Questioning evidence of group selection in spiders

Evolutionary drivers of group foraging: A new framework for investigating variance in food intake and reproduction

A proposed fundamental driver of group living is more reliable, predictable foraging and reproduction, i.e., reduced variance in food intake and reproductive output. However, existing theories on variance reduction in group foraging are simplistic, refer to variance at the level of individuals and groups without linking the two, and do not spell out crucial underlying assumptions. We provide a new, widely applicable framework for identifying when variance reduction conveys fitness benefits of group foraging in a wide range of organisms. We discuss critical limitations of established theories, the Central Limit Theorem and Risk-Sensitive Foraging Theory applied to group foraging, and incorporate them into our framework while addressing the confusion over the levels of variance and identifying previously unaddressed assumptions. Through a field study on colonial spiders, Cyrtophora citricola, we demonstrate the importance of evaluating the level of food sharing as a critical first step, previously overlooked in the literature. We conclude that variance reduction provides selective advantages only under narrow conditions and does not provide a universal benefit to group foraging as previously proposed. Our framework provides an important tool for identifying evolutionary drivers of group foraging and understanding the role of fitness variance in the evolution of group living.

The levels of selection debate: taking into account existing empirical evidence

Por más de cinco décadas la visión neo-darwinista dominante de la selección natural es que esta actúa únicamente a nivel génico y organísmico, pero la ignorada evidencia empírica de selección multinivel ocurriendo en la naturaleza obtenida durante los últimos cincuenta años no es consecuente. Un largo intercambio de argumentaciones matemáticas y teóricas sobre los niveles en los que actúa la selección natural constituye lo que se denomina como el “debate de los niveles de selección”. La gran cantidad de evidencia empírica, estudiada mediante métodos de genética cuantitativa, específicamente el análisis contextual, indica que la selección natural actúa en niveles de la jerarquía biológica por encima y por debajo del nivel del gen y organismo, desde el nivel molecular hasta el ecosistémico, apoyando así lo que se denomina la teoría de selección multinivel. Más allá de argumentos teóricos, si se examina cuidadosamente la evidencia empírica de selección multinivel y los resultados del análisis contextual, se resuelve de forma sencilla el debate de los niveles de selección: la selección natural ocurre en la naturaleza en diferentes niveles de la jerarquía biológica. Este texto ofrece una revisión general de dicha evidencia empírica.

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.

Ecology and multilevel selection explain aggression in spider colonies

Progress in sociobiology continues to be hindered by abstract debates over methodology and the relative importance of within‐group vs. between‐group selection. We need concrete biological examples to ground discussions in empirical data. Recent work argued that the levels of aggression in social spider colonies are explained by group‐level adaptation. Here, we examine this conclusion using models that incorporate ecological detail while remaining consistent with kin‐ and multilevel selection frameworks. We show that although levels of aggression are driven, in part, by between‐group selection, incorporating universal within‐group competition provides a striking fit to the data that is inconsistent with pure group‐level adaptation. Instead, our analyses suggest that aggression is favoured primarily as a selfish strategy to compete for resources, despite causing lower group foraging efficiency or higher risk of group extinction. We argue that sociobiology will benefit from a pluralistic approach and stronger links between ecologically informed models and data.

Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

Kin selection and multilevel selection are two major frameworks in evolutionary biology that aim at explaining the evolution of social behaviors. However, the relationship between these two theories has been plagued by controversy for almost half a century and debates about their relevance and usefulness in explaining social evolution seem to rekindle at regular intervals. Here, we first provide a concise introduction into the kin selection and multilevel selection theories and shed light onto the roots of the controversy surrounding them. We then review two major aspects of the current debate: the presumed formal equivalency of the two theories and the question whether group selection can lead to group adaptation. We conclude by arguing that the two theories can offer complementary approaches to the study of social evolution: kin selection approaches usually focus on the identification of optimal phenotypes and thus on the endresult of a selection process, whereas multilevel selection approaches focus on the ongoing selection process itself. The two theories thus provide different perspectives that might be fruitfully combined to promote our understanding of the evolution in group-structured populations.