The definition of eusociality

Crespi, Bernard J.; Yanega, Douglas

doi:10.1093/beheco/6.1.109

Cited by 322 publications

(263 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

255

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The monogamy window hypothesis makes a sharp distinction between cooperative breeding and eusociality, and thus explicitly sides with the restricted definition of eusociality formulated by Crespi & Yanega (1995). It makes their definition more precise by merging the facultative eusociality and cooperative Table 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is important to realize that many of them are lineages of recent origin with slight radiations at best and with close relatives that have lost or never gained eusocial traits (e.g. Stern & Foster 1997;Duffy 2003;Chapman et al 2002), so that they will not fit the strict obligate eusociality definition of Crespi & Yanega (1995) that I adhered to in Boomsma (2007) and the present review. I expect that even the naked mole-rat, with its social system based on sterile foragers and nurses rather than soldiers, will turn out not to be obligatorily eusocial, because its helpers are not sufficiently differentiated in lifespan (in captivity, Sherman & Jarvis 2002) and at least some of them can shift to a breeder phenotype when the dominant of the same gender disappears.…”

Section: Predictions Of the Monogamy Window Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Even though females often remain wholly or largely sterile, this is not a universal trait for entire cohorts of same-age offspring in clades such as the halictids and allodapines that have been called 'eusocial' (cf. Crespi & Yanega 1995). Workers have maintained their spermathecae and many are mated and have the option to express full breeding potential elsewhere, either alone or with other females.…”

Section: Evidence For Ancestral Lifetime Monogamy In Eusocial Lineagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I hope to contribute to the resolution of the eusociality part of this debate by proposing a relatively simple and parsimonious scenario based on the notion that sexual partners commit for life in all presently known obligately eusocial ants, bees, wasps and termites. I will use the term 'obligate eusociality' to indicate situations where caste is irreversibly determined early in development (before pupation in the Hymenoptera), and to such extent that no individuals of predestined worker cohorts retain the behavioural, and often also physiological, option to disperse and found their own colonies (Crespi & Yanega 1995). Rather than focusing on Hamilton's rule, I will concentrate on the lifetime monogamous mating system conditions that must have characterized lineages at the very origin of these eusocial clades.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality

Boomsma

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

330

378

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All evidence currently available indicates that obligatory sterile eusocial castes only arose via the association of lifetime monogamous parents and offspring. This is consistent with Hamilton's rule (br s . r o c), but implies that relatedness cancels out of the equation because average relatedness to siblings (r s ) and offspring (r o ) are both predictably 0.5. This equality implies that any infinitesimally small benefit of helping at the maternal nest (b), relative to the cost in personal reproduction (c) that persists throughout the lifespan of entire cohorts of helpers suffices to establish permanent eusociality, so that group benefits can increase gradually during, but mostly after the transition. The monogamy window can be conceptualized as a singularity comparable with the single zygote commitment of gametes in eukaryotes. The increase of colony size in ants, bees, wasps and termites is thus analogous to the evolution of multicellularity. Focusing on lifetime monogamy as a universal precondition for the evolution of obligate eusociality simplifies the theory and may help to resolve controversies about levels of selection and targets of adaptation. The monogamy window underlines that cooperative breeding and eusociality are different domains of social evolution, characterized by different sectors of parameter space for Hamilton's rule.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Predictions Of the Monogamy Window Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Evidence For Ancestral Lifetime Monogamy In Eusocial Lineagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality

Boomsma

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

330

378

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eusociality is characterized by three features namely, 1) a clear division of labour with reduced reproduction by some colony members (mutualism) (Lin and Michener, 1972);.2) there are generally two or more generations present in a family group (Wilson, 1975); 3) there is cooperative care of the young with subordinate individuals taking care of offspring (Crespi and Yanega, 1995). The Damaraland mole-rat is one of the few eusocial species of subterranean rodent (Jarvis and Bennett, 1993) and exhibits a complex colony structure in comparison to the mole-rat genus Cryptomys.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Burrow architecture of the Damaraland mole-rat (Fukomys damarensis) from South Africa

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The burrow architecture (length, internal dimensions, fractal dimension of tunnel systems, number of nesting chambers and surface mounds) was investigated in the Damaraland mole-rat (Fukomys damarensis). A total of 31 animals were caught from five different colonies and their burrow systems were excavated in their entirety. The mean and SD colony size was 6 ± 3.3, with a range of 2-10 mole-rats. The sex ratio was male biased 1.21:1. Males had a body mass of 80.5 ± 33.8g, but were not significantly different to those of females which had a mean body mass of 83.4 ± 24.9g. The burrow system of the Damaraland mole-rats follows the same general architectural plan as recorded for other species of mole-rat with either one or two more centrally based deeper more permanent burrows which often connect to a nest area, which is used for resting and rearing offspring. The burrow systems contained several more superficial secondary tunnels at a shallower depth. The secondary tunnels accounted for up to 80% of the total burrow 1 system. The mean length of the burrow system was 130.4m and covered an area of 1403m². The mean number of secondary branches in a burrow system was 10. The mean fractal dimension was 1.154 which implies the mole-rats do not explore their surrounding environment particularly efficiently when compared to that of other mole-rat species, but this may relate to the size of the main food resource, the Eland bean (Elephantorrhiza elephantina) which is randomly distributed and fed on in situ. Our study showed that colony size influences the size and complexity of the burrow system with larger colonies having a longer burrow system covering a greater area with more secondary tunnels than that of smaller colonies.

show abstract

Eusociality and Cooperation

Keller

Chapuisat

2017

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ants, termites and many species of bees and wasps form tightly integrated social groups in which permanently nonreproducing workers help rear the offspring of a few fertile individuals, the queens and males. Such societies with marked reproductive division of labour are called eusocial. The evolution of eusociality puzzled Darwin: How could workers pass on their characteristics to the next generation if they did not reproduce? Kin selection, the indirect transmission of genes through relatives, is the key process explaining the evolution and maintenance of permanently nonreproducing workers. Overall, eusociality evolved in life‐long associations of monogamous parents and offspring, which jointly exploit and defend common resources. Robust and efficient division of labour contributes to the great ecological success of eusocial species. Yet, despite high levels of integration, conflicts among individuals are still common in eusocial groups, and several sophisticated mechanisms have evolved to maintain social cohesion. Key Concepts Eusociality is characterised by reproductive division of labour, cooperative brood care and overlap of generations. The hallmark of eusociality is the presence of a caste that is permanently committed to a nonreproductive helper role. Eusociality confers great ecological success, but has a scattered taxonomic distribution. Kin selection is the key process explaining the evolution of permanently nonreproducing helpers. Eusociality evolved in groups of highly related individuals, typically comprising the offspring of a monogamous pair. Eusociality is linked with division of labour, which is sometimes associated with morphological castes. The allocation of workers to tasks is a self‐organising process that occurs without central control and emerges from local interactions. In social insects, division of labour is remarkably robust and flexible to cope with unpredictable changes in the environment. Individuals in animal societies are not clones; they have partially divergent genetic interests, which can lead to various forms of conflicts. Some types of conflicts are controlled by social means such as bribing, coercion or punishment.

show abstract

The definition of eusociality

Cited by 322 publications

References 0 publications

Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality

Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality

Burrow architecture of the Damaraland mole-rat (Fukomys damarensis) from South Africa

Eusociality and Cooperation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About