A GENERAL MODEL FOR KIN SELECTION

Inclusive fitness theory is central to our understanding of the evolution of social behavior. By showing the importance of genetic transmission through nondescendent relatives, it helps to explain the evolution of reproductively altruistic behaviors, such as those observed in the social insects. Inclusive fitness thinking is quantified by Hamilton's rule, but Hamilton's rule has often been criticized for being inexact or insufficiently general. Here I show how adopting a genic perspective yields a very general version that remains pleasingly simple and transparent.     

Relatedness and altruism in Polistes wasps

Genetic relatedness is expected to play a crucial role in theevolution of altruistic behaviors such as worker behavior inthe social insects. If individuals sacrifice their own reproduction,then the genes for this sacrifice will be lost unless theseindividuals aid the reproduction of others who share the genes.This leads to the prediction that altruism should be most commonin species with high relatedness among potential beneficiaries.Here we report an attempt to test for such an association. Weestimated both the incidence of altruism and the relatednessto potential beneficiaries in foundresses of seven species ofpaper wasps. The predicted positive correlation was not found,and we conclude that factors other than relatedness are moreimportant in determining interspecific differences in the incidenceof altruism.     

Hamilton's missing link

Hamilton's famous rule was presented in 1964 in a paper called "The genetical theory of social behaviour (I and II)", Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 1-16, 17-32. The paper contains a mathematical genetical model from which the rule supposedly follows, but it does not provide a link between the paper's central result, which states that selection dynamics take the population to a state where mean inclusive fitness is maximized, and the rule, which states that selection will lead to maximization of individual inclusive fitness. This note provides a condition under which Hamilton's rule does follow from his central result.     

Genetic relatedness in viscous populations

Summary Hamilton's inclusive fitness rule shows that the evolution of altruism is facilitated by high genetic relatedness of altruists to their beneficiaries. But the evolution of altruism is inhibited when the beneficiaries are also close competitors of the altruist, as will often be true in structured or viscous populations. However, Hamilton's rule still gives the correct condition for the evolution of altruism if relatedness is measured with respect to the local competitive neighbourhood.     

Can natural selection favour altruism between species?

Darwin suggested that the discovery of altruism between species would annihilate his theory of natural selection. However, it has not been formally shown whether between‐species altruism can evolve by natural selection, or why this could never happen. Here, we develop a spatial population genetic model of two interacting species, showing that indiscriminate between species helping can be favoured by natural selection. We then ask if this helping behaviour constitutes altruism between species, using a linear‐regression analysis to separate the total action of natural selection into its direct and indirect (kin selected) components. We show that our model can be interpreted in two ways, as either altruism within species, or altruism between species. This ambiguity arises depending on whether or not we treat genes in the other species as predictors of an individual's fitness, which is equivalent to treating these individuals as agents (actors or recipients). Our formal analysis, which focuses upon evolutionary dynamics rather than agents and their agendas, cannot resolve which is the better approach. Nonetheless, because a within‐species altruism interpretation is always possible, our analysis supports Darwin's suggestion that natural selection does not favour traits that provide benefits exclusively to individuals of other species.     

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.     

Quantitative genetic versions of Hamilton's rule with empirical applications

Hamilton''s theory of inclusive fitness revolutionized our understanding of the evolution of social interactions. Surprisingly, an incorporation of Hamilton''s perspective into the quantitative genetic theory of phenotypic evolution has been slow, despite the popularity of quantitative genetics in evolutionary studies. Here, we discuss several versions of Hamilton''s rule for social evolution from a quantitative genetic perspective, emphasizing its utility in empirical applications. Although evolutionary quantitative genetics offers methods to measure each of the critical parameters of Hamilton''s rule, empirical work has lagged behind theory. In particular, we lack studies of selection on altruistic traits in the wild. Fitness costs and benefits of altruism can be estimated using a simple extension of phenotypic selection analysis that incorporates the traits of social interactants. We also discuss the importance of considering the genetic influence of the social environment, or indirect genetic effects (IGEs), in the context of Hamilton''s rule. Research in social evolution has generated an extensive body of empirical work focusing—with good reason—almost solely on relatedness. We argue that quantifying the roles of social and non-social components of selection and IGEs, in addition to relatedness, is now timely and should provide unique additional insights into social evolution.     

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.     

Spite and the scale of competition

In recent years there has been a large body of theoretical work examining how local competition can reduce and even remove selection for altruism between relatives. However, it is less well appreciated that local competition favours selection for spite, the relatively neglected ugly sister of altruism. Here, we use extensions of social evolution theory that were formulated to deal with the consequences for altruism of competition between social partners, to illustrate several points on the evolution of spite. Specifically, we show that: (i) the conditions for the evolution of spite are less restrictive than previously assumed; (ii) previous models which have demonstrated selection for spite often implicitly assumed local competition; (iii) the scale of competition must be allowed for when distinguishing different forms of spite (Hamiltonian vs. Wilsonian); (iv) local competition can enhance the spread of spiteful greenbeards; and (v) the theory makes testable predictions for how the extent of spite should vary dependent upon population structure and average relatedness.     

Why kin and group selection models may not be enough to explain human other-regarding behaviour

Models of kin or group selection usually feature only one possible fitness transfer. The phenotypes are either to make this transfer or not to make it and for any given fitness transfer, Hamilton's rule predicts which of the two phenotypes will spread. In this article we allow for the possibility that different individuals or different generations face similar, but not necessarily identical possibilities for fitness transfers. In this setting, phenotypes are preference relations, which concisely specify behaviour for a range of possible fitness transfers (rather than being a specification for only one particular situation an animal or human can be in). For this more general set-up, we find that only preference relations that are linear in fitnesses can be explained using models of kin selection and that the same applies to a large class of group selection models. This provides a new implication of hierarchical selection models that could in principle falsify them, even if relatedness--or a parameter for assortativeness--is unknown. The empirical evidence for humans suggests that hierarchical selection models alone are not enough to explain their other-regarding or altruistic behaviour.     

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.     

Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection

From an evolutionary perspective, social behaviours are those which have fitness consequences for both the individual that performs the behaviour, and another individual. Over the last 43 years, a huge theoretical and empirical literature has developed on this topic. However, progress is often hindered by poor communication between scientists, with different people using the same term to mean different things, or different terms to mean the same thing. This can obscure what is biologically important, and what is not. The potential for such semantic confusion is greatest with interdisciplinary research. Our aim here is to address issues of semantic confusion that have arisen with research on the problem of cooperation. In particular, we: (i) discuss confusion over the terms kin selection, mutualism, mutual benefit, cooperation, altruism, reciprocal altruism, weak altruism, altruistic punishment, strong reciprocity, group selection and direct fitness; (ii) emphasize the need to distinguish between proximate (mechanism) and ultimate (survival value) explanations of behaviours. We draw examples from all areas, but especially recent work on humans and microbes.     

Benefits of foundress associations in the paper wasp Polistes dominulus: increased productivity and survival, but no assurance of fitness returns

Successful Polistes dominulus nests can be started by one ormore nest founding queens (foundresses). Consequently, thereis much interest in the specific benefits that induce cooperationamong foundresses. Here, we experimentally demonstrate one majorbenefit of cooperation, namely that multiple foundresses increasecolony productivity. This increase is close to the value predictedby subtracting the productivity of undisturbed single-foundresscolonies from the productivity of undisturbed multiple-foundresscolonies. However, we found no evidence that an associatingfoundress' contribution to colony growth is preserved if shedisappears (assured fitness returns). Our correlational datasuggest that cooperation provides survival benefits, multiple-foundresscolonies are more likely to survive to produce offspring thanare single-foundress colonies, and individual foundresses inmultiple-foundress groups are less likely to disappear beforeworker emergence than foundresses nesting alone. Therefore,association provides substantial productivity and survival benefitsfor cooperating foundresses.     

Kin distribution of amphibian larvae in the wild

According to kin selection theory, the location of an individual with respect to its relatives can have important ramifications for its fitness. Perhaps more than any other vertebrate group, anuran amphibian larvae have been the subject of many experiments on this topic. Some anuran species have been shown in the laboratory to recognize and associate with their siblings and half-siblings. However, due to the difficulty of identifying sibships, no kinship studies with anuran larvae have been conducted in the wild. Here, we use microsatellite analysis to show that wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles were nonrandomly distributed in two ponds with respect to their relatives. In one pond, the tadpoles were significantly clumped with their siblings or half-siblings as expected from other published laboratory studies on this species. However, in another pond, the tadpoles were significantly nonrandomly dispersed from their siblings or half-siblings. This is the first example of kin repulsion of nonreproductive animals in the wild and the first time a species has been shown to display both aggregation and repulsion under different circumstances. These results suggest that kin distribution is context dependent and demonstrate the importance of testing kin selection hypotheses under natural conditions.