4.6 Article

Social environment: Trait, context and agent for selection in a meta-population

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 1, Pages 4-7

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.13400

Keywords

demographic exchange; density; eco-evolutionary dynamics; landscape resistance; metapopulation; sexual selection; social network; social trait

Funding

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council [RGPIN 435372-2013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that in wild subpopulations of forked fungus beetles, social network position experiences more variable selection than weaponry. Morphological traits are largely under hard directional positive selection, while social traits are under soft and variable selection. These results raise interesting discussion of multi-level selection and the evolution of social traits in a meta-population.
In Focus: Formica, V., Donald, H., Marti, H., Irgebay, Z., Brodie III, E. Social network position experiences more variable selection than weaponry in wild subpopulations of forked fungus beetles. Journal of Animal Ecology, 90, 168-182, . That social network traits can exhibit consistent-individual differences among individuals and confer a fitness benefit or cost is increasingly well-established. However, how selection-natural or sexual-affects those social traits and at what scale remains an open question. In this Special Feature, Formica and colleagues employ a meta-population of forked fungus beetles to test and contrast whether sexual selection on social network traits contrasted to morphological traits occurs at the local (soft) or global (hard) scales. The authors demonstrate that morphological traits are largely under hard directional positive selection, whereas social traits are under soft and variable selection. The findings are compelling and raise interesting discussion of multi-level selection and the evolution of social traits in a meta-population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available