A skew model for the evolution of sociality via manipulation: why it is better to be feared than loved

Concession–based reproductive skew models predict that social groups can form via persuasion, whereby dominant individuals forfeit some reproduction to subordinates as an incentive to stay and help. We have developed an alternative skew model based on manipulation, whereby dominant individuals coerce subordinates into staying and helping by imposing costs on their independent reproductive prospects. Stable groups can evolve under a much wider range of genetic and ecological conditions under this manipulation model than under concession models. We describe evidence that various forms of pre–emptive and ongoing manipulation occur in nature and we discuss the implications of the model for the development of a general theory of social evolution.

[1]  T. Fukatsu,et al.  Soldier and male of an eusocial aphid Colophina arma lack endosymbiont: Implications for physiological and evolutionary interaction between host and symbiont , 1992 .

[2]  The origin of helping: the role of variability in reproductive potential. , 1985, Journal of theoretical biology.

[3]  D. Yanega,et al.  Social plasticity and early-diapausing females in a primitively social bee. , 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  S. Sakagami,et al.  Bionomics and Sociology of the Summer Matrifilial Phase in the Social Halictine Bee, Lasioglossum duplex (With 35 Text-figures and 25 Tables) , 1968 .

[5]  B. Crespi,et al.  The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids: Explanation and evolution of social systems , 1997 .

[6]  Hanna Kokko,et al.  Social queuing in animal societies: a dynamic model of reproductive skew , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  M. Schwarz,et al.  The habitat saturation hypothesis and sociality in an allodapine bee: cooperative nesting is not “making the best of a bad situation” , 1996, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[8]  S. Vehrencamp.  Optimal Degree of Skew in Cooperative Societies , 1983 .

[9]  I. Jamieson.  Behavioral Heterochrony and the Evolution of Birds' Helping at the Nest: An Unselected Consequences of Communal Breeding? , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[10]  C. Michener.  Reproduction and Castes in Social Halictine Bees , 1990 .

[11]  D. Abbott.  Behaviourally mediated suppression of reproduction in female primates , 1987 .

[12]  J. Strassmann,et al.  Genetic relatedness in primitively eusocial wasps , 1989, Nature.

[13]  R. Johnstone,et al.  Costly young and reproductive skew in animal societies , 1999 .

[14]  M. Breed,et al.  Behavioral Control of Workers by Queens in Primitively Eusocial Bees , 1977, Science.

[15]  J. Strassmann,et al.  Social and Genetic Structure of Paper Wasp Cofoundress Associations: Tests of Reproductive Skew Models , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[16]  J. Field,et al.  Helping behaviour in facultatively eusocial hover wasps: an experimental test of the subfertility hypothesis , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  R. Craig.  Subfertility and the evolution of eusociality by kin selection , 1983 .

[18]  J. Strassmann.  Weak queen or social contract? , 1993, Nature.

[19]  H. Reeve.  Queen activation of lazy workers in colonies of the eusocial naked mole-rat , 1992, Nature.

[20]  E. Charnov.  Evolution of eusocial behavior: offspring choice or parental parasitism? , 1978, Journal of theoretical biology.

[21]  H. Reeve,et al.  Queen regulation of worker foraging in paper wasps: a social feedback control system (Polistes fuscatus, Hymenoptera: Vespidae) , 1987 .

[22]  M. Breed.  THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN PRIMITIVELY SOCIAL BEES: A MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS , 1976, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  E. Charnov,et al.  Some conceptual issues in the origin of eusociality , 1986, Heredity.

[24]  J. Seger,et al.  Unexpected patterns of parentage and relatedness in a primitively eusocial bee , 1995, Nature.

[25]  L. Getz,et al.  Communal nesting in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): formation, composition, and persistence of communal groups , 1997 .

[26]  L. Keller,et al.  Reproductive Bribing And Policing As Evolutionary Mechanisms For The Suppression Of Within‐Group Selfishness , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[27]  L. Keller,et al.  Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[28]  R. Gadagkar,et al.  Pre-imaginal biasing of caste in a primitively eusocial insect , 1988, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[29]  R. Craig.  PARENTAL MANIPULATION, KIN SELECTION, AND THE EVOLUTION OF ALTRUISM , 1979, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[30]  J. Faaborg,et al.  PATERNAL CARE IN THE COOPERATIVELY POLYANDROUS GALAPAGOS HAWK , 1996 .

[31]  W. Wcislo,et al.  Secondarily solitary: the evolutionary loss of social behavior. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[32]  Stephen T. Emlen,et al.  Reproductive Sharing in Different Types of Kin Associations , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[33]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Some models of the evolution of altruistic behaviour between siblings. , 1978, Journal of theoretical biology.

[34]  H. Reeve,et al.  Social contracts in wasp societies , 1992, Nature.

[35]  I. Jamieson.  The Unselected Hypothesis for the Evolution of Helping Behavior: Too Much or too Little Emphasis on Natural Selection? , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[36]  R. Trivers.  Parent-Offspring Conflict , 1974 .

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

[38]  Sandra L. Vehrencamp,et al.  A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies , 1983, Animal Behaviour.

[39]  Rufus A. Johnstone,et al.  Reproductive skew and the threat of eviction: a new perspective , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[40]  C. Michener,et al.  Were workers of eusocial hymenoptera initially altruistic or oppressed? , 1974, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  S. Emlen,et al.  Parent–offspring conflict and the recruitment of helpers among bee-eaters , 1992, Nature.

[42]  L. Keller,et al.  Partitioning of Reproduction in Mother-Daughter Versus Sibling Associations: A Test of Optimal Skew Theory , 1995, The American Naturalist.

[43]  J. Strassmann,et al.  Relatedness and altruism in Polistes wasps , 1993 .

[44]  A. Bourke,et al.  The Ecology of Communal Breeding: The Case of Multiple-Queen Leptothoracine Ants , 1994 .

[45]  I. Jamieson.  Testing reproductive skew models in a communally breeding bird, the pukeko, Porphyrio porphyrio , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[46]  S. Bhagavan,et al.  On reconfirming the evidence for pre-imaginal caste bias in a primitively eusocial wasp , 1990 .

[47]  S. O’Donnell.  Reproductive caste determination in eusocial wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). , 1998, Annual review of entomology.

[48]  M. O'Riain,et al.  A dispersive morph in the naked mole-rat , 1996, Nature.

[49]  B. Crespi,et al.  The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids: Introduction , 1997 .

[50]  J. Heinze.  Reproductive skew and genetic relatedness in Leptothorax ants , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[51]  T. Clutton‐Brock.  Reproductive skew, concessions and limited control. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[52]  W. D. Brown,et al.  The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids: Sexual conflict and the evolution of mating systems , 1997 .

[53]  M. Cant.  A model for the evolution of reproductive skew without reproductive suppression , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[54]  L. Keller,et al.  The role of queen pheromones in social insects: queen control or queen signal? , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[55]  D. Macdonald,et al.  Sociality, Group Size, and Reproductive, Suppression among Carnivores , 1995 .

[56]  D.,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR , 2002 .

[57]  L. Keller.  Queen number and sociality in insects , 1993 .

[58]  L Thomas,et al.  On altruism. , 1978, The Journal of the Florida Medical Association.

[59]  R. Johnstone,et al.  Reproductive Skew in Multimember Groups , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[60]  R. Owen.  BODY SIZE VARIATION AND OPTIMAL BODY SIZE OF BUMBLE BEE QUEENS (HYMENOPTERA: APIDAE) , 1988, The Canadian Entomologist.

[61]  R. Gadagkar,et al.  Regulation of worker activity in a primitively eusocial wasp, Ropalidia marginata , 1995 .

[62]  Janice E. Ragsdale.  Reproductive skew theory extended: The effect of resource inheritance on social organization , 1999 .

[63]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Punishment in animal societies , 1995, Nature.

[64]  L. Keller,et al.  Reproductive sharing in animal societies: reproductive incentives or incomplete control by dominant breeders? , 1998 .