Social structure modulates the evolutionary consequences of social plasticity: A social network perspective on interacting phenotypes

Abstract Organisms express phenotypic plasticity during social interactions. Interacting phenotype theory has explored the consequences of social plasticity for evolution, but it is unclear how this theory applies to complex social structures. We adapt interacting phenotype models to general social structures to explore how the number of social connections between individuals and preference for phenotypically similar social partners affect phenotypic variation and evolution. We derive an analytical model that ignores phenotypic feedback and use simulations to test the predictions of this model. We find that adapting previous models to more general social structures does not alter their general conclusions but generates insights into the effect of social plasticity and social structure on the maintenance of phenotypic variation and evolution. Contribution of indirect genetic effects to phenotypic variance is highest when interactions occur at intermediate densities and decrease at higher densities, when individuals approach interacting with all group members, homogenizing the social environment across individuals. However, evolutionary response to selection tends to increase at greater network densities as the effects of an individual's genes are amplified through increasing effects on other group members. Preferential associations among similar individuals (homophily) increase both phenotypic variance within groups and evolutionary response to selection. Our results represent a first step in relating social network structure to the expression of social plasticity and evolutionary responses to selection.

[1]  P. Nonacs,et al.  Social heterosis and the maintenance of genetic diversity , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[2]  J. Terborgh,et al.  Oddity and the ‘confusion effect’ in predation , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  M. Taborsky,et al.  Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[4]  D. Nussey,et al.  The evolutionary ecology of individual phenotypic plasticity in wild populations , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[5]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Mammalian mating systems. , 1989, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[6]  N. Bunnefeld,et al.  Express your personality or go along with the group: what determines the behaviour of shoaling perch? , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  B. Voelkl,et al.  Consistent individual differences in the social phenotypes of wild great tits, Parus major , 2015, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  Measuring phenotypic assortment in animal social networks: weighted associations are more robust than binary edges , 2014, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  P. McGregor,et al.  Extra-pair paternity among Great Tits Parus major following manipulation of male signals , 2001 .

[10]  M. Wade,et al.  On Indirect Genetic Effects in Structured Populations , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[11]  R. Duckworth Aggressive behaviour affects selection on morphology by influencing settlement patterns in a passerine bird , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  A. J. Moore,et al.  INTERACTING PHENOTYPES AND THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS: I. DIRECT AND INDIRECT GENETIC EFFECTS OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONS , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  Michael D Greenfield,et al.  Frogs Have Rules: Selective Attention Algorithms Regulate Chorusing in Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae) , 2000 .

[14]  H. Howe,et al.  INTERACTION AND COEVOLUTION. , 1984, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[15]  E. Brodie,et al.  Consistency of animal social networks after disturbance , 2017 .

[16]  P. Colgan,et al.  Animal Conflict , 1987, Chapman and Hall Animal Behaviour Series.

[17]  J. Simmons,et al.  Analyzing acoustic interactions in natural bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) choruses. , 2008, Journal of comparative psychology.

[18]  Noa Pinter-Wollman,et al.  Behavioural hypervolumes of spider communities predict community performance and disbandment , 2016, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  W. Muir,et al.  Multilevel Selection 2: Estimating the Genetic Parameters Determining Inheritance and Response to Selection , 2007, Genetics.

[20]  A. J. Moore,et al.  Interacting Phenotypes and the Evolutionary Process. II. Selection Resulting from Social Interactions , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[21]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis , 2015, The Journal of animal ecology.

[22]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[23]  Denis Réale,et al.  Behavioural reaction norms: animal personality meets individual plasticity. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[24]  H. Fushing,et al.  The “strength of weak ties” and helminth parasitism in giraffe social networks , 2016 .

[25]  J. Saltz,et al.  Natural Genetic Variation in Social Niche Construction: Social Effects of Aggression Drive Disruptive Sexual Selection in Drosophila melanogaster , 2011, The American Naturalist.

[26]  Noa Pinter-Wollman,et al.  The legacy effects of keystone individuals on collective behaviour scale to how long they remain within a group , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  Torben Dabelsteen,et al.  Song and information about aggressive responses of blackbirds, Turdus merula: evidence from interactive playback experiments with territory owners , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  C. Both Experimental evidence for density dependence of reproduction in great tits , 1998 .

[29]  I. Owens,et al.  Sibling competition and the evolution of growth rates in birds , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  T. Caraco,et al.  Social Foraging Theory , 2018 .

[31]  Andreas P. Modlmeier,et al.  The keystone individual concept: an ecological and evolutionary overview , 2014, Animal Behaviour.

[32]  J. Saltz,et al.  What, if anything, is a social niche? , 2016, Evolutionary Ecology.

[33]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  Proximity as a proxy for interactions: issues of scale in social network analysis , 2015, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  H. Klug,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONS CHANGES PREDICTIONS ABOUT INTERACTING PHENOTYPES , 2012, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[35]  A. Thornton,et al.  Experimentally induced innovations lead to persistent culture via conformity in wild birds , 2014, Nature.

[36]  E. Brodie,et al.  How to Measure Indirect Genetic Effects: The Congruence of Trait-Based and Variance-Partitioning Approaches , 2009, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[37]  A. Mcadam,et al.  Social traits, social networks and evolutionary biology , 2017, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[38]  David F Westneat,et al.  Individual Variation in Parental Care Reaction Norms: Integration of Personality and Plasticity , 2011, The American Naturalist.

[39]  Andrea Megela Simmons,et al.  Patterns of Vocal Interactions in a Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) Chorus: Preferential Responding to Far Neighbors , 2000 .

[40]  P. Crowley,et al.  Intraguild mutualism. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[41]  N. Bailey,et al.  DETECTING CRYPTIC INDIRECT GENETIC EFFECTS , 2014, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[42]  K. Foster,et al.  Assortment and the analysis of natural selection on social traits , 2017, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[43]  J. Pruitt,et al.  Personality composition is more important than group size in determining collective foraging behaviour in the wild , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[44]  J. Krause,et al.  The role of individuality in collective group movement , 2013, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[45]  T. W. Fawcett,et al.  change with age and experience Learning your own strength : winner and loser effects should , 2010 .

[46]  W. Muir,et al.  Multilevel Selection 1: Quantitative Genetics of Inheritance and Response to Selection , 2007, Genetics.

[47]  E. Danchin,et al.  Assortative Mating and Sexual Size Dimorphism in Black-legged Kittiwakes , 2004 .

[48]  Age Differences in the Responses to Adult and Juvenile Alarm Calls by Bonnet Macaques (Macaca radiata) , 2000 .

[49]  M. West-Eberhard Phenotypic Plasticity and the Origins of Diversity , 1989 .

[50]  O. Schmitz,et al.  Fear on the move: predator hunting mode predicts variation in prey mortality and plasticity in prey spatial response. , 2014, The Journal of animal ecology.

[51]  R. Cantet,et al.  Direct and Competition Additive Effects in Tree Breeding: Bayesian Estimation From an Individual Tree Mixed Model , 2008 .

[52]  A. J. Moore,et al.  INTERACTING PHENOTYPES AND THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. III. SOCIAL EVOLUTION , 2010, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[53]  D. Réale,et al.  Indirect genetic effects and the evolution of aggression in a vertebrate system , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[54]  J. Krause,et al.  Shoal composition determines foraging success in the guppy , 2009 .

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

[56]  M. Zuk,et al.  Socially flexible female choice differs among populations of the Pacific field cricket: geographical variation in the interaction coefficient psi (Ψ) , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[57]  E. Lonsdorf,et al.  COMMUNITY HERITABILITY MEASURES THE EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES OF INDIRECT GENETIC EFFECTS ON COMMUNITY STRUCTURE , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[58]  R. R. Krausz Living in Groups , 2013 .

[59]  R. A. Hinde,et al.  Interactions, Relationships and Social Structure , 1976 .

[60]  R. E. Butterfield,et al.  Fitness consequences of social network position in a wild population of forked fungus beetles (Bolitotherus cornutus) , 2012, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[61]  D. Réale,et al.  Social niche specialization under constraints: personality, social interactions and environmental heterogeneity , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[62]  M. Wade,et al.  The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on response to genetic selection , 2008, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[63]  Andrew Sih,et al.  The mix matters: behavioural types and group dynamics in water striders , 2005 .