The validity and value of inclusive fitness theory

Social evolution is a central topic in evolutionary biology, with the evolution of eusociality (societies with altruistic, non-reproductive helpers) representing a long-standing evolutionary conundrum. Recent critiques have questioned the validity of the leading theory for explaining social evolution and eusociality, namely inclusive fitness (kin selection) theory. I review recent and past literature to argue that these critiques do not succeed. Inclusive fitness theory has added fundamental insights to natural selection theory. These are the realization that selection on a gene for social behaviour depends on its effects on co-bearers, the explanation of social behaviours as unalike as altruism and selfishness using the same underlying parameters, and the explanation of within-group conflict in terms of non-coinciding inclusive fitness optima. A proposed alternative theory for eusocial evolution assumes mistakenly that workers' interests are subordinate to the queen's, contains no new elements and fails to make novel predictions. The haplodiploidy hypothesis has yet to be rigorously tested and positive relatedness within diploid eusocial societies supports inclusive fitness theory. The theory has made unique, falsifiable predictions that have been confirmed, and its evidence base is extensive and robust. Hence, inclusive fitness theory deserves to keep its position as the leading theory for social evolution.     

Relatedness,Conflict, and the Evolution of Eusociality

The evolution of sterile worker castes in eusocial insects was a major problem in evolutionary theory until Hamilton developed a method called inclusive fitness. He used it to show that sterile castes could evolve via kin selection, in which a gene for altruistic sterility is favored when the altruism sufficiently benefits relatives carrying the gene. Inclusive fitness theory is well supported empirically and has been applied to many other areas, but a recent paper argued that the general method of inclusive fitness was wrong and advocated an alternative population genetic method. The claim of these authors was bolstered by a new model of the evolution of eusociality with novel conclusions that appeared to overturn some major results from inclusive fitness. Here we report an expanded examination of this kind of model for the evolution of eusociality and show that all three of its apparently novel conclusions are essentially false. Contrary to their claims, genetic relatedness is important and causal, workers are agents that can evolve to be in conflict with the queen, and eusociality is not so difficult to evolve. The misleading conclusions all resulted not from incorrect math but from overgeneralizing from narrow assumptions or parameter values. For example, all of their models implicitly assumed high relatedness, but modifying the model to allow lower relatedness shows that relatedness is essential and causal in the evolution of eusociality. Their modeling strategy, properly applied, actually confirms major insights of inclusive fitness studies of kin selection. This broad agreement of different models shows that social evolution theory, rather than being in turmoil, is supported by multiple theoretical approaches. It also suggests that extensive prior work using inclusive fitness, from microbial interactions to human evolution, should be considered robust unless shown otherwise.     

Kin selection and frequency dependence: a game theoretic approach

Game theory models show that the evolution of interactions between relatives is determined by two kinds of fitness effects: Hamilton's inclusive fitness effect, and a frequency-dependent synergistic effect. The latter arises when an individual's behaviour has different effects on the fitness of interactants, depending on whether or not they perform the same behaviour. Knowing the sign of the synergistic effect is sufficient to understand most of the qualitative features of genetic models that show departures from Hamilton's rule. Since this synergistic effect does not depend on the interactants being related, it is best viewed as something distinct from kin selection. In this view, Hamilton's rule is basically correct for describing kin selection, and most deviations from it are due to the distinct process of synergistic selection.     

Kinship reinforces cooperative predator inspection in a cichlid fish

Kin selection theory predicts that cooperation is facilitated between genetic relatives, as by cooperating with kin an individual might increase its inclusive fitness. Although numerous theoretical papers support Hamilton's inclusive fitness theory, experimental evidence is still underrepresented, in particular in noncooperative breeders. Cooperative predator inspection is one of the most intriguing antipredator strategies, as it implies high costs on inspectors. During an inspection event, one or more individuals leave the safety of a group and approach a potential predator to gather information about the current predation risk. We investigated the effect of genetic relatedness on cooperative predator inspection in juveniles of the cichlid fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus, a species in which juveniles live in shoals under natural conditions. We show that relatedness significantly influenced predator inspection behaviour with kin dyads being significantly more cooperative. Thus, our results indicate a higher disposition for cooperative antipredator behaviour among kin as predicted by kin selection theory.     

Group selection and kin selection: formally equivalent approaches

Inclusive fitness theory, summarised in Hamilton's rule, is a dominant explanation for the evolution of social behaviour. A parallel thread of evolutionary theory holds that selection between groups is also a candidate explanation for social evolution. The mathematical equivalence of these two approaches has long been known. Several recent papers, however, have objected that inclusive fitness theory is unable to deal with strong selection or with non-additive fitness effects, and concluded that the group selection framework is more general, or even that the two are not equivalent after all. Yet, these same problems have already been identified and resolved in the literature. Here, I survey these contemporary objections, and examine them in the light of current understanding of inclusive fitness theory.     

No evidence for divergence in male harmfulness or female resistance in response to changes in the opportunity for dispersal

The outcome of sexual conflict can depend on the social environment, as males respond to changes in the inclusive fitness payoffs of harmfulness and harm females less when they compete with familiar relatives. Theoretical models also predict that if limited male dispersal predictably enhances local relatedness while maintaining global competition, kin selection can produce evolutionary divergences in male harmfulness among populations. Experimental tests of these predictions, however, are rare. We assessed rates of dispersal in female and male seed beetles Callosobruchus maculatus, a model species for studies of sexual conflict, in an experimental setting. Females dispersed significantly more often than males, but dispersing males travelled just as far as dispersing females. Next, we used experimental evolution to test whether limiting dispersal allowed the action of kin selection to affect divergence in male harmfulness and female resistance. Populations of C. maculatus were evolved for 20 and 25 generations under one of three dispersal regimens: completely free dispersal, limited dispersal and no dispersal. There was no divergence among treatments in female reproductive tract scarring, ejaculate size, mating behaviour, fitness of experimental females mated to stock males or fitness of stock females mated to experimental males. We suggest that this is likely due to insufficient strength of kin selection rather than a lack of genetic variation or time for selection. Limited dispersal alone is therefore not sufficient for kin selection to reduce male harmfulness in this species, consistent with general predictions that limited dispersal will only allow kin selection if local relatedness is independent of the intensity of competition among kin.     

OF MICE AND KIN: THE FUNCTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF KIN BIAS IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

1. Sharing recent ancestry (kinship) increases the degree of genetic similarity between individuals, where genetic similarity could mean anything from sharing a particular allele to sharing an entire genome. 2. Genetic similarity can influence behavioural and other responses between individuals in a number of ways, discriminatory and non-discriminatory. All are likely to result in kin bias, because of the correlation between genetic similarity and kinship, but only some should be regarded as involving kin discrimination. 3. Non-discriminatory kin bias could arise through close relatives sharing, for instance, physical characteristics (such as those influencing competitive ability), thresholds of behavioural response or requirements for particular resources. 4. Discriminatory kin bias could arise through the direct perception of genetic similarity between individuals (direct similarity discrimination) or the use of cues likely to correlate with genetic similarity (indirect similarity discrimination--of which kin discrimination is one form). Alternatively, it could arise incidentally through mistaken identity or discrimination at some other level, such as species identification. 5. Experiments with laboratory and wild house mice have revealed kin bias in a number of contexts, including (a) parental and infanticidal behaviour, (b) sexual development and behaviour and (c) investigatory behaviour and passive body contact among juveniles and adults. 6. While kin bias in mice has been interpreted as evidence for kin discrimination, there are several problems with such an interpretation. These include (a) pronounced and complex effects of familiarity on discrimination, (b) a high risk of error-proneness in the indirect cues used in apparent kin discrimination and (c) weak and easily disrupted kin bias effects in certain contexts. 7. Consideration of social structure and discriminatory responses within populations of wild house mice leads to an alternative explanation for some kin bias in terms of incidental discrimination based on social group membership. 8. Several results from laboratory experiments suggest incidental discrimination is a more parsimonious explanation than kin discrimination for some intrasexual kin bias in behaviour. However, kin or direct similarity discrimination appears to be the most likely explanation for other aspects of intrasexual kin bias and for intersexual kin bias.     

Inclusive fitness,asymmetric competition and kin selection in plants

The findings that some plants alter their competitive phenotype in response to genetic relatedness of its conspecific neighbour (and presumed competitor) has spurred an increasing interest in plant kin‐interactions. This phenotypic response suggests the ability to assess the genetic relatedness of conspecific competitors, proposing kin selection as a process that can influence plant competitive interactions. Kin selection can favour restrained competitive growth towards kin, if the fitness loss from reducing own growth is compensated by increased fitness in the related neighbour. This may lead to positive frequency dependency among related conspecifics with important ecological consequences for species assemblage and coexistence. However, kin selection in plants is still controversial. First, many studies documenting a plastic response to neighbour relatedness do not estimate fitness consequences of the individual that responds, and when estimated, fitness of individuals grown in competition with kin did not necessarily exceed that of individuals grown in non‐kin groups. Although higher fitness in kin groups could be consistent with kin selection, this could also arise from mechanisms like asymmetric competition in the non‐kin groups. Here we outline the main challenges for studying kin selection in plants taking genetic variation for competitive ability into account. We emphasize the need to measure inclusive fitness in order to assess whether kin selection occurs, and show under which circumstances kin selected responses can be expected. We also illustrate why direct fitness estimates of a focal plant, and group fitness estimates are not suitable for documenting kin selection. Importantly, natural selection occurs at the individual level and it is the inclusive fitness of an individual plant – not the mean fitness of the group – that can capture if a differential response to neighbour relatedness is favoured by kin selection.     

A comparative study of egg recognition signature mixtures in Formica ants

Processing of information from the environment, such as assessing group membership in social contexts, is a major determinant of inclusive fitness. For social insects, recognizing brood origin is crucial for inclusive fitness in many contexts, such as social parasitism and kin conflicts within colonies. Whether a recognition signature is informative in kin conflicts depends on the extent of a genetic contribution into the cues. We investigated colony‐ and matriline‐specific variation in egg surface hydrocarbons in seven species of Formica ants. We show that chemical variance is distributed similarly to genetic variation, suggesting a significant genetic contribution to eggs odors in the genus. Significant among matriline components, and significant correlations between chemical and genetic similarity among individuals also indicate kin informative egg odors in several species. We suggest that egg odor surface variation could play a large role in within colony conflicts, and that a comparative method can reveal novel insight into communication of identity.     

Kin selection is the key to altruism

Kin selection theory, also known as inclusive fitness theory, has been the subject of much debate and misunderstanding. Nevertheless, the idea that relatedness among individuals can drive the evolution of altruism has emerged as a central paradigm in evolutionary biology. Or has it? In two recent articles, E.O. Wilson argues that kin selection should no longer be considered the main explanation for the evolution of altruism in insect societies. Here, we discuss what these articles say about kin selection and how it relates to the theory. We conclude that kin selection remains the key explanation for the evolution of altruism in eusocial insects.     

Kin selection and ethnic group selection

Ethnicity looks something like kinship on a larger scale. The same math can be used to measure genetic similarity within ethnic/racial groups and relatedness within families. For example, members of the same continental race are about as related (r = 0.18–0.26) as half-siblings (r = 0.25). However (contrary to some claims) the theory of kin selection does not apply straightforwardly to ethnicity, because inclusive fitness calculations based on Hamilton's rule break down when there are complicated social interactions within groups, and/or groups are large and long-lasting. A more promising approach is a theory of ethnic group selection, a special case of cultural group selection. An elementary model shows that the genetic assimilation of a socially enforced cultural regime can promote group solidarity and lead to the regulation of recruitment to groups, and to altruism between groups, based on genetic similarity – in short, to ethnic nepotism. Several lines of evidence, from historical population genetics and political psychology, are relevant here.     

Cryptic Kin Selection: Kin Structure in Vertebrate Populations and Opportunities for Kin‐Directed Cooperation

Animal societies of varying complexity have been the favoured testing ground for inclusive fitness theory, and there is now abundant evidence that kin selection has played a critical role in the evolution of cooperative behaviour. One of the key theoretical and empirical findings underlying this conclusion is that cooperative systems have a degree of kin structure, often the product of delayed dispersal, that facilitates interactions with relatives. However, recent population genetic studies have revealed that many non‐cooperative animals also have kin‐structured populations, providing more cryptic opportunities for kin selection to operate. In this article, I first review the evidence that kin structure is widespread among non‐cooperative vertebrates, and then consider the various contexts in which kin selection may occur in such taxa, including: leks, brood parasitism, crèches, breeding associations, territoriality and population dynamics, foraging and predator deterrence. I describe the evidence that kin‐selected benefits arise from interacting with kin in each of these contexts, notwithstanding the potential costs of kin competition and inbreeding. I conclude that as the tools required to determine population genetic structure are readily available, measurement of kin structure and the potential for kin selection on a routine basis is likely to reveal that this process has been an important driver of evolutionary adaptation in many non‐cooperative as well as cooperative species.     

Hamilton's rule and the causes of social evolution

Hamilton''s rule is a central theorem of inclusive fitness (kin selection) theory and predicts that social behaviour evolves under specific combinations of relatedness, benefit and cost. This review provides evidence for Hamilton''s rule by presenting novel syntheses of results from two kinds of study in diverse taxa, including cooperatively breeding birds and mammals and eusocial insects. These are, first, studies that empirically parametrize Hamilton''s rule in natural populations and, second, comparative phylogenetic analyses of the genetic, life-history and ecological correlates of sociality. Studies parametrizing Hamilton''s rule are not rare and demonstrate quantitatively that (i) altruism (net loss of direct fitness) occurs even when sociality is facultative, (ii) in most cases, altruism is under positive selection via indirect fitness benefits that exceed direct fitness costs and (iii) social behaviour commonly generates indirect benefits by enhancing the productivity or survivorship of kin. Comparative phylogenetic analyses show that cooperative breeding and eusociality are promoted by (i) high relatedness and monogamy and, potentially, by (ii) life-history factors facilitating family structure and high benefits of helping and (iii) ecological factors generating low costs of social behaviour. Overall, the focal studies strongly confirm the predictions of Hamilton''s rule regarding conditions for social evolution and their causes.     

PATTERNS OF PATERNITY SKEW AMONG POLYANDROUS SOCIAL INSECTS: WHAT CAN THEY TELL US ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR SEXUAL SELECTION?

Monogamy results in high genetic relatedness among offspring and thus it is generally assumed to be favored by kin selection. Female multiple mating (polyandry) has nevertheless evolved several times in the social Hymenoptera (ants, bees, and wasps), and a substantial amount of work has been conducted to understand its costs and benefits. Relatedness and inclusive fitness benefits are, however, not only influenced by queen mating frequency but also by paternity skew, which is a quantitative measure of paternity biases among the offspring of polyandrous females. We performed a large‐scale phylogenetic analysis of paternity skew across polyandrous social Hymenoptera. We found a general and significant negative association between paternity frequency and paternity skew. High paternity skew, which increases relatedness among colony members and thus maximizes inclusive fitness gains, characterized species with low paternity frequency. However, species with highly polyandrous queens had low paternity skew, with paternity equalized among potential sires. Equal paternity shares among fathers are expected to maximize fitness benefits derived from genetic diversity among offspring. We discuss the potential for postcopulatory sexual selection to influence patterns of paternity in social insects, and suggest that sexual selection may have played a key, yet overlooked role in social evolution.     

Mother's little helpers: What we know (and don't know) about cooperative infant care in callitrichines

Since Darwin ( 1859 ), scientists have been puzzled by how behaviors that impose fitness costs on helpers while benefiting their competitors could evolve through natural selection. Hamilton's ( 1964 ) theory of inclusive fitness provided an explanation by showing how cooperative behaviors could be adaptive if directed at closely related kin. Recent studies, however, have begun to question whether kin selection is sufficient to explain cooperative behavior in some species (Bergmüller, Johnstone, Russell, & Bshary, 2007 ). Many researchers have instead emphasized the importance of direct fitness benefits for helpers in the evolution of cooperative breeding systems. Furthermore, individuals can vary in who, when, and how much they help, and the factors that affect this variation are poorly understood (Cockburn, 1998 ; Heinsohn, 2004 ). Cooperative breeders thus provide excellent models for the study of evolutionary theories of cooperation and conflict (Cant, 2012 ).     

Kin selection in Columbian ground squirrels: direct and indirect fitness benefits

Empirical and theoretical studies have supported kin selection by demonstrating nepotism or modelling its conditions and consequences. As an alternative, we previously found that female Columbian ground squirrels had greater direct fitness when more close kin were present. Extending those results, we used population matrix methods to calculate minimum estimates of individual fitness, estimated direct and indirect components of fitness, estimated inclusive fitness by adding the direct fitness (stripped of estimated influences of the social environment) and indirect fitness components together, and finally looked for inclusive fitness benefits of associations with close kin who seem to be 'genial neighbours'. We examined the estimated fitness of a sample of 35 females for which complete lifetimes were known for themselves, their mothers and their littermate sisters. Six of these females had no cosurviving adult close kin, and their direct fitness was significantly lower than 29 females with such kin (λ = 0.66 vs. λ = 1.23). The net fitness benefit of the presence of close kin was thus 0.57. The estimated indirect component of fitness through benefits to the direct fitness of close kin was 0.43. Thus, estimated inclusive fitness for females with cosurviving close kin (λ = 1.09) was significantly greater than that for females without surviving close kin (viz., λ = 0.66). The presence of closely related and philopatric female kin appeared to result in considerable fitness benefits for female ground squirrels, perhaps through the behavioural mechanisms of lowered aggression and other forms of behavioural cooperation.     

INTERACTING PHENOTYPES AND THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. III. SOCIAL EVOLUTION

Interactions among conspecifics influence social evolution through two distinct but intimately related paths. First, they provide the opportunity for indirect genetic effects (IGEs), where genes expressed in one individual influence the expression of traits in others. Second, interactions can generate social selection when traits expressed in one individual influence the fitness of others. Here, we present a quantitative genetic model of multivariate trait evolution that integrates the effects of both IGEs and social selection, which have previously been modeled independently. We show that social selection affects evolutionary change whenever the breeding value of one individual covaries with the phenotype of its social partners. This covariance can be created by both relatedness and IGEs, which are shown to have parallel roles in determining evolutionary response. We show that social selection is central to the estimation of inclusive fitness and derive a version of Hamilton's rule showing the symmetrical effects of relatedness and IGEs on the evolution of altruism. We illustrate the utility of our approach using altruism, greenbeards, aggression, and weapons as examples. Our model provides a general predictive equation for the evolution of social phenotypes that encompasses specific cases such as kin selection and reciprocity. The parameters can be measured empirically, and we emphasize the importance of considering both IGEs and social selection, in addition to relatedness, when testing hypotheses about social evolution.     

Kinship,parental manipulation and evolutionary origins of eusociality

One of the hallmarks of eusociality is that workers forego their own reproduction to assist their mother in raising siblings. This seemingly altruistic behaviour may benefit workers if gains in indirect fitness from rearing siblings outweigh the loss of direct fitness. If worker presence is advantageous to mothers, however, eusociality may evolve without net benefits to workers. Indirect fitness benefits are often cited as evidence for the importance of inclusive fitness in eusociality, but have rarely been measured in natural populations. We compared inclusive fitness of alternative social strategies in the tropical sweat bee, Megalopta genalis, for which eusociality is optional. Our results show that workers have significantly lower inclusive fitness than females that found their own nests. In mathematical simulations based on M. genalis field data, eusociality cannot evolve with reduced intra-nest relatedness. The simulated distribution of alternative social strategies matched observed distributions of M. genalis social strategies when helping behaviour was simulated as the result of maternal manipulation, but not as worker altruism. Thus, eusociality in M. genalis is best explained through kin selection, but the underlying mechanism is likely maternal manipulation.     

Are flies kind to kin? The role of intra- and inter-sexual relatedness in mediating reproductive conflict

As individual success often comes at the expense of others, interactions between the members of a species are frequently antagonistic, especially in the context of reproduction. In theory, this conflict may be reduced in magnitude when kin interact, as cooperative behaviour between relatives can result in increased inclusive fitness. Recent tests of the potential role of cooperative behaviour between brothers in Drosophila melanogaster have proved to be both exciting and controversial. We set out to replicate these experiments, which have profound implications for the study of kin selection and sexual conflict, and to expand upon them by also examining the potential role of kinship between males and females in reproductive interactions. While we did observe reduced fighting and courtship effort between competing brothers, contrary to previous studies we did not detect any fitness benefit to females as a result of the modification of male antagonistic behaviours. Furthermore, we did not observe any differential treatment of females by their brothers, as would be expected if the intensity of sexual conflict was mediated by kin selection. In the light of these results, we propose an alternative explanation for observed differences in male–male conflict and provide preliminary empirical support for this hypothesis.     

Fisher’s fundamental theorem of inclusive fitness and the change in fitness due to natural selection when conspecifics interact

Competition and cooperation is fundamental to evolution by natural selection, both in animals and plants. Here, I investigate the consequences of such interactions for response in fitness due to natural selection. I provide quantitative genetic expressions for heritable variance and response in fitness due to natural selection when conspecifics interact. Results show that interactions among conspecifics generate extra heritable variance in fitness, and that interacting with kin is the key to evolutionary success because it translates the extra heritable variance into response in fitness. This work also unifies Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection (FTNS) and Hamilton’s inclusive fitness (IF). The FTNS implies that natural selection maximizes fitness, whereas Hamilton proposed maximization of IF. This work shows that the FTNS describes the increase in IF, rather than direct fitness, at a rate equal to the additive genetic variance in fitness. Thus, Hamilton’s IF and Fisher’s FTNS both describe the maximization of IF.