The evolution of simultaneous progressive provisioning revisited: extending the model to overlapping generations
“Simultaneous progressive provisioners” feed their offspring gradually as they develop—and typically feed more than one offspring simultaneously (SIM) at a time. In contrast, “sequential mass provisioners” supply offspring one after another (SEQ). Utilizing individual-based simulations, Field (Nature 404:869–871, 2005) compared the lifetime reproductive success of these strategies in different scenarios. Accordingly, SEQ should evolve in the majority of cases—SIM only has an evolutionary benefit if offspring depend on their mothers’ protection until adulthood even past the provisioning period. However, this is only one potential explanation for the evolution of SIM. Here, we present an alternative mechanism for solitary individuals with overlapping generations. We propose an analytical model (comprising Field’s former approach) utilizing growth rate instead of lifetime reproductive success as a measure of fitness. Our model shows that multiplicative geometric effects on fitness would typically compensate for the demographic disadvantages of SIM (due to prolonged dependency) and consequently support the evolution of SIM over SEQ for a wide range of life history parameters. The optimal level of SIM (i.e., the optimal number of eggs laid simultaneously) is determined by offspring development time, survival rates, and foraging efficiency of the mother. Only extreme values of these demographic parameters would favor a transition to SEQ behavior. Our model provides a coherent explanation of selective favoring of SIM over SEQ that may also contribute to understanding why SIM is the dominant strategy among social insect species.
Workers in social insects typically feed several offspring simultaneously while solitary species with parental care—apart from a few exceptions—provision brood cells one after another. The provisioning pattern might play a prominent role in the evolutionary pathway to higher social organization. Based on a novel theoretical approach, we show that geometric growth benefits increase selection pressure towards simultaneous progressive provisioning in species with generation overlap. Such geometric benefits may specifically emerge in seasonal eusocial species. This result alters former assessment of causal mechanisms and extends findings focusing on solitary insects. It adds a new and reasonable explanation for the dominance of simultaneous provisioning among social species.
KeywordsParental care Simultaneous provisioning Optimal clutch size Evolutionary model Social insects
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Achim Poethke, Thomas Hovestadt, and Oliver Mitesser gratefully acknowledge financial support by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Collaborative Research Center SFB 1047 “Insect timing,” Project C6. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Collaborative Research Center SFB 1047 “Insect timing,” Project C6.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
There were no animal experiments or field observations in this study.
There were no human participants in this study, but informed consent was obtained from all of those involved in the study.
- Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (eds) (1965) Handbook of mathematical functions: with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, 9. Revised edition. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Benton TG, Grant A (2000) Evolutionary fitness in ecology: comparing measures of fitness in stochastic, density-dependent environments. Evol Ecol Res 2:769–789Google Scholar
- Bohart RM, Menke AS (1976) Sphecid wasps of the world: a generic revision. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Core Team R (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Cowan D (1991) The solitary and presocial Vespidae. In: Ross K, Matthews R (eds) The social biology of wasps. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 33–73Google Scholar
- Ferton C (1902) Notes détachées suri ‘instinct des Hyménoptères mellifères et ravisseurs avec la description de quelques espèces. Ann Soc Entom Fr LXXI:499–529Google Scholar
- Greene A (1984) Production schedules of vespine wasps: an empirical test of the bang-bang optimization model. J Kansas Entomol Soc 57:545–568Google Scholar
- Hunt JH (1999) Trait mapping and salience in the evolution of eusocial vespid wasps. Evolution:225–237Google Scholar
- Jeanne RL (1991) The swarm-founding Polistinae. 191–231. In: Ross KG, Matthews RW (eds) The social biology of wasps. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
- Malyshev SI (1968) Genesis of the Hymenoptera and the phases of their evolution. Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press), Ltd., BungayGoogle Scholar
- Michener CD (2000) The bees of the world. John Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
- Oster G, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Pesenko YA, Banaszak J, Radchenko VG, Cierzniak T (2000) Bees of the family Halictidae excluding Sphecodes of Poland: taxonomy, ecology, bionomics. Wydawnictwo Uczelniane, BydgoszczGoogle Scholar
- Queller DC (1996) The origin and maintenance of eusociality: the advantage of extended parental care. In: Turillazzi S, West-Eberhard MJ (eds) Natural history and evolution of paper-wasps. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 218–234Google Scholar
- Reeve HK (1991) Polistes. In: Ross KG, Matthews RW (eds) The social biology of wasps. Cornell University Press, London, pp 99–148Google Scholar
- Roff DA (2001) Life history evolution, 1st edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Roubaud E (1916) Recherches biologiques sur les guêpes solitaires et sociales d’Afrique. Ann Sci Nat Zool 1:1–160Google Scholar
- Spradbery JP (1973) Wasps. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
- Wilson EO (1971) The insects societies. Belknap Press of Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
- Wolfram Research Inc. (2016) Mathematica, Version 10.4, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar