Letter | Published:

Site-specific group selection drives locally adapted group compositions

Nature volume 514, pages 359362 (16 October 2014) | Download Citation

Abstract

Group selection may be defined as selection caused by the differential extinction or proliferation of groups1,2. The socially polymorphic spider Anelosimus studiosus exhibits a behavioural polymorphism in which females exhibit either a ‘docile’ or ‘aggressive’ behavioural phenotype3,4. Natural colonies are composed of a mixture of related docile and aggressive individuals, and populations differ in colonies’ characteristic docile:aggressive ratios5,6. Using experimentally constructed colonies of known composition, here we demonstrate that population-level divergence in docile:aggressive ratios is driven by site-specific selection at the group level—certain ratios yield high survivorship at some sites but not others. Our data also indicate that colonies responded to the risk of extinction: perturbed colonies tended to adjust their composition over two generations to match the ratio characteristic of their native site, thus promoting their long-term survival in their natal habitat. However, colonies of displaced individuals continued to shift their compositions towards mixtures that would have promoted their survival had they remained at their home sites, regardless of their contemporary environment. Thus, the regulatory mechanisms that colonies use to adjust their composition appear to be locally adapted. Our data provide experimental evidence of group selection driving collective traits in wild populations.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Critical-review of models of group selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 53, 101–114 (1978)

  2. 2.

    The group selection controversy—history and current status. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14, 159–187 (1983)

  3. 3.

    Behavioural traits of colony founders affect the life history of their colonies. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1026–1032 (2012)

  4. 4.

    A real-time eco-evolutionary dead-end strategy is mediated by the traits of lineage progenitors and interactions with colony invaders. Ecol. Lett. 16, 879–886 (2013)

  5. 5.

    & Frequency-dependent success of cheaters during foraging bouts might limit their spread within colonies of a socially polymorphic spider. Evolution 63, 2966–2973 (2009)

  6. 6.

    & Phenotypic variation in the social behaviour of the spider Anelosimus studiosus along a latitudinal gradient. Anim. Behav. 75, 1893–1902 (2008)

  7. 7.

    & Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 327–348 (2007)

  8. 8.

    Theory of group selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 72, 143–146 (1975)

  9. 9.

    On multilevel selection and kin selection: contextual analysis meets direct fitness. Evolution 67, 1539–1548 (2013)

  10. 10.

    & Group selection and kin selection. Nature 201, 1145–1147 (1964)

  11. 11.

    Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought (Princeton Univ. Press, 1972)

  12. 12.

    , & Social semantics: how useful has group selection been? J. Evol. Biol. 21, 374–385 (2008)

  13. 13.

    & Sex matters: sexually dimorphic fitness consequences of a behavioural syndrome. Anim. Behav. 78, 175–181 (2009)

  14. 14.

    , , & Relatedness and genetic structure in a socially polymorphic population of the spider Anelosimus studiosus. Mol. Ecol. 19, 810–818 (2010)

  15. 15.

    Group selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 51, 277–283 (1976)

  16. 16.

    & Capturing the superorganism: a formal theory of group adaptation. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 659–671 (2009)

  17. 17.

    , & Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 415–432 (2007)

  18. 18.

    , & The genetical theory of kin selection. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 1020–1043 (2011)

  19. 19.

    , , & Group selection and social evolution in domesticated animals. Evolutionary Applications 3, 453–465 (2010)

  20. 20.

    Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: selection program and direct responses. Poult. Sci. 75, 447–458 (1996)

  21. 21.

    Experimental-study of group selection. Evolution 31, 134–153 (1977)

  22. 22.

    , & Multilevel selection 1: quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175, 277–288 (2007)

  23. 23.

    , , & Colony life history and lifetime reproductive success of red harvester ant colonies. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 540–550 (2013)

  24. 24.

    The rewards of restraint in the collective regulation of foraging by harvester ant colonies. Nature 498, 91–93 (2013)

  25. 25.

    , , & Population structure mediates sexual conflict in water striders. Science 326, 816–816 (2009)

  26. 26.

    Interdemic selection and the sex-ratio—a social spider perspective. Am. Nat. 142, 320–345 (1993)

  27. 27.

    Group selection is implicated in the evolution of female-biased sex-ratios. Nature 290, 401–404 (1981)

  28. 28.

    , & Behavioural syndromes and their fitness consequences in a socially polymorphic spider, Anelosimus studiosus. Anim. Behav. 76, 871–879 (2008)

  29. 29.

    , & Behavioural trait variants in a habitat-forming species dictate the nature of its interactions with and among heterospecifics. Funct. Ecol. 26, 29–36 (2012)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to S. E. Riechert for her assistance with the design and implementation of this experiment, and to J. Troupe and J. Taylor for their assistance with establishing and censusing colonies. J. E. Strassmann and W. P. Carson were invaluable in aiding in the submission of this paper. We thank M. Rebeiz for recommending that we compare colonies composed of native versus foreign individuals. S. M. Bertram, E. M. Jakob, C. N. Keiser, C. M. Wright, N. Pinter-Wollman, J. M. Jandt and A.P. Modlmeier provided helpful comments on this paper. Funding for this work was provided by a National Science Foundation grant to J.N.P. (IOS #1352705).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA

    • Jonathan N. Pruitt
  2. Department of Biology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA

    • Charles J. Goodnight

Authors

  1. Search for Jonathan N. Pruitt in:

  2. Search for Charles J. Goodnight in:

Contributions

J.N.P. designed the experiment, performed the experiment, and wrote the manuscript. C.J.G. assisted with data analyses and writing of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan N. Pruitt.

The source data for this manuscript have been deposited in the Dryad Digital Repository (http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.87g80).

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Text.

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data

    This file contains Supplementary Data.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13811

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.