily based on reviews: [16-20]. Whenever a species was not 42
in these reviews we performed a search in the Web of Science database of Web of Knowledge 43
(http://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=UA&SID=V1JOIa44
GjakmPKkOBhBF&search_mode=GeneralSearch) on October 22nd
2011 using as keywords 45
species name (scientific or common name) with (allo)nursing, (allo)lactation, (allo)maternal 46
care, (allo)feeding young, (allo)parental care, infant care or ‘cooperat*’. 47
4. Phylogeny and statistical analyses 48
We constructed the phylogeny of the 44 species of placental mammals (supplementary fig. 1) 49
using Mesquite ver. 2.71 [21] based upon previously published supertrees. Supertrees 50
combine existing phylogenetic tree topologies (based on morphological and molecular data) 51
that share some taxa in common. At the family level we used the supertree of Bininda-52
Emonds et al [22]. Whenever species-specific relationships were required, we used the 53
supertrees of Purvis [23] for the primates, of Jones et al [24] for the Chiroptera, of Price et al 54
[25] for Cetariodactyla, and of Bininda-Emonds et al [26] for the Carnivora. Since we lacked 55
data on several branch lengths in the phylogeny, we used arbitrary branch lengths following 56
the method of Grafen [27], which estimates branch lengths by setting the height of each node 57
equal to the number of taxa minus one. 58
One method to ascertain whether data exhibit phylogenetic dependence is to quantify the size 59
of the phylogenetic signal in traits or models using the parameter lambda [28, 29]. In a least 60
squares regression equation, this parameter is a multiplier of the off-diagonal elements of the 61
phylogenetic covariance matrix. Lambda commonly ranges between 0 and 1 (although values 62
larger than 1 are theoretically possible [28]): a value of 0 indicates that no phylogenetic 63
correction is needed. A value of 1 indicates that covariance in trait values among species fits a 64
Brownian motion model along the given tree. We estimated values of lambda using the 65
functions ‘fitContinuous’ or ‘fitDiscrete’ from the package geiger 1.3-1 [30] and ‘phylosig’ 66
from the package phytools 0.1-5 [31]. Both packages gave the same results. For these 67
analyses we inverse square-root transformed the group size data to fit the assumption of 68
normality [32]. 69
All statistical analyses were carried out in the statistical language R, v. 2.14.1 [33]. We 70
performed comparative analyses based on two methods. First, we had a generalized least 71
squares approach using the ‘gls’ function in the package nlme 3.1-102 [34]. Second, we used 72
Bayesian phylogenetic mixed models [35] with the function ‘MCMCglmm’ in the package 73
MCMCglmm [36]. In both analyses, we included standard errors of relatedness estimates and 74
we squarroot transformed group size to fit the assumption of linearity. Results, with and 75
without phylogenetic correction, were consistent (Results table1 and S2 supplementary table 76
1). 77
For model selection we used likelihood ratio (LR) tests and the second order Akaike 78
Information Criterion (AICc, [37]). Smaller values of AIC indicate a better fitting model and, 79
as a rule of thumb, models within two AIC-units of each other are considered equally well 80
supported (Burnham & Anderson [37], p. 70).81
Supplementary table 1: The association between mean relatedness among adult females and 82
allomaternal care for mammals in the dataset as analyzed using a Bayesian phylogenetic 83
mixed model (MCMCglmm, [36]). Results are shown (i) without phylogenetic correction, and 84
(ii) with phylogenetic correction. We used non-informative priors in all analyses (V=1, 85
nu=0.002), which are commonly used in the literature [38]. We ran two parallel MCMC 86
chains of 5,000,000 iterations, retaining every 5th
and an initial burning of 1,000,000 87
iterations. This fulfils the conservative requirements suggested by the Raftery & Lewis 88
diagnostic [39]. We used the Gelman-Rubin diagnostic to check for the convergence of model 89
parameters [40]. Potential scale reduction, PSR, factors for all chains was at the most 1.07, 90
which is less than the maximum of 1.1, meaning model convergences are appropriate. 91
Geweke [41] diagnostic test showed that the means of the first 10% and last part of a Markov 92
50% are drawn from the same distribution (Z-scores between -2 and 2). Trace plots, density 93
plots and autocorrelation run lengths showed that all chains had mixed properly. 94
Coefficient
Lower 95% CI
Upper 95% CI
p DIC
(i) Without phylogeny -117.2
Intercept 0.04 -0.09 0.17
Allomaternal care 0.49 0.22 0.76 0.0005
Sqrt(Number of females) -0.002 -0.03 0.03 0.869
AllocarexSqrt(Number of females) -0.10 -0.20 0.001 0.052
(ii) With phylogeny
-123.0
Intercept 0.04 -0.13 0.20
Allomaternal care 0.47 0.19 0.76 0.002
Sqrt(Number of females) 0.001 -0.03 0.03 0.950
AllocarexSqrt(Number of females) -0.10 -0.20 0.009 0.073
95
5. Reference List 97
1. Parker, P. G., Snow, A. A., Schug, M. D., Booton, G. C. & Fuerst, P. A. 1998 What 98
molecules can tell us about populations: choosing and using a molecular marker. 99
Ecology 79, 361–382. (doi:10.2307/176939) 100
2. Coltman, D. W., Bancroft, D. R., Robertson, A., Smith, J. A., Clutton-Brock, T. H. & 101
Pemberton, J. M. 1999 Male reproductive success in a promiscuous mammal: 102
behavioural estimates compared with genetic paternity. Mol. Ecol. 8, 1199–1209. 103
(doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00683.x) 104
3. Queller, D. C. & Goodnight, K. F. 1989 Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. 105
Evolution 43, 258–275. (doi:10.2307/2409206) 106
4. Li, C. C., Weeks, D. E. & Chakravarti, A. 1993 Similarity of DNA fingerprints due to 107
chance and relatedness. Hum. Hered. 43, 45–52. (doi:10.1159/000154113) 108
5. Ritland, K. 1996 Estimators for pairwise relatedness and individual inbreeding 109
coefficients. Genet. Res. 67, 175–185. (doi:10.1017/S0016672300033620) 110
6. Ritland, K. 1996 Marker-based method for inferences about quantitative inheritance in 111
natural populations. Evolution 50, 1062–1073. (doi:10.2307/2410647) 112
7. Lynch, M. & Ritland, K. 1999 Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular 113
markers. Genetics 152, 1753–1766. Available from: 114
http://www.genetics.org/content/152/4/1753.full 115
8. Wang, J. L. 2002 An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. 116
Genetics 160, 1203–1215. Available from: 117
http://www.genetics.org/content/160/3/1203.full 118
9. Milligan, B. G. 2003 Maximum-likelihood estimation of relatedness. Genetics 163, 119
1153–1167. Available from: http://www.genetics.org/content/163/3/1153.full 120
10. Kalinowski, S. T., Wagner, A. P. & Taper, M. L. 2006 ML-RELATE: a computer 121
program for maximum likelihood estimation of relatedness and relationship. Mol. Ecol. 122
Notes 6, 576–579. (doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01256.x) 123
11. Anderson, A. D. & Weir, B. S. 2007 A maximum-likelihood method for the estimation 124
of pairwise relatedness in structured populations. Genetics 176, 421–440. 125
(doi:10.1534/genetics.106.063149) 126
12. Csillery, K., Johnson, T., Beraldi, D., Clutton-Brock, T., Coltman, D., Hansson, B., 127
Spong, G. & Pemberton, J.M. 2006 Performance of marker-based relatedness estimators 128
in natural populations of outbred vertebrates. Genetics 173, 2091–2101. 129
(doi:10.1534/genetics.106.057331) 130
13. Moller, L. M., Beheregaray, L. B., Allen, S. J. & Harcourt, R. G. 2006 Association 131
patterns and kinship in female Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) of 132
southeastern Australia. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 109–117. (doi:10.1007/s00265-006-133
0241-x) 134
14. Archie, E. A., Maldonado, J. E., Hollister-Smith, J. A., Poole, J.H., Moss, J.C., 135
Fleischer, R.C. & Alberts, S.C. 2008 Fine-scale population genetic structure in a fission-136
fusion society. Mol. Ecol. 17, 2666–2679. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03797.x) 137
15. Reynolds, J. D., Goodwin, N. B. & Freckleton, R. P. 2002 Evolutionary transitions in 138
parental care and live bearing in vertebrates. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 357, 269–281. 139
(doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0930) 140
16. Packer, C., Lewis, S. & Pusey, A. 1992 A comparative analysis of non-offspring 141
nursing. Anim. Behav. 43, 265–281. (doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80222-2) 142
17. Mitani, J. C. & Watts, D. 1997 The evolution of non-maternal caretaking among 143
anthropoid primates: do helpers help? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40, 213–220. 144
(doi:10.1007/s002650050335) 145
18. Ross, C. & MacLarnon, A. 2000 The evolution of non-maternal care in anthropoid 146
primates: a test of the hypotheses. Folia. Primatol. 71, 93–113. 147
(doi:10.1159/000021733) 148
19. Roulin, A. 2002 Why do lactating females nurse alien offspring? A review of 149
hypotheses and empirical evidence. Anim. Behav. 63, 201–208. 150
(doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1895) 151
20. Kerth, G. 2008 Causes and consequences of sociality in bats. Bioscience 58, 737–746. 152
(doi:10.1641/B580810) 153
21. Maddison, W. P. & Maddison D.R. 2009 Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary 154
analysis. Available from: http://mesquiteproject.org/mesquite/mesquite.html 155
22. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Cardillo, M., Jones, K. E., MacPhe, R.D.E., Beck R.M.D., 156
Greynier, R., Price, S.A., Vos, R.A., Gittleman, J.L. & Purvis, A. 2007 The delayed rise 157
of present-day mammals. Nature 446, 507–512. (doi:10.1038/nature05634) 158
23. Purvis, A. 1995 A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 348, 159
405–421. (doi:10.1098/rstb.1995.0078) 160
24. Jones, K. E., Purvis, A., MacLarnon, A., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. & Simmons, N. B. 161
2002 A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia : Chiroptera). Biol. Rev. 77, 223–162
259. (doi:10.1017/S1464793101005899) 163
25. Price, S. A., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. & Gittleman, A. L. 2005 A complete phylogeny 164
of the whales, dolphins and even-toed hoofed mammals (Cetartiodactyla). Biol. Rev. 80, 165
445–473. (doi:10.1017/S1464793105006743) 166
26. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L. & Purvis, A. 1999 Building large trees by 167
combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora 168
(Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74, 143–175. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1999.tb00184.x) 169
27. Grafen, A. 1989 The phylogenetic regression. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 326, 119–157. 170
(doi:10.1098/rstb.1989.0106) 171
28. Pagel, M. 1999 Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401, 172
877–884. Available from: 173
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6756/abs/401877a0.html 174
29. Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H. & Pagel, M. 2002 Phylogenetic analysis and 175
comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 160, 712–726. 176
(doi:10.1086/343873) 177
30. Harmon, L. J., Weir, J. T., Brock, C. D., Glor, R. E. & Challenger, W. 2008 GEIGER: 178
investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24, 129–131. 179
(doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm538) 180
31. Revell, L. J. In Press Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and 181
other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. (doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x) 182
32. Revell, L. J. 2010 Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods 183
Ecol. Evol. 1, 319–329. (doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00044.x) 184
33. R Development Core Team 2011 R: a language and environment for statistical 185
computing. Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: 186
http://cran.r-project.org/ 187
34. Pinheiro J., Bates D., DebRoy S., Sarkar D. & R Core Team 2011 nlme: linear and 188
nonlinear mixed effects models R package. Available from: http://cran.r-189
project.org/web/packages/nlme/index.html 190
35. Hadfield, J. D. & Nakagawa, S. 2010 General quantitative genetic methods for 191
comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous 192
and categorical characters. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 494–508. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-193
9101.2009.01915.x) 194
36. Hadfield, J. D. 2010 MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed 195
models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22. Available from: 196
http://www.jstatsoft.org/v33/i02/paper 197
37. Burnham, C. A. & Anderson, D. R. 2002 Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A 198
Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag. 199
38. Gelman, A. & Hill, J. 2007 Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical 200
models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 201
39. Raftery, A. E. & Lewis, S. M. 1992 One long run with diagnostics: implementation 202
strategies for Markov chain Monte Carlo. Stat. Sci. 7, 493–497. 203
(doi:10.1214/ss/1177011143) 204
40. Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. 1992 Inference from iterative simulation using multiple 205
sequences. Stat. Sci. 7, 457–511. (doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136) 206