Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Analysis of the accuracy and consistency of the behavioral ecology literature that investigates Tinbergen’s question “What does the behavior exist for?”

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Animal Biology

Tinbergen’s question “What does the behavior exist for?” has contributed to the establishment of behavioral ecology. However, communication within this discipline could be impaired if one does not realize that the question may refer to distinct temporal scopes. Answering it requires specific methodological approaches for each scope: different interpretations of the question refer to different processes. Here we evaluate whether the behavioral ecology literature avoids these pitfalls. We analyze a sample of the articles related to Tinbergen’s question, evaluating if they: precisely delimit the temporal scope of the question; use methodology appropriate to the temporal scope of the article; accurately define the terms used to refer to the survival value of behavior; and use the terms consistently. Additionally, we evaluate whether the citation of these articles is impaired by misinterpretations regarding the temporal scope and terms associated with the question. Of the 22 analyzed articles, three present problems in defining the time of the question, but in the other 19, methods suited to the time studied were used. Four terms (fitness, effect, adaptation, and function) were used to refer to the utility of the behavior, but only one article defined all of them. We found no communication problems in the citing process regarding the time of interest of the question and the terms used to refer to the usefulness of the behavior in the 16 analyzed citation events. Low/medium- and high-impact articles were similar in terms of the problems found. We suggest future articles should define the terms used, in order to avoid miscommunication in the field.

Affiliations: 1: Institute of Biology, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

*Corresponding author; e-mail:

Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

1. Amundson R.A. (1996) "Historical development of the concept of adaptation". In: Rose M.R., Lauder G.V. (Eds) Adaptation, pp.  11-53. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
2. Bateson P.P., Laland K.N. (2013a) "On current utility and adaptive significance: a response to Nesse". Trends Ecol. Evol., Vol 2, 682-683. [Crossref]
3. Bateson P.P., Laland K.N. (2013b) "Tinbergen’s four questions: an appreciation and an update". Trends Ecol. Evol., Vol 28, 712-718. [Crossref]
4. Beery A.K., Francis D.D. (2011) "Adaptive significance of natural variations in maternal care in rats: a translational perspective". Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., Vol 35, 1552-1561. [Crossref]
5. Bolhuis J.J. (2004) "Biography of a brilliant birdwatcher". Science, Vol 303, 1140-1141. [Crossref]
6. Bolhuis J.J. (2005) "Function and mechanism in neuroecology: looking for clues". Anim. Biol., Vol 55, 457-479. [Crossref]
7. Borgerhoff-Mulder M. (2013) "Human behavioral ecology". Behav. Ecol., Vol 24, 1042-1043. [Crossref]
8. Burkhardt R.W. (2014) "Tribute to Tinbergen: putting Niko Tinbergen’s ‘four questions’ in historical context". Ethology, Vol 120, 215-223. [Crossref]
9. Calisi R.M. (2014) "An integrative overview of the role of gonadotropin-inhibitory hormone in behavior: applying Tinbergen’s four questions". Gen. Comp. Endocrinol., Vol 203, 95-105. [Crossref]
10. Cuthill I.C. (2005) "The study of function in behavioural ecology". Anim. Biol., Vol 55, 399-417. [Crossref]
11. Dawkins M.S. (2014) "Tribute to Tinbergen: questions and how to answer them". Ethology, Vol 120, 120-122. [Crossref]
12. Gibson B.M., Kamil A.C. (2009) "The synthetic approach to the study of spatial memory: have we properly addressed Tinbergen’s “four questions”?" Behav. Proc., Vol 80, 278-287. [Crossref]
13. Gould S.J., Lewontin R.C. (1979) "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme". Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, Vol 205, 581-598. [Crossref]
14. Gould S.J., Vrba E.S. (1982) "Exaptation: a missing term in the science of form". Paleobiology, Vol 8, 4-15. [Crossref]
15. Gross M.R. (1994) "The evolution of behavioral ecology". Trends Ecol. Evol., Vol 9, 358-360. [Crossref]
16. Hanson H.C., Needham J.G., Taylor W.P., Vestal A.G., Allen W.E. (1931) "Ecological nomenclature". Science, Vol 74, 648-649. [Crossref]
17. Herrando-Pérez S., Delea S., Brook B.W., Bradshaw C.J. (2012) "Density dependence: an ecological Tower of Babel". Oecologia, Vol 170, 585-603. [Crossref]
18. Herrando-Pérez S., Brook B.W., Bradshaw C.J. (2014a) "Clarity and precision of language are a necessary route in ecology". BioScience, Vol 64, 373-374. [Crossref]
19. Herrando-Pérez S., Brook B.W., Bradshaw C.J. (2014b) "Ecology needs a convention of nomenclature". BioScience, Vol 64, 311-321. [Crossref]
20. Hodges K.E. (2008) "Defining the problem: terminology and progress in ecology". Front. Ecol. Environ., Vol 6, 35-42. [Crossref]
21. Huxley J.S. (1942) Evolution: the Modern Synthesis. MIT Press, London, UK.
22. Jax K. (2008) "Concepts, not terms". Front. Ecol. Environ., Vol 6, 178-179. [Crossref]
23. Larson A., Losos J.B. (1991) "Phylogenetic systematics of adaptation". In: Rose M.R., Lauder G.V. (Eds) Adaptation, pp.  187-220. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
24. Magnusson W.E. (2014) "“Population” and “community” are still not useful to conservation biology – reply to Prado & El-Hani 2013". Nat. Conservação, Vol 12, 89-90. [Crossref]
25. Mayr E.W. (1961) "Cause and effect in biology". Science, Vol 134, 1501-1506. [Crossref]
26. Monaghan P. (2014) "Behavioral ecology and the successful integration of function and mechanism". Behav. Ecol., Vol 25, 1019-1021. [Crossref]
27. Nesse R.M. (2013) "Tinbergen’s four questions, organized: a response to Bateson and Laland". Trends Ecol. Evol., Vol 28, 681-682. [Crossref]
28. Nielsen R. (2009) "Adaptionism – 30 years after Gould and Lewontin". Evolution, Vol 63, 2487-2490. [Crossref]
29. Opthof T. (1997) "Sense and nonsense about the impact factor". Cardiovasc. Res., Vol 33, 1-7. [Crossref]
30. Quinn G.P., Keough M.J. (2002) Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [Crossref]
31. Roux E. (2014) "The concept of function in modern physiology". J. Physiol., Vol 592, 2245-2249. [Crossref]
32. Taborsky M. (2014) "Tribute to Tinbergen: the four problems of biology. A critical appraisal". Ethology, Vol 120, 224-227. [Crossref]
33. Tinbergen N.N. (1963) "On aims and methods of ethology". Zeitschr. Tierpsychol., Vol 20, 410-433. [Crossref]
34. Whittaker R.H. (1957) "Two ecological glossaries and a proposal on nomenclature". Ecology, Vol 38, 371. [Crossref]
35. Arnqvist G., Nilsson T., Katvala M. (2005) "Mating rate and fitness in female bean weevils". Behav. Ecol., Vol 16, 123-127. [Crossref]
36. Blanckenhorn W.U., Hosken D.J., Martin O.Y., Reim C., Teuschl Y., Ward P.I. (2002) "The costs of matings in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea". Behav. Ecol., Vol 13, 353-358. [Crossref]
37. Cooper W.E. (1999) "Tradeoffs between courtship, fighting, and antipredatory behavior by a lizard Eumeces laticeps". Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., Vol 47, 54-59. [Crossref]
38. den Hollander M., Gwynne D.T. (2009) "Female fitness consequences of male harassment and copulation in seed beetles, Callosobruchus maculates". Anim. Behav., Vol 78, 1061-1070. [Crossref]
39. Dmitriew C., Blanckenhorn W.U. (2012) "The role of sexual selection and conflict in mediating among-population variation in mating strategies and sexually dimorphic traits in Sepsis punctum". PLoS One, Vol 7, 1-10. [Crossref]
40. Edvardsson M., Rodríguez-Muñoz R., Tregenza T. (2008) "No evidence that female bruchid beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus, use remating to reduce costs of inbreeding". Anim. Behav., Vol 75, 1519-1524. [Crossref]
41. Fox C.W., Stillwell R.C., Wallin W.G., Hitchcock L.J. (2006) "Temperature and host species affect nuptial gift size in a seed-feeding beetle". Funct. Ecol., Vol 20, 1003-1011. [Crossref]
42. Gerlach G., Bartmann S. (2002) "Reproductive skew, costs, and benefits of cooperative breeding in female wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus)". Behav. Ecol., Vol 13, 408-418. [Crossref]
43. Guedes R.N., Smith R.H. (2008) "Competition strategies and correlated selection on responses to polyandry in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculates". Physiol. Entomol., Vol 33, 372-381. [Crossref]
44. Leese J.M., Snekser J.L., Itzkowitz M. (2010) "Interactions of natural and sexual selection: damselfish prioritize brood defense with male-male competition or courtship". Behaviour, Vol 147, 37-52. [Crossref]
45. Maklakov A.A., Lubin Y. (2006) "Indirect genetic benefits of polyandry in a spider with direct costs of mating". Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., Vol 61, 31-38. [Crossref]
46. McLachlan A., Ladle R., Bleay C. (1999) "Is infestation the result of adaptive choice behaviour by the parasite? A study of mites and midges". Anim. Behav., Vol 58, 615-620. [Crossref]
47. McNamara K.B., Brown R.L., Elgar M.A., Jones T.M. (2008) "Paternity costs from polyandry compensated by increased fecundity in the hide beetle". Behav. Ecol., Vol 19, 433-440. [Crossref]
48. Muhlhauser C., Blanckenhorn W.U. (2002) "The costs of avoiding matings in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea". Behav. Ecol., Vol 13, 359-365. [Crossref]
49. Pike T.W. (2006) "Fitness effects of parasite-mediated spatial heterogeneity within a swarm". Behav. Ecol., Vol 17, 992-997. [Crossref]
50. Ronn J., Katvala M., Arnqvist G. (2007) "Coevolution between harmful male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles". Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, Vol 104, 10921-10925. [Crossref]
51. Santangelo N., Itzkowitz M., Richter M., Haley M.P. (2002) "Resource attractiveness of the male beaugregory damselfish and his decision to court or defend". Behav. Ecol., Vol 13, 676-681. [Crossref]
52. Schradin C., Pillay N. (2004) "The striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) from the Succulent Karoo, South Africa: a territorial group-living solitary forager with communal breeding and helpers at the nest". J. Comp. Psychol., Vol 118, 37-47. [Crossref]
53. Silk J.B., Alberts S.C., Altmann J. (2006) "Social relationships among adult female baboons (Papio cynocephalus) II. Variation in the quality and stability of social bonds". Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., Vol 61, 197-204. [Crossref]
54. Ward P.I. (2000) "Cryptic female choice in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria (L.)". Evolution, Vol 54, 1680-1686. [Crossref]
55. Wharton K.E., Dyer F.C., Huang Z.Y., Getty T. (2007) "The honeybee queen influences the regulation of colony drone production". Behav. Ecol., Vol 18, 1092-1099. [Crossref]
56. Wharton K.E., Dyer F.C., Getty T. (2008) "Male elimination in the honeybee". Behav. Ecol., Vol 19, 1075-1079. [Crossref]

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Animal Biology — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation