Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality

Abbot, Patrick; Abe, Jun; Alcock, John; Alizon, Samuel; Alpedrinha, João; Andersson, Malte; André, Jean‐Baptiste; Baalen, Minus van; Balloux, François; Balshine, Sigal; Barton, Nick; Beukeboom, Leo W.; Biernaskie, Jay M.; Bilde, Trine; Borgia, Gerald; Breed, Michael D.; Brown, Sam P.; Bshary, Redouan; Buckling, Angus; Burley, Nancy; Burton-Chellew, Maxwell N.; Cant, Michael A.; Chapuisat, Michel; Charnov, Eric L.; Clutton‐Brock, Tim; Cockburn, Andrew; Cole, Blaine J.; Colegrave, Nick; Cosmides, Leda; Couzin, Iain D.; Coyne, Jerry A.; Creel, Scott; Crespi, Bernard J.; Curry, Robert L.; Dall, Sasha R. X.; Day, Troy; Dickinson, Janis L.; Dugatkin, Lee Alan; Mouden, Claire El; Emlen, Stephen T.; Evans, Jay D.; Ferrière, Régis; Field, Jeremy; Foitzik, Susanne; Foster, Kevin; Foster, William A.; Fox, Charles; Gadau, Juergen; Gandon, Sylvain; Gardner, Andy; Gardner, Michael G.; Getty, Thomas; Goodisman, Michael A. D.; Grafen, Alan; Grosberg, Rick; Grozinger, Christina M.; Gouyon, Pierre Henri; Gwynne, Darryl; Harvey, Paul H.; Hatchwell, Ben J.; Heınze, Jürgen; Helanterä, Heikki; Helms, Ken R.; Hill, Kim; Jiricny, Natalie; Johnstone, Rufus A.; Kacelnik, Alex; Kiers, E. Toby; Kokko, Hanna; Komdeur, Jan; Korb, Judith; Kronauer, Daniel J. C.; Kümmerli, Rolf; Lehmann, Laurent; Linksvayer, Timothy A.; Lion, Sébastien; Lyon, Bruce E.; Marshall, James A. R.; McElreath, Richard; Michalakis, Yannis; Michod, Richard E.; Mock, Douglas W.; Monnin, Thibaud; Montgomerie, Robert; Moore, Allen J.; Mueller, Ulrich G.; Noë, Ronald; Okasha, Samir; Pamilo, Pekka; Parker, Geoff A.; Pedersen, Jes S.; Pen, Ido; Pfennig, David W.; Queller, David C.; Rankin, Daniel J.; Reece, Sarah E.; Reeve, H. Kern; Reuter, Max; Roberts, Gehan; Robson, Simon K. A.; Roze, Denis; Rousset, François; Rueppell, Olav; Sachs, Joel; Santorelli, Lorenzo A.; Schmid‐Hempel, Paul; Schwarz, Michael P.; Scott-Phillips, Tom; Shellmann-Sherman, Janet; Sherman, Paul W.; Shuker, David M.; Smith, Jeff; Spagna, Joseph C.; Strassmann, Beverly I.; Suarez, Andrew V.; Sundström, Liselotte; Taborsky, Michael; Taylor, Peter; Thompson, Graham; Tooby, John; Tsutsui, Neil D.; Tsuji, Kazuki; Turillazzi, Stefano; Úbeda, Francisco; Vargo, Edward L.; Voelkl, Bernhard; Wenseleers, Tom; West, Stuart A.; West‐Eberhard, Mary Jane; Westneat, David F.; Wiernasz, Diane C.; Wild, Geoff; Wrangham, Richard W.; Young, Andrew J.; Zeh, David W.; Zeh, Jeanne A.; Zink, Andrew G.

doi:10.1038/nature09831

Cited by 368 publications

(225 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

218

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the recent debate about the merits of kin selection 10,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] , it is worth emphasizing that models that are not explicitly phrased in terms of 'inclusive fitness' , including ours, nevertheless allow kin selection to operate. Social interactions between relatives have a crucial role for the total selection experienced by an allele.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monogamy and haplodiploidy act in synergy to promote the evolution of eusociality

Fromhage¹,

Kokko

2011

Nat Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In eusocial species, some individuals sacrifice their own reproduction for the benefit of others. The evolutionary transition towards eusociality may have been facilitated by ancestral species having a monogamous mating system (the monogamy hypothesis) or a haplodiploid genetic system (the haplodiploidy hypothesis), or it may have been entirely driven by other (ecological) factors. Here we show, using a model that describes the dynamics of insect colony foundation, growth and death, that monogamy and haplodiploidy facilitate the evolution of eusociality in a novel, mutually reinforcing way. our findings support the recently questioned importance of relatedness for the evolution of eusociality, and simultaneously highlight the importance of explicitly accounting for the ecological rules of colony foundation, growth and death in models of social evolution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monogamy and haplodiploidy act in synergy to promote the evolution of eusociality

Fromhage¹,

Kokko

2011

Nat Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They demonstrated that this approach also requires a number of restrictive assumptions beyond additivity of fitness effects, and is therefore applicable only to a limited subset of evolutionary processes. In response, more than 100 authors signed the statement that "inclusive fitness is as general as the genetical theory of natural selection itself" (20). How are we to understand this apparent contradiction?…”

Section: Two Approaches To Inclusive Fitnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations of inclusive fitness

Allen

Nowak

Wilson

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until recently, inclusive fitness has been widely accepted as a general method to explain the evolution of social behavior. Affirming and expanding earlier criticism, we demonstrate that inclusive fitness is instead a limited concept, which exists only for a small subset of evolutionary processes. Inclusive fitness assumes that personal fitness is the sum of additive components caused by individual actions. This assumption does not hold for the majority of evolutionary processes or scenarios. To sidestep this limitation, inclusive fitness theorists have proposed a method using linear regression. On the basis of this method, it is claimed that inclusive fitness theory (i) predicts the direction of allele frequency changes, (ii) reveals the reasons for these changes, (iii) is as general as natural selection, and (iv) provides a universal design principle for evolution. In this paper we evaluate these claims, and show that all of them are unfounded. If the objective is to analyze whether mutations that modify social behavior are favored or opposed by natural selection, then no aspect of inclusive fitness theory is needed.social evolution | Hamilton's rule | cooperation | kin selection

show abstract

“…A fiercely debated question across the biological sciences concerns the evolutionary basis of cooperation (Abbot et al 2011;Nowak et al 2010). Human large-scale cooperation between unrelated individuals has come under particularly intense scrutiny.…”

Section: The Evolution Of Large-scale Human Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Evolution: A Review of Theory, Findings and Controversies

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last two decades have seen an explosion in research analysing cultural change as a Darwinian evolutionary process. Here I provide an overview of the theory of cultural evolution, including its intellectual history, major theoretical tenets and methods, key findings, and prominent criticisms and controversies. 'Culture' is defined as socially transmitted information. Cultural evolution is the theory that this socially transmitted information evolves in the manner laid out by Darwin in The Origin of Species, i.e. it comprises a system of variation, differential fitness and inheritance. Cultural evolution is not, however, neo-Darwinian, in that many of the details of genetic evolution may not apply, such as particulate inheritance and random mutation. Following a brief history of this idea, I review theoretical and empirical studies of cultural microevolution, which entails both selection-like processes wherein some cultural variants are more likely to be acquired and transmitted than others, plus transformative processes that alter cultural information during transmission. I also review how phylogenetic methods have been used to reconstruct cultural macroevolution, including the evolution of languages, technology and social organisation. Finally, I discuss recent controversies and debates, including the extent to which culture is proximate or ultimate, the relative role of selective and transformative processes in cultural evolution, the basis of cumulative cultural evolution, the evolution of large-scale human cooperation, and whether social learning is learned or innate. I conclude by highlighting the value of using evolutionary methods to study culture for both the social and biological sciences.

show abstract

Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality

Cited by 368 publications

References 15 publications

Monogamy and haplodiploidy act in synergy to promote the evolution of eusociality

Monogamy and haplodiploidy act in synergy to promote the evolution of eusociality

Limitations of inclusive fitness

Cultural Evolution: A Review of Theory, Findings and Controversies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About