The Evolution of Cooperation in Spatially Heterogeneous Populations

A challenging problem in sociobiology is to understand the emergence of cooperation in a nonsocial world. Recent models of the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD) game conclude that population mixing due to individual mobility limits cooperation; however, these models represent space only implicitly. Here we develop a dynamical IPD model where temporal and spatial variations in the population are explicitly considered. Our model accounts for the stochastic motion of individuals and the inherent nonrandomness of local interactions. By deriving a spatial version of Hamilton's rule, we find that a threshold level of mobility in selfish always-defect (AD) players is required to beget invasion by social "tit for tat" (TFT) players. Furthermore, the level of mobility of successful TFT newcomers must be approximately equal to or somewhat higher than that of resident defectors. Significant mobility promotes the assortment of TFT pioneers on the front of invasion and of AD intruders in the core of a cooperative cluster. It also maximizes the likelihood of TFT retaliation. Once this first step whereby TFT takes over AD is completed, more generous and perhaps more suspicious strategies may outperform and displace TFT. We derive the conditions under which this continued evolution of more robust cooperative strategies occurs.

[1]  W. Hamilton The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. , 1964, Journal of theoretical biology.

[2]  M. Nowak,et al.  A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game , 1993, Nature.

[3]  G T Vickers,et al.  The spatial struggle of tit-for-tat and defect. , 1995, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[4]  P. Taylor,et al.  Evolutionarily Stable Strategies and Game Dynamics , 1978 .

[5]  M. Nowak,et al.  THE SPATIAL DILEMMAS OF EVOLUTION , 1993 .

[6]  L. Cavalli-Sforza,et al.  Assortment of encounters and evolution of cooperativeness. , 1982, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  K. Chung,et al.  Elementary Probability Theory with Stochastic Processes. , 1975 .

[8]  R. Michod,et al.  Invading wave of cooperation in a spatial iterated prisoner’s dilemma , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  M. Nowak Stochastic strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma , 1990 .

[10]  Paul C. Fife,et al.  Mathematical Aspects of Reacting and Diffusing Systems , 1979 .

[11]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary games and spatial chaos , 1992, Nature.

[12]  R. Boyd,et al.  No pure strategy is evolutionarily stable in the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game , 1987, Nature.

[13]  A I Houston,et al.  Mobility limits cooperation. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[14]  G. Vickers Spatial patterns and ESS's. , 1989, Journal of theoretical biology.

[15]  R. Punnett,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1930, Nature.

[16]  R. Axelrod The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists , 1981, American Political Science Review.

[17]  John Crank,et al.  The Mathematics Of Diffusion , 1956 .

[18]  Michael J. Sanderson,et al.  Evolution of Social Behavior by Reciprocation , 1982 .

[19]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

[20]  M. Feldman,et al.  Behavior-dependent contexts for repeated plays of the Prisoner's Dilemma: II. Dynamical aspects of the evolution of cooperation. , 1987, Journal of theoretical biology.

[21]  L. Dugatkin,et al.  Rover: A Strategy for Exploiting Cooperators in a Patchy Environment , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[22]  C. Budd,et al.  Spatial patterns in population conflicts , 1993 .

[23]  O. Leimar,et al.  The evolution of cooperation in mobile organisms , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[24]  HighWire Press Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

[25]  M. Nowak,et al.  Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations , 1992, Nature.

[26]  W. Hamilton,et al.  Coefficients of relatedness in sociobiology , 1980, Nature.