10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Social life: the paradox of multiple-queen colonies.

      Trends in Ecology & Evolution

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The evolution of animal societies in which some individuals forego their own reproductive opportunities to help others to reproduce poses an evolutionary paradox that can be traced to Darwin. Altruism may evolve through kin selection when the donor and recipient of altruistic acts are related to each other, as generally is the case in social birds and mammals. Similarly, social insect workers are highly related to the brood they rear when colonies are headed by a single queen. However, recent studies have shown that insect colonies frequently contain several queens, with the effect of decreasing relatedness among colony members. How can one account for the origin and maintenance of such colonies? This evolutionary enigma presents many of the same theoretical challenges as does the evolution of cooperative breeding and eusociality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The number of queens: An important trait in ant evolution

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Importance of habitat saturation and territory quality for evolution of cooperative breeding in the Seychelles warbler

             Jan Komdeur (1992)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The evolution of delayed dispersal in cooperative breeders.

              Why do the young of cooperative breeders--species in which more than two individuals help raise offspring at a single nest--delay dispersal and live in groups? Answering this deceptively simple question involves examining the costs and benefits of three alternative strategies: (1) dispersal and attempting to breed, (2) dispersal and floating, and (3) delayed dispersal and helping. If, all other things being equal, the fitness of individuals that delay dispersal is greater than the fitness of individuals that disperse and breed on their own, intrinsic benefits are paramount to the current maintenance of delayed dispersal. Intrinsic benefits are directly due to living with others and may include enhanced foraging efficiency and reduced susceptibility to predation. However, if individuals that disperse and attempt to breed in high-quality habitat achieve the highest fitness, extrinsic constraints on the ability of offspring to obtain such high-quality breeding opportunities force offspring to either delay dispersal or float. The relevant constraint to independent reproduction has frequently been termed habitat saturation. This concept, of itself, fails to explain the evolution of delayed dispersal. Instead, we propose the delayed-dispersal threshold model as a guide for organizing and evaluating the ecological factors potentially responsible for this phenomenon. We identify five parameters critical to the probability of delayed dispersal: relative population density, the fitness differential between early dispersal/breeding and delayed dispersal, the observed or hypothetical fitness of floaters, the distribution of territory quality, and spatiotemporal environmental variability. A key conclusion from the model is that no one factor by itself causes delayed dispersal and cooperative breeding. However, a difference in the dispersal patterns between two closely related species or populations (or between individuals in the same population in different years) may be attributable to one or a small set of factors. Much remains to be done to pinpoint the relative importance of different ecological factors in promoting delayed dispersal. This is underscored by our current inability to explain satisfactorily several patterns including the relative significance of floating, geographic biases in the incidence of cooperative breeding, sexual asymmetries in delayed dispersal, the relationship between delayed dispersal leading to helping behavior and cooperative polygamy, and the rarity of the co-occurrence of helpers and floaters within the same population. Advances in this field remain to be made along several fronts.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                21237068

                Comments

                Comment on this article