Partial regression plots of the statistically significant predictors of avian infidelity.

<p>Axes refer to multivariate residuals after correcting for phylogeny and the effects of other significant parameters in the model. Each data point represents one species and dotted lines depict linear trends in the relationships between variables.</p

Multinomial phylogenetically controlled generalized linear mixed models comparing the effect of ecoclimatic and life-history variables on the evolution of non-family-living, family-living, and cooperative breeding species; <i>N</i> = 2,968 bird species (excluding cooperative breeding species with non-kin helpers only).

<p>Coefficients reflect the results of multinomial phylogenetic regression models with “cooperative families” as the reference category in the analyses and thus not shown per se. Significant factors are highlighted in bold. The principal component analyses (PCAs) resulting in PC1–8 are shown in <a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000483#pbio.2000483.s004" target="_blank">S2 Table</a>. The factor social system assessment specified whether it was assessed based on the time offspring remained with their parents beyond independence (using 50 days as a threshold to differentiate between non-family-living and family-living species; see [<a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000483#pbio.2000483.ref017" target="_blank">17</a>]), breeding behavior, or social information. MCMC = Markov chain Monte Carlo.</p

Family living sets the stage for cooperative breeding and ecological resilience in birds - Fig 3

<p><b>Estimated transition rates of the best-fitting model (a) and statistical evaluation of the different transition models of the evolution of avian social systems (b).</b> In the best-fitting transition model, arrow thickness is proportional to the estimated transition rates, and the size of the circles is proportional to the relative abundance of the 3 social systems among the species in the sample. No Fam = non-family living; Fam = family living; Coop = cooperative breeding families. Directions of the arrows indicate modelled transitions: a single arrow between 2 states pointing in both directions reflects transition rates constrained to be equal, a single arrow pointing in 1 direction reflects transitions only in 1 direction, and 2 arrows between states reflects unconstrained transition rates. AIC = Akaika information criterion.</p

Ancestral state reconstruction (based on maximum likelihood) and estimated evolutionary transitions of bird social system (<i>N</i> = 2,968 species).

<p>Pie charts plotted at each node represent the estimated posterior proportion of the 3 social systems: non-family living (green), family living (orange), and cooperative breeding families (blue).</p

Avian social systems.

<p>Social systems include non-family-living species (55% in our data set, e.g., the blue tit <i>Parus caeruleus</i> [a]), in which parent–offspring associations do not extend beyond nutritional independence and individuals that do not engage in cooperative breeding; family-living species (31% in our data set, e.g., the Siberian jay <i>Perisoreus infaustus</i> [b]; see also <a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000483#pbio.2000483.s001" target="_blank">S1 Fig</a>), in which offspring remain with their parents beyond nutritional independence but do not aid in the rearing of future broods; and cooperative breeding species (13% in our data set, e.g., the apostlebird <i>Struthidea cinerea</i> [c]), in which offspring remain with their parents beyond nutritional independence and help them in subsequent breeding attempts or engage in redirected helping at nests of relatives. In a small number of species (1% in our data set), e.g., in the guira cuckoo <i>Guira</i> (d), cooperative breeding primarily involves nonrelatives (“non-kin cooperatively breeding species”). (a) <i>Image credit</i>: <i>Per Harald Olsen/NTNU</i>. (b) <i>Image credit</i>: <i>Michael Griesser</i>. (c) <i>Image credit</i>: <i>Michael Griesser</i>. (d) <i>Image credit</i>: <i>Beatrice Murch</i>.</p

Global abundance of non-family-living, family-living, and cooperative breeding species in birds (number of species per 0.5° x 0.5°) and global patterns of the 3 most influential ecoclimatic parameters (duration of the mean growing season [MGS]; included in PC2), annual variance in precipitation (square-root transformed; included in PC1), and within-year variance in net primary productivity (NPP; included in PC3).

<p>Figures were plotted using the letsR package [<a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000483#pbio.2000483.ref034" target="_blank">34</a>]. Abbreviations: sqrt, square-root transformed.</p

Ecoclimatic and life-history correlates of non-family-living (green dotted line), family-living (orange solid line), and cooperative breeding species (blue dashed line); <i>N</i> = 2,968 bird species (excluding cooperative breeding species with non-kin helpers only).

<p>Lines reflect the predicted probabilities of occurrence of respective social systems estimated from phylogenetically informed multinomial models (see <a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000483#pbio.2000483.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>). Family-living and cooperative breeding species are associated with locations that have abundant but variable precipitation (PC1), a longer mean growing season (PC2), and a higher among-year variance in net primary productivity (NPP) during the growing season (PC5). Moreover, these species live in denser habitats (PC7) and have a larger body size (PC8). Cooperative breeding species are associated with higher within-year variance in NPP (PC3). MGS, mean growing season.</p

D-PLACE: A Global Database of Cultural, Linguistic and Environmental Diversity - Fig 1

<p><b>D-PLACE links cultural information to language classifications and phylogenies (a, c) and to geographic locations and environmental features (b, d). This allows users to consider the relative influence of cultural ancestry, spatial proximity, and environment on diverse cultural practices. For example, panels a and b illustrate variation among societies in their dependence on fishing relative to other subsistence activities, based on data from the Ethnographic Atlas (EA)</b> [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0158391#pone.0158391.ref011" target="_blank">11</a>–<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0158391#pone.0158391.ref015" target="_blank">15</a>] <b>and the Binford Hunter-Gatherer dataset</b> [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0158391#pone.0158391.ref016" target="_blank">16</a>,<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0158391#pone.0158391.ref017" target="_blank">17</a>]. <b>Panels c and d highlight diversity in the most common economic transaction at marriage, based on data from the EA. In addition to providing global results, D-PLACE allows users to focus a search on a particular geographic region or linguistic family. Here, results for societies speaking Pama-Nyungan languages (a, b) or Sino-Tibetan languages (c, d) are magnified and outlined in black boxes on the global tree and map.</b></p

Examples of data and tools relevant to the different types of analyses made possible by D-PLACE.

<p>Examples of data and tools relevant to the different types of analyses made possible by D-PLACE.</p

D-PLACE – the Database of Places, Language, Culture and Environment v1.0

<p>From the foods we eat, to who we can marry, to the types of games we teach our children, the diversity of cultural practices in the world is astounding. Yet, our ability to visualize and understand this diversity is often limited by the ways it traditionally has been documented and shared: on a culture-by-culture basis, in locally-told stories or difficult-to-access books and articles.</p> <p>D-PLACE, which stands for ‘Database of Places, Language, Culture, and Environment,’ represents an attempt to bring together this dispersed corpus of information. It aims to make it easy for individuals to contrast their own cultural practices with those of other societies, and to consider the factors that may underlie cultural similarities and differences.</p