The foundress’s dilemma: group selection for cooperation among queens of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex californicus

The evolution of cooperation is a fundamental problem in biology, especially for non-relatives, where indirect fitness benefits cannot counter within-group inequalities. Multilevel selection models show how cooperation can evolve if it generates a group-level advantage, even when cooperators are disadvantaged within their group. This allows the possibility of group selection, but few examples have been described in nature. Here we show that group selection can explain the evolution of cooperative nest founding in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. Through most of this species’ range, colonies are founded by single queens, but in some populations nests are instead founded by cooperative groups of unrelated queens. In mixed groups of cooperative and single-founding queens, we found that aggressive individuals had a survival advantage within their nest, but foundress groups with such non-cooperators died out more often than those with only cooperative members. An agent-based model shows that the between-group advantage of the cooperative phenotype drives it to fixation, despite its within-group disadvantage, but only when population density is high enough to make between-group competition intense. Field data show higher nest density in a population where cooperative founding is common, consistent with greater density driving the evolution of cooperative foundation through group selection.

[1]  K. Foster A defense of sociobiology. , 2009, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[2]  Andy Gardner Group selection versus group adaptation , 2015, Nature.

[3]  M. Taborsky Broodcare helpers in the cichlid fish Lamprologus brichardi: Their costs and benefits , 1984, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  C. Goodnight Multilevel selection theory and evidence: a critique of Gardner, 2015 , 2015, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[5]  S. Pratt,et al.  Behavioral transitions with the evolution of cooperative nest founding by harvester ant queens , 2013, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[6]  J. Pepper,et al.  THE ROLE OF MULTILEVEL SELECTION IN THE EVOLUTION OF SEXUAL CONFLICT IN THE WATER STRIDER AQUARIUS REMIGIS , 2010, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[7]  Charles J. Goodnight,et al.  Site-specific group selection drives locally adapted group compositions , 2014, Nature.

[8]  J. Maynard Smith The units of selection. , 2021, Novartis Foundation symposium.

[9]  Rick P. Overson Causes and Consequences of Queen-Number Variation in the California Harvester Ant Pogonomyrmex californicus. , 2011 .

[10]  Lee Alan Dugatkin,et al.  Behavioral Ecology and Levels of Selection: Dissolving the Group Selection Controversy , 1994 .

[11]  J. Komdeur,et al.  Importance of habitat saturation and territory quality for evolution of cooperative breeding in the Seychelles warbler , 1992, Nature.

[12]  S. Rissing,et al.  Colony founding behavior of some desert ants: geographic variation in metrosis. , 2000 .

[13]  G. B. Pollock,et al.  Queen aggression, pleometrotic advantage and brood raiding in the ant Veromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  D. Wilson A theory of group selection. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Raphaël Jeanson,et al.  Influence of the social context on division of labor in ant foundress associations , 2008 .

[16]  Jürgen Heinze,et al.  Multilevel selection and social evolution of insect societies , 2004, Naturwissenschaften.

[17]  D. Pfennig Absence of joint nesting advantage in desert seed harvester ants: evidence from a field experiment , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  W. Muir,et al.  Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: behavioral responses. , 1996, Poultry science.

[19]  Stephen T. Emlen,et al.  The Evolution of Helping. I. An Ecological Constraints Model , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[20]  J. Fewell,et al.  Division of labor and the evolution of task sharing in queen associations of the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[21]  J. Strassmann,et al.  Cooperation among unrelated individuals: the ant foundress case. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  N. Pierce Origin of Species , 1914, Nature.

[23]  J. Fewell,et al.  Social dynamics drive selection in cooperative associations of ant queens , 2014 .

[24]  B. Cole,et al.  RECRUITMENT LIMITATION AND POPULATION DENSITY IN THE HARVESTER ANT, POGONOMYRMEX OCCIDENTALIS , 2002 .

[25]  Walter R. Tschinkel,et al.  Colony founding by pleometrosis in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta , 1983, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[26]  Robert A. Johnson Colony founding by pleometrosis in the semiclaustral seed-harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  S. Pinker THE FALSE ALLURE OF GROUP SELECTION , 2015 .

[28]  S. Kalisz,et al.  Multilevel Selection in Natural Populations of Impatiens capensis , 1995, The American Naturalist.

[29]  V. Wynne-Edwards Group Selection and Kin Selection , 1964, Nature.

[30]  R. Rosenfeld Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[31]  David Sloan Wilson,et al.  Weak Altruism, Strong Group Selection , 1990 .

[32]  Laurent Lehmann,et al.  Group selection and kin selection: Two concepts but one process , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Adrian Baddeley,et al.  spatstat: An R Package for Analyzing Spatial Point Patterns , 2005 .

[34]  J. Fletcher,et al.  TOWARDS A GENERAL THEORY OF GROUP SELECTION , 2013, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[35]  Deborah M. Gordon,et al.  The rewards of restraint in the collective regulation of foraging by harvester ant colonies , 2013, Nature.

[36]  Burton Simon,et al.  A dynamical model of two-level selection , 2010 .

[37]  G. B. Pollock,et al.  An experimental analysis of pleometrotic advantage in the desert seed-harvester antMessor pergandei (Hymenoptera; Formicidae) , 1991, Insectes Sociaux.

[38]  All for one, one for all, that is our device , 1989, Nature.

[39]  D. Queller,et al.  Relatedness, Conflict, and the Evolution of Eusociality , 2015, PLoS biology.

[40]  L. Dugatkin,et al.  Animal cooperation among unrelated individuals , 2002, Naturwissenschaften.

[41]  Shishi Luo,et al.  A unifying framework reveals key properties of multilevel selection. , 2014, Journal of theoretical biology.

[42]  Patrick Forber Evolution and the Levels of Selection , 2008 .

[43]  C. Goodnight,et al.  Experimental Studies of Group Selection: What Do They Tell US About Group Selection in Nature? , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[44]  M. Wade,et al.  AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF GROUP SELECTION , 1977, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[45]  J. Fewell,et al.  Colony-level selection effects on individual and colony foraging task performance in honeybees, Apis mellifera L. , 2000, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[46]  Robert E. Page,et al.  The effects of colony-level selection on the social organization of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies: colony-level components of pollen hoarding , 1995, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[47]  B. Charlesworth Levels of Selection in Evolution , 2000, Heredity.

[48]  S. Cahan Ecological variation across a transition in colony-founding behavior in the ant Messor pergandei , 2001, Oecologia.

[49]  F. Blum Evidence from a field experiment , 2018 .

[50]  C. Maley,et al.  Cancer is a disease of clonal evolution within the body1–3. This has profound clinical implications for neoplastic progression, cancer prevention and cancer therapy. Although the idea of cancer as an evolutionary problem , 2006 .

[51]  B. Hölldobler,et al.  Colony founding in Myrmecocystus mimicus wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and the evolution of foundress associations , 1982, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[52]  L. Keller Levels of selection in evolution , 1999 .

[53]  Walter R. Tschinkel,et al.  The Fire Ants , 2006 .

[54]  G. Amdam,et al.  Worker division of labor and endocrine physiology are associated in the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex californicus , 2012, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[55]  M. Nowak,et al.  The evolution of eusociality , 2010, Nature.

[56]  K. Tsuji,et al.  Public goods dilemma in asexual ant societies , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[57]  M. Egas,et al.  Good for the group? Explaining apparent group-level adaptation. , 2015, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[58]  M. Wade,et al.  Group selection and social evolution in domesticated animals , 2010, Evolutionary applications.

[59]  David Sloan Wilson,et al.  Evolution "for the Good of the Group The process known as group selection was once accepted unthinkingly, then was widely discredited; it's time for a more discriminating assessment , 2008 .

[60]  G. B. Pollock,et al.  Foraging specialization without relatedness or dominance among co-founding ant queens , 1989, Nature.