Intense group selection selects for ideal group compositions, but selection within groups maintains them

A group's composition is important for its success. Colonies of the spider Anelosimus studiosus appear to have responded to this pressure by evolving the ability to maintain mixtures of docile versus aggressive individuals that help colonies avoid extinction. Here we demonstrate that colony extinction events unite the optimal group composition of all colony constituents, regardless of phenotype, with that of the colony as a whole. This is because colony extinction events explain the majority of individual mortality events in A. studiosus. Through within- and across-habitat colony manipulations, we further determined that reduction in reproductive output by individuals bearing overabundant phenotypes underlies the ability of colonies to adaptively regulate their compositions. When we experimentally created colonies with an overabundance of the docile or aggressive phenotype, individuals bearing the overabundant phenotype exhibited reduced reproductive output, which helped to move colony compositions back towards their site-specific optima. Colonies displaced from their native sites continued to recreate the patterns of reproductive output that characterized their site of origin, suggesting a genetic component to this trait. Individuals thus appear to adaptively cull their reproductive output depending on their phenotype and the composition of their colony. There is also considerable parent–offspring colony resemblance in the extent to which colonies can or do track their ideal compositions. This conveys a kind of collective heritability to this trait. Together, while group selection appears to be the principal driver of ongoing selection on group composition in A. studiosus, patterns of selection among individuals within groups appear to promote colonies' ability to track their ideal mixtures.

[1]  R. Boyd,et al.  Transmission coupling mechanisms: cultural group selection , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

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

[4]  Leticia Avilés,et al.  Sex-Ratio Bias and Possible Group Selection in the Social Spider Anelosimus eximius , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[5]  D. Queller,et al.  Quantitative Genetics, Inclusive Fitness, and Group Selection , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[6]  P. Parker,et al.  Delayed juvenile dispersal benefits both mother and offspring in the cooperative spider Anelosimus studiosus (Araneae: Theridiidae) , 2002 .

[7]  Susan E. Riechert,et al.  How within-group behavioural variation and task efficiency enhance fitness in a social group , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  D. S. Wilson,et al.  EIGHT CRITICISMS NOT TO MAKE ABOUT GROUP SELECTION , 2011, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[9]  David Sloan Wilson,et al.  Does Altruism Exist?: Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others , 2015 .

[10]  Group selection and kin selection. , 1991, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[11]  Behavioural traits of colony founders affect the life history of their colonies. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[12]  E. Wilson,et al.  Eusociality: origin and consequences. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

[15]  Samir Okasha,et al.  Kin Selection and Its Critics , 2015 .

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

[17]  Leticia Avilés,et al.  Interdemic Selection and the Sex Ratio: A Social Spider Perspective , 1993, The American Naturalist.

[18]  L. Avilés NEWLY-DISCOVERED SOCIALITY IN THE NEOTROPICAL SPIDER AEBUTINA BINOTATA SIMON (DICTYNIDAE?) , 1993 .

[19]  M. Wade Group Selection, Population Growth Rate, and Competitive Ability in the Flour Beetles, Tribolium Spp. , 1980 .

[20]  Peter J Richerson,et al.  Voting with your feet: Payoff biased migration and the evolution of group beneficial behavior. , 2009, Journal of theoretical biology.

[21]  A. Gardner,et al.  More on the genetical theory of multilevel selection , 2015, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[22]  A. Sih,et al.  Individual sociability and choosiness between shoal types , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[23]  A. Gardner,et al.  The genetical theory of multilevel selection , 2015, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[24]  R. Lewontin The Units of Selection , 1970, The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory.

[25]  J. Pruitt,et al.  Social context, but not individual personality, alters immigrant viability in a spider with mixed social structure , 2016, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  J. Coddington,et al.  SOCIALITY IN THERIDIID SPIDERS: REPEATED ORIGINS OF AN EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[27]  J. Pepper,et al.  Population Structure Mediates Sexual Conflict in Water Striders , 2009, Science.

[28]  Amazonian social spiders share similar within-colony behavioural variation and behavioural syndromes , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

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

[30]  J. Pruitt,et al.  Sex matters: sexually dimorphic fitness consequences of a behavioural syndrome , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[31]  A. Gardner,et al.  Capturing the superorganism: a formal theory of group adaptation , 2009, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[32]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  From Individuals to Groups and Back: The Evolutionary Implications of Group Phenotypic Composition , 2015, Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

[33]  R. Furey Two cooperatively social populations of the theridiid spider Anelosimus studiosus in a temperate region , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  Samir Okasha,et al.  Altruism researchers must cooperate , 2010, Nature.

[35]  C. Goodnight Multilevel selection theory and evidence: a critique of Gardner, 2015 , 2015, Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

[36]  J. Pruitt,et al.  Thermal effects on survival and reproductive performance vary according to personality type , 2016 .

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

[38]  Michael J. Wade,et al.  A Critical Review of the Models of Group Selection , 1978, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[39]  K. Foster,et al.  Ecology and multilevel selection explain aggression in spider colonies , 2016, Ecology letters.

[40]  D. Wilson THE GROUP SELECTION CONTROVERSY: History and Current Status , 1983 .

[41]  J. Pruitt,et al.  Temperature Mediates Shifts in Individual Aggressiveness, Activity Level, and Social Behavior in a Spider , 2011 .

[42]  J. Fordyce,et al.  Relatedness and genetic structure in a socially polymorphic population of the spider Anelosimus studiosus , 2010, Molecular ecology.

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

[44]  Jonathan N Pruitt,et al.  Animal personality in a foundation species drives community divergence and collapse in the wild. , 2015, The Journal of animal ecology.

[45]  Jonathan N Pruitt,et al.  Frequency-Dependent Success of Cheaters During Foraging Bouts Might Limit Their Spread within Colonies of a Socially Polymorphic Spider , 2009, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[47]  Stephen C. Pratt,et al.  The foundress’s dilemma: group selection for cooperation among queens of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex californicus , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[48]  W. Maddison,et al.  Loss of genetic variability in social spiders: genetic and phylogenetic consequences of population subdivision and inbreeding , 2012, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[49]  J. Pruitt,et al.  Similar patterns of frequency‐dependent selection on animal personalities emerge in three species of social spiders , 2015, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[50]  T. Bilde,et al.  Limited male dispersal in a social spider with extreme inbreeding , 2009 .

[51]  P. Parker,et al.  Fostering model explains variation in levels of sociality in a spider system , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[52]  J. Henschel PREDATION ON SOCIAL AND SOLITARY INDIVIDUALS OF THE SPIDER STEGODYPHUS DUMICOLA (ARANEAE, ERESIDAE) , 1998 .

[53]  J. Pruitt A real-time eco-evolutionary dead-end strategy is mediated by the traits of lineage progenitors and interactions with colony invaders. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[54]  S. Riechert,et al.  Phenotypic variation in the social behaviour of the spider Anelosimus studiosus along a latitudinal gradient , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[55]  J. Pruitt,et al.  Iterative Evolution of Increased Behavioral Variation Characterizes the Transition to Sociality in Spiders and Proves Advantageous , 2012, The American Naturalist.

[56]  V. Wynne-Edwards Animal dispersion in relation to social behaviour , 1962 .

[57]  J. Pruitt,et al.  Behavioural syndromes and their fitness consequences in a socially polymorphic spider, Anelosimus studiosus , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[58]  L. Samuelson Evolutionary Games and Equilibrium Selection , 1997 .

[59]  P J Richerson,et al.  Group selection among alternative evolutionarily stable strategies. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.

[60]  T. C. Jones,et al.  Diel and life-history characteristics of personality: consistency versus flexibility in relation to ecological change , 2015, Animal Behaviour.

[61]  J. A. Negron,et al.  Fungicide evaluation for control of powdery mildew, Leveillula taurica (Lev.) Arn., of peppers in Puerto Rico , 1991 .

[62]  Susan E. Riechert,et al.  Patterns of reproductive success associated with social structure and microclimate in a spider system , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[63]  J. Johannesen,et al.  Population history in social spiders repeated: colony structure and lineage evolution in Stegodyphus mimosarum (Eresidae) , 2009, Molecular Ecology.

[64]  A. Sih,et al.  Multilevel selection and effects of keystone hyperaggressive males on mating success and behavior in stream water striders , 2013 .

[65]  Vincent Brach,et al.  ANELOSIMUS STUDIOSUS (ARANEAE: THERIDIIDAE) AND THE EVOLUTION OF QUASISOCIALITY IN THERIDIID SPIDERS , 1977, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[66]  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.