Social selection acts on behavior and body mass but does not contribute to the total selection differential in eastern chipmunks

Santostefano, Francesca; Garant, Dany; Bergeron, Patrick; Montiglio, Pierre‐Olivier; Réale, Denis

doi:10.1111/evo.13875

Cited by 15 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This would then end up causing negative social selection for body size to increase the magnitude of the overall positive selection for body size. In contrast, while Santostefano et al [15] found a negative covariance among female chipmunks ( T. striatus ) for body mass, they found no covariance among males for body mass. Since social selection was only present in males, social selection would not contribute to overall selection in either sex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Formica et al [26] found positive direct selection and negative social selection for body size (when using mating success as a proxy for fitness, but this is not true when using survival) in fungus beetles ( Bolitotherus cornutus ), matching our result for high densities. Similarly, Tsuji [36] and Santostefano et al [15] found positive direct selection and negative social selection for body size in an ant ( Pristomyrmex pungens ) and in male chipmunks ( Tamias striatus ; but only in summer, and never for females), respectively. These results have also been repeated in plants, in both Arabidopsis thaliana [37] and sea rocket ( Cakile edentula ) [38] positive direct selection and negative social selection for size has been detected, although in sea rocket this is only true at low densities, while both selection gradients are reversed at medium and high densities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…However, not all measures of assortment are equal, and only the interactant covariance (the covariance between an individual’s traits and the mean trait value of those it interacts with) is correct for use in models of total selection [14]. Unfortunately, estimates of this parameter in natural populations are rare, especially alongside estimates of social selection (but see: [15]). Therefore, despite its predicted importance, we have very little knowledge of how social selection contributes to total selection in natural populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social selection is density dependent but makes little contribution to total selection in New Zealand giraffe weevils

Fisher

LeGrice

Painting

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social selection occurs when traits of interaction partners influence an individual's fitness and can fundamentally alter total selection strength. Unlike for direct selection, however, we have little idea of what factors influence the strength of social selection. Further, social selection only contributes to overall selection when there is phenotypic assortment, but simultaneous estimates of social selection and phenotypic assortment are rare. Here we estimated social selection on body size in a wild population of New Zealand giraffe weevils (Lasiorhynchus barbicornis). We did this in a range of contexts and measured phenotypic assortment for both sexes. Social selection was mostly absent and not affected by sex ratio or the body size of the focal individual. However, at high densities selection was negative for both sexes, consistent with competitive interactions based on size for access to mates. Phenotypic assortment was also density dependent, flipping from positive at low densities to negative at high densities. However, it was always close to zero, indicating negative social selection at high densities will not greatly impede the evolution of larger body sizes. Despite its predicted importance, social selection may only influence evolutionary change in specific contexts, leaving direct selection as the dominant driver of evolutionary change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social selection is density dependent but makes little contribution to total selection in New Zealand giraffe weevils

Fisher

LeGrice

Painting

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2017; Santostefano et al. 2019), but to our knowledge, there are few studies that have estimated interactive fitness effects (e.g., Brodie and Agrawal 2001; Santostefano et al. 2019).…”

Section: Understanding the Ecology Of Selection In A Social Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2019), but to our knowledge, there are few studies that have estimated interactive fitness effects (e.g., Brodie and Agrawal 2001; Santostefano et al. 2019). The lack of empirical estimates and their omission in some theoretical treatments of social evolution is hampering our ability to understand, describe, and ultimately predict the evolutionary trajectories of social traits.…”

Section: Understanding the Ecology Of Selection In A Social Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways to social evolution and their evolutionary feedbacks

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of social evolution, the ecological drivers of selection are the phenotypes of other individuals. The social environment can thus evolve, potentially changing the adaptive value for different social strategies. Different branches of evolutionary biology have traditionally focused on different aspects of these feedbacks. Here, we synthesize behavioral ecology theory concerning evolutionarily stable strategies when fitness is frequency dependent with quantitative genetic models providing statistical descriptions of evolutionary responses to social selection. Using path analyses, we review how social interactions influence the strength of selection and how social responsiveness, social impact, and non‐random social assortment affect responses to social selection. We then detail how the frequency‐dependent nature of social interactions fits into this framework and how it imposes selection on traits mediating social responsiveness, social impact, and social assortment, further affecting evolutionary dynamics. Throughout, we discuss the parameters in quantitative genetics models of social evolution from a behavioral ecology perspective and identify their statistical counterparts in empirical studies. This integration of behavioral ecology and quantitative genetic perspectives should lead to greater clarity in the generation of hypotheses and more focused empirical research regarding evolutionary pathways and feedbacks inherent in specific social interactions.

show abstract

Frequency dependence and the predictability of evolution in a changing environment

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency-dependent (FD) selection, whereby fitness and selection depend on the genetic or phenotypic composition of the population, arises in numerous ecological contexts (competition, mate choice, crypsis, mimicry, etc.) and can strongly impact evolutionary dynamics. In particular, negative frequency-dependent selection (NFDS) is well known for its ability to potentially maintain stable polymorphisms, but it has also been invoked as a source of persistent, predictable frequency fluctuations. However, the conditions under which such fluctuations persist are not entirely clear. In particular, previous work rarely considered that FD is unlikely to be the sole driver of evolutionary dynamics when it occurs, because most environments are not static but instead change dynamically over time. Here, we investigate how FD interacts with a temporally fluctuating environment to shape the dynamics of population genetic change. We show that a simple metric introduced by Lewontin, the slope of frequency change against frequency near equilibrium, works as a key criterion for distinguishing microevolutionary outcomes, even in a changing environment. When this slope D is between 0 and -2 (consistent with the empirical examples we review), substantial fluctuations would not persist on their own in a large population occupying a constant environment, but they can still be maintained indefinitely as quasi-cycles fueled by environmental noise or genetic drift. However, such moderate NFDS buffers and temporally shifts evolutionary responses to periodic environments (e.g., seasonality). Stronger FD, with slope D < -2, can produce self-sustained cycles that may overwhelm responses to a changing environment, or even chaos that fundamentally limits predictability. This diversity of expected outcomes, together with the empirical evidence for both FD and environment-dependent selection, suggests that the interplay of internal dynamics with external forcing should be investigated more systematically to reach a better understanding and prediction of evolution.

show abstract

Social selection acts on behavior and body mass but does not contribute to the total selection differential in eastern chipmunks

Cited by 15 publications

References 62 publications

Social selection is density dependent but makes little contribution to total selection in New Zealand giraffe weevils

Social selection is density dependent but makes little contribution to total selection in New Zealand giraffe weevils

Pathways to social evolution and their evolutionary feedbacks

Frequency dependence and the predictability of evolution in a changing environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About