■ Abstract Although best known for cooperation, insect societies also manifest many potential conflicts among individuals. These conflicts involve both direct reproduction by individuals and manipulation of the reproduction of colony members. Here we review five major areas of reproductive conflict in insect societies: (a) sex allocation, (b) queen rearing, (c) male rearing, (d) queen-worker caste fate, and (e) breeding conflicts among totipotent adults. For each area we discuss the basis for conflict (potential conflict), whether conflict is expressed (actual conflict), whose interests prevail (conflict outcome), and the factors that reduce colony-level costs of conflict (conflict resolution), such as factors that cause workers to work rather than to lay eggs. Reproductive conflicts are widespread, sometimes having dramatic effects on the colony. However, three key factors (kinship, coercion, and constraint) typically combine to limit the effects of reproductive conflict and often lead to complete resolution. INTRODUCTIONObservation of an insect society readily reveals cooperation. Workers actively work for the good of the colony as they forage, guard, build, and nurse. Detailed study reinforces this impression. Workers cooperate to forage and defend by means of sophisticated communication signals (56,113). In some species cooperation includes extreme altruism, with defending workers sacrificing their lives as they deploy detachable stings or chemical-filled exploding abdomens to deter intruders (56,113). However, sophisticated cooperation in one area of social life does not preclude conflict in another. Egg laying, brood rearing, and queen-worker caste development, for example, can all be associated with significant conflict. Indeed, potential conflict in insect societies is inevitable because insect societies are almost always families, not clones. Nevertheless, conflict in insect colonies is less obvious 0066-4170/06/0107-0581$20.00 581 Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006.51:581-608. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of Massachusetts -Amherst on 10/14/09. For personal use only. 582RATNIEKS FOSTER WENSELEERS than cooperation, which suggests that conflict may often be resolved or weak. What factors enable insect societies to resolve their conflicts? In this review, we discuss the large body of work devoted to this question, which has focused primarily on the eusocial Hymenoptera (bees, ants, and wasps). INCLUSIVE FITNESS THEORY: EXPLANATION FOR BOTH COOPERATION AND CONFLICTInclusive fitness theory (47) provides a general explanation for reproductive division of labor in eusocial insects, with some individuals forgoing direct reproduction to help rear the offspring of other colony members. The intermediate levels of relatedness typically found in insect societies provide a strong incentive for altruism, and kin are also close at hand and can readily be helped by defense or food collection. Ironically, the same theory also led to the realization that insect societies are subject to internal conflic...

Close relatedness has long been considered crucial to the evolution of eusociality. However, it has recently been suggested that close relatedness may be a consequence, rather than a cause, of eusociality. We tested this idea with a comparative analysis of female mating frequencies in 267 species of eusocial bees, wasps, and ants. We found that mating with a single male, which maximizes relatedness, is ancestral for all eight independent eusocial lineages that we investigated. Mating with multiple males is always derived. Furthermore, we found that high polyandry (>2 effective mates) occurs only in lineages whose workers have lost reproductive totipotency. These results provide the first evidence that monogamy was critical in the evolution of eusociality, strongly supporting the prediction of inclusive fitness theory.

Individuals often differ in what they do. This has been recognised since antiquity. Nevertheless, the ecological and evolutionary significance of such variation is attracting widespread interest, which is burgeoning to an extent that is fragmenting the literature. As a first attempt at synthesis, we focus on individual differences in behaviour within populations that exceed the day-to-day variation in individual behaviour (i.e. behavioural specialisation). Indeed, the factors promoting ecologically relevant behavioural specialisation within natural populations are likely to have far-reaching ecological and evolutionary consequences. We discuss such individual differences from three distinct perspectives: individual niche specialisations, the division of labour within insect societies and animal personality variation. In the process, while recognising that each area has its own unique motivations, we identify a number of opportunities for productive ‘crossfertilisation’ among the (largely independent) bodies of work. We conclude that a complete understanding of evolutionarily and ecologically relevant individual differences must specify how ecological interactions impact the basic biological process (e.g. Darwinian selection, development and information processing) that underpin the organismal features determining behavioural specialisations. Moreover, there is likely to be covariation amongst behavioural specialisations. Thus, we sketch the key elements of a general framework for studying the evolutionary ecology of individual differences.