Kin Selection
Kin Selection
From the time of antiquity field biologists have observed that some organisms tend
to exhibit strategies that favor the reproductive success of their relatives, even at a
cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial
insect colony, with sterile females acting as workers to assist their mother in the
production of additional offspring. Many evolutionary biologists explain this by the
theory of kin selection.
The concept was formalized by JBS Haldane (1955)[1] and W. D. Hamilton (1963)[2],
while the actual term "kin selection" may first have been coined by John Maynard
Smith (1964)[3] when he wrote "These processes I will call kin selection and group
selection respectively. Kin selection has been discussed by Haldane and by
Hamilton. ... By kin selection I mean the evolution of characteristics which favour
the survival of close relatives of the affected individual, by processes which do not
require any discontinuities in the population breeding structure."
Kin selection refers to changes in gene frequency across generations that are
driven at least in part by interactions between related individuals, and this forms
much of the conceptual basis of the theory of social evolution. Indeed, some cases
of evolution by natural selection can only be understood by considering how
biological relatives influence one another's fitness. Under natural selection, a gene
encoding a trait that enhances the fitness of each individual carrying it should
increase in frequency within the population; and conversely, a gene that lowers the
individual fitness of its carriers should be eliminated. However, a gene that prompts
behaviour which enhances the fitness of relatives but lowers that of the individual
displaying the behavior, may nonetheless increase in frequency, because relatives
often carry the same gene; this is the fundamental principle behind the theory of
kin selection. According to the theory, the enhanced fitness of relatives can at times
more than compensate for the fitness loss incurred by the individuals displaying the
behaviour. As such, this is a special case of a more general model, called
"inclusive fitness" (in that inclusive fitness refers simply to gene copies in other
individuals, without requiring that they be kin).
Contents
1 Hamilton's rule
2 Mechanisms
3 Kin Selection in Evolutionary Psychology
4 Examples
5 See also
6 References
Hamilton's rule
Formally, such genes should increase in frequency when
rB C > 0
where
r = the genetical relatedness of the recipient to the actor, often defined as
the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is
identical by descent.
B = the additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient of the
altruistic act,
C = the reproductive cost to the individual of performing the act.
less genetically alike than two random ones on average (Hamilton 1970, Nature &
Grafen 1985 Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology). This has been invoked to
explain the evolution of spiteful behaviours.
In the 1930s J.B.S. Haldane had full grasp of the basic quantities and
considerations that play a role in kin selection. He famously said that, "I would lay
down my life for two brothers or eight cousins".[4] Kin altruism is the term for
altruistic behaviour whose evolution is supposed to have been driven by kin
selection.
Haldane's remark alluded to the fact that if an individual loses its life to save two
siblings, four nephews, or eight cousins, it is a "fair deal" in evolutionary terms, as
siblings are on average 50% identical by descent, nephews 25%, and cousins
12.5% (in a diploid population that is randomly mating and previously outbred). But
Haldane also joked that he would truly die only to save more than one identical set
of twins or more than two full siblings.
Mechanisms
Hamilton (1964) outlined two ways in which kin selection altruism could be
favoured.
Firstly, if individuals have the capacity to recognize kin (kin recognition) and to
adjust their behaviour on the basis of kinship (kin discrimination), then the average
relatedness of the recipients of altruism could be high enough for this to be
favoured. Because of the facultative nature of this mechanism, it is generally
regarded that kin recognition and discrimination are unimportant except among
'higher' forms of life (although there is some evidence for this mechanism among
protozoa). A special case of the kin recognition/discrimination mechanism is the
hypothetical 'green beard', where a gene for social behaviour also causes a
distinctive phenotype that can be recognised by other carriers of the gene.
Hamilton's discussion of greenbeard altruism serves as an illustration that
relatedness is a matter of genetic similarity and that this similarity is not necessarily
caused by genealogical closeness (kinship).
Secondly, even indiscriminate altruism may be favoured in so-called viscous
populations, i.e. those characterized by low rates or short ranges of dispersal.
Here, social partners are typically genealogically-close kin, and so altruism may be
able to flourish even in the absence of kin recognition and kin discrimination
3
for prom night, a subordinate turkey may help his dominant brother put on an
impressive team display that is only of direct benefit to the dominant member.[7]
Recent studies provide evidence that even certain plants can recognize and
respond to kinship ties. Using sea rocket for her experiments, Susan Dudley at
McMaster University in Canada compared the growth patterns of unrelated plants
sharing a pot to plants from the same clone. She found that unrelated plants
competed for soil nutrients by aggressive root growth. This did not occur with
sibling plants.[8]
See also
Altruism
Group selection
Inclusive fitness
Selfish gene
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
^ The science of eeeeek: what a squeak can tell researchers about life,
society, and all that Science News, Sept 12, 1998 by Susan Milius
5
7.
^ http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/03/02_turkeys.shtml
In the mating game, male wild turkeys benefit even when they do not get the
girl
8.
Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II.
Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16 and 17-52. pubmed I pubmed II
Lucas, J.R., Creel, S.R. & Waser, P.M. (1996) How to measure inclusive fitness,
revisited, Animal Behaviour, 51, 225-228.
Madsen, E.A., Tunney, R., Fieldman, G., Plotkin, H.C., Dunbar, R.I.M., Richards,
J.M., & McFarland, D. (2007) Kinship and altruism: A cross-cultural
experimental study. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 2 [1]
Queller, D.C. & Strassman, J.E. (2002) Quick Guide: Kin Selection. Current
Biology,12,R832. [2]
West, S.A., Gardner, A. & Griffin, A.S. (2006) Quick Guide: Altruism. Current
Biology,16,R482-R483. [3]