Explaining Cooperative Breeding

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Among meerkats--mongooses that inhabit dry regions of southern Africa--raising the kids is a group effort. The funny thing is, though, most of the offspring belong to a single mom. This dominant female gives birth to around 80 percent of the litters born in her group. In certain cooperative breeding animals, such a dominant female is the only one capable of breeding; the subordinates don't have the proper hormone levels to be fertile. Yet in meerkat society, all of the females are physiologically equipped for the task.

So why do the subordinates stick around to care for someone else's kids, when they could be passing along their own genes? Researchers have come up with two theories. One, known as the "limited control" model, holds that power struggles between the dominant female and the subordinates determine the frequency with which the subordinates breed. In contrast, the "optimal skew" model posits that the dominant female fully controls subordinate breeding, and allows them to breed only insofar as it entices them to stay with the group and assist in rearing her own litters. Previous studies of similarly organized societies had had supported the optimal skew model, but a study published today in the journal Nature suggests that meerkat behavior instead supports the limited control model.

Tim Clutton-Brock, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Cambridge, and his colleagues tracked reproductive cooperation and conflict among more than 400 meerkats belonging to some 20 groups over a seven year period. Their observations did not fit with the predictions of the optimal skew model. For example, subordinates that did manage to breed did not necessarily help raise the dominant female's litters, nor did they always stick around, won over by the breeding "bribe." Moreover, whereas the optimal skew model predicts that the dominant should sometimes kick subordinates out of the group--when they are breeding too much, for instance--Clutton-Brock and his colleagues found that booted individuals were often non-breeders.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Because various versions of these models exist, the Clutton-Brock results do not yet close the case on the mystery of cooperative reproduction. But in a commentary accompanying the Nature report, Walter D. Koenig of the University of California at Berkeley and Joseph Haydock of Gonzaga University note that the meerkat research casts doubt on whether optimal skew, which successfully explains reproduction in certain insect societies, can also explain the patterns seen in vertebrate reproduction.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe