Numerous Paradoxes Explained by Bandwagoning

Abstract

Background: Solon (2019) introduced genetic bandwagoning in a very general sense: A variant sequentially 1) evaluates its holder’s quality and 2) induces its holder to relinquish resources if the holder’s quality is low. Here, I introduce a more complex form of bandwagoning in order to account for a series of phenomena considered “paradoxical” by scientists specializing in their literatures: a) depression, b) differential nurturing, c) honest signaling of quality, d) reproductive suppression, e) stress-induced anthocyanins, and f) hormesis. These literatures are characterized by the following findings: 1) Low-quality individuals incur a cost against reproductive success compared to higher-quality individuals. 2) Individuals not (yet) identified as low-quality incur a cost against their ability to survive predators and/or parasites compared to individuals that have already been identified as low-quality. 3) Females incur a cost against reproductive success compared to males. 4) Males incur a cost against their ability to survive predators and/or parasites compared to females. 5) If conditions are challenging, individuals gain in both reproductive success and their ability to survive predators and/or parasites compared to less challenging conditions; however, too-challenging conditions detract from both. For each literature, at least one of these findings is unaccommodated by existing theory when considered in the context of that literature. Despite existing theory, these patterns are remarkably persistent. Question: Can paradoxes fitting these patterns be explained by genetic bandwagoning theory? Conclusion: Here, reservation is introduced as a form of bandwagoning in which a bandwagoning variant induces its holder to reserve from (i.e., withhold) some of its ability to survive parasites or predators. Reservation would occur for the purpose of assessing a holder’s quality when conditions are sufficiently unchallenging that few individuals are chronically stressed, so it is otherwise difficult to evaluate a holder’s quality. If the holder is subsequently killed, wounded, or infected, then it is identified as lacking the quality that would allow its descendants to survive more challenging conditions. The holder loses some or all of its resources as a direct consequence of the very death, wounding, or infection that identified its low quality. That is, in reservation, the two steps of bandwagoning are accomplished simultaneously. (This way of bandwagoning is distinguished from when the two steps are accomplished sequentially, which is termed resonation.) Reservation shares numerous premises with Zahavi’s handicap principle. If conditions are challenging, individuals would downregulate reservation and also be less likely to forego resources through resonation (which accounts for (5)). Additionally, a bandwagoning variant would likely evolve to vary the reservation it induces from holder to holder as a hedge against the possibility that conditions suddenly turn severe before it can adjust the reservation. Individuals already identified as low-quality would downregulate reservation (which accounts for (2) above) and would instead forego resources through resonation (which accounts for (1)). Additionally, females would downregulate reservation (which accounts for (4)) and, as a consequence, surviving females are more likely than surviving males to forego resources through resonation (which accounts for (3)).