The evolution of intergroup cooperation

Abstract

Sociality is widespread among animals, and involves complex relationships within and between social groups. While intragroup interactions are often cooperative, intergroup interactions typically involve conflict, or at best tolerance. Active cooperation between members of distinct, separate groups occurs very rarely, predominantly in some primate and ant species. Here, we ask why intergroup cooperation is so rare, and what conditions favour its evolution. We present a model incorporating intra- and intergroup relationships and local and long-distance dispersal. We show that dispersal modes play a pivotal role in the evolution of intergroup interactions. Both long-distance and local dispersal processes drive population social structure, and the costs and benefits of intergroup conflict, tolerance and cooperation. Overall, the evolution of multi-group interaction patterns, including both intergroup aggression and intergroup tolerance, or even altruism, is more likely with mostly localized dispersal. However, the evolution of these intergroup relationships may have significant ecological impacts, and this feedback may alter the ecological conditions that favour its own evolution. These results show that the evolution of intergroup cooperation is favoured by a specific set of conditions, and may not be evolutionarily stable. We discuss how our results relate to empirical evidence of intergroup cooperation in ants and primates. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘Collective behaviour through time’.

A multi-scale review of the dynamics of collective behaviour: from rapid responses to ontogeny and evolution

“…The interactions between groups can themselves give rise to interesting dynamics. In groups of stable membership, this can result in conflict or cooperation between the groups (the focus of Rodrigues et al's [164] article in this special issue), while in free-entry groups, i.e. those where group members are free to join and leave, fission-fusion dynamics can be important [165].…”

Transmission of social status drives cooperation and offspring philopatry

“…More recently, there has been a growing interest in understanding the influence of population viscosity on altruism in class-structured populations [ 4 ], such as when some individuals are born into favourable conditions and are destined to enjoy greater success regardless of their genetic abilities [ 4 ]. This literature has explored various factors, such as spatiotemporal variation in local resource availability [ 10 ] and group size [ 11 ], quality of group members [ 12 ], individual and group age [ 13 , 14 ], and intergroup conflict and cooperation [ 9 , 15 ]. This work has shown that an individual's class can influence their social behaviour by impacting their future reproductive and survival prospects, leading to correlations between the fitness costs and benefits of cooperation and an individual's condition [ 4 ], which, unlike relatedness, may even explain variation in cooperation within clonal groups [ 12 , 16 , 17 ].…”

The evolution of peace

“…Rudimentary forms of interdependence resembling durable positive-sum relationships do seem to occur in species that feature multilevel societies. Multilevel societies, that is, where multiple core social units coalesce in a semi-interactive manner to form higher-level "clans," bands, and communities, are best known from snubnosed monkeys, papionins, and humans Grueter et al, 2020;Rodseth, Wrangham, Harrigan, & Smuts, 1991). Mechanistically, a multilevel system emerges through coordinated behaviour among the core units and persistent mutual tolerance.…”