Tragedy of the commons in
            <i>Melipona</i>
            bees

Wenseleers, Tom; Ratnieks, F. L. W.

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0159

Cited by 91 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparing queen production in honeybees with that of their close relatives the stingless bees (Meliponinae) supports these ideas [20][21][22]. As in honeybees, stingless bees establish new colonies by swarming.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Altruism in insect societies and beyond: voluntary or enforced?

Ratnieks

Wenseleers

2008

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

170

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…However, in the genus Melipona, queens and workers are the same size and are reared in identical, closed cells ( Figure 2). As a result, workers cannot coerce female larvae and up to 20% develop into queens [21,22], Figure 2. Opportunities for direct reproduction in insect societies.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Altruism in insect societies and beyond: voluntary or enforced?

Ratnieks

Wenseleers

2008

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

170

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In Melipona bees, conflict arises as to whether individuals rear their own offspring, or their niblings (nieces and nephews), resulting in a wasteful 5-14% of individuals competing to become queens (42). A general issue here is that the Hamilton's rule approach is relatively heuristic, and explicit theory is required to determine when different individuals within a social group will act as a single maximizing agent (33).…”

Section: What Conditions Lead To Negligible Conflict Within Groups?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Major evolutionary transitions in individuality

West

Fisher

Gardner

et al. 2015

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

294

373

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of life on earth has been driven by a small number of major evolutionary transitions. These transitions have been characterized by individuals that could previously replicate independently, cooperating to form a new, more complex life form. For example, archaea and eubacteria formed eukaryotic cells, and cells formed multicellular organisms. However, not all cooperative groups are en route to major transitions. How can we explain why major evolutionary transitions have or haven't taken place on different branches of the tree of life? We break down major transitions into two steps: the formation of a cooperative group and the transformation of that group into an integrated entity. We show how these steps require cooperation, division of labor, communication, mutual dependence, and negligible within-group conflict. We find that certain ecological conditions and the ways in which groups form have played recurrent roles in driving multiple transitions. In contrast, we find that other factors have played relatively minor roles at many key points, such as within-group kin discrimination and mechanisms to actively repress competition. More generally, by identifying the small number of factors that have driven major transitions, we provide a simpler and more unified description of how life on earth has evolved.T he evolution of life, from simple organic compounds in a primordial soup to the amazing diversity of contemporary organisms, has taken roughly 3.5 billion years. How can we explain the evolution of increasingly complex organisms over this period? A traditional approach has been to consider the succession of taxonomic groups, such as the age of fishes giving rise to the age of amphibians, which gave way to the age of reptiles, and so on. Although this approach has some uses, it is biased toward relatively large plants and animals and lacks a conceptual or predictive framework, in that it suggests we look for different explanations for each succession (1).Twenty years ago, Maynard Smith and Szathmáry (2) revolutionized our understanding of life on earth by showing how the key steps in the evolution of life on earth had been driven by a small number of "major evolutionary transitions." In each transition, a group of individuals that could previously replicate independently cooperate to form a new, more complex life form. For example, genes cooperated to form genomes, archaea and eubacteria formed eukaryotic cells, and cells cooperated to form multicellular organisms (Table 1).The major transitions approach provides a conceptual framework that facilitates comparison across pivotal moments in the history of life (2, 3). It suggests that the same problem arises at each transition: How are the potentially selfish interests of individuals overcome to form mutually dependent cooperative groups? We can then ask whether there are any similarities across transitions in the answers to this problem. Consequently, rather than looking for different explanations for the succession of different taxonomic groups, we ...

show abstract

“…The problem is an important one and applies across all levels of biological organization, from conflicts in the genome to conflicts in societies or among partners in multispecies mutualisms Hammerstein 2003;Foster and Wenseleers 2006;Ratnieks et al 2006). In social groups, where all individuals are affected to a greater or lesser extent by the behavior of others, conflict is usually detrimental because individuals serving their own selfish interests reduce group productivity (Hardin 1968;Frank 1995;Wenseleers and Ratnieks 2004). Nevertheless, conflict-induced social collapse is not inevitable because conflicts are frequently well resolved .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Worker Reproduction and Policing in Eusocial Hymenoptera Supports Relatedness Theory

Wenseleers¹,

Ratnieks²

2006

The American Naturalist

204

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many bees, wasps, and ants, workers police each other in order to prevent individual workers from selfishly producing their own male offspring. Although several factors can selectively favor worker policing, genetic relatedness is considered to be of special importance. In particular, kin selection theory predicts that worker policing should be more common in species where workers are more related to the queen's sons than to other workers' sons. Here we provide strong novel support for this theory based on a comparative analysis of policing and male parentage in 109 species of ants, bees, and wasps. First, an analysis of behavioral data confirms that worker policing occurs more frequently in species where workers are more related to the queen's sons than to other workers' sons. Second, an analysis of male parentage shows that a significantly higher percentage of the males are workers' sons in species where the workers are more related to other workers' sons. Both conclusions also hold if data are analyzed using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Although our analysis provides strong overall support for the theory that relatedness affects kin conflict over male parentage, there is also significant residual variation. Several factors that may explain this variation are discussed.Keywords: worker policing, queen policing, worker reproduction, social Hymenoptera, inclusive fitness, kin selection.A major challenge in evolutionary biology is to explain how social groups can reduce or prevent costly conflicts

show abstract

Tragedy of the commons in Melipona bees

Cited by 91 publications

References 19 publications

Altruism in insect societies and beyond: voluntary or enforced?

Altruism in insect societies and beyond: voluntary or enforced?

Major evolutionary transitions in individuality

Comparative Analysis of Worker Reproduction and Policing in Eusocial Hymenoptera Supports Relatedness Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About