Advertisement

How Wise is Mother Nature? Maximization, Optimization and Short-Sighted Resource Use in Biological Evolution

  • Hanna KokkoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Happiness Studies Book Series book series (HAPS)

Abstract

A naive interpretation of evolutionary theory is the statement that all individuals should work as hard as possible to reproduce as fast as possible. More detailed analysis proves this to be wrong: for example, a too hard working kestrel parent would waste energy on offspring that are not good at surviving, at the expense of its own lifespan. Such reasoning explains why natural selection does not always favor maximally fierce performance in competitive interactions. Some competitive situations, described as ‘zero-sum games’, however favor competitive success at the expense of conspecifics. This case, exemplified by males competing to fertilize females’ eggs, selects for a mentality where no number of resource items gained (e.g., females fertilized) is ever enough. As a consequence, natural selection can favor shortsighted behaviors where the entire population does less well because individuals strive to outcompete each other.

Keywords

Natural Selection Clutch Size Elephant Seal Sexual Conflict Mother Nature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beukeboom LW, Vrijenhoek RC (1998) Evolutionary genetics and ecology of sperm-dependent parthenogenesis. J Evol Biol 11:755–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clover C (2006) The end of the line: how over-fishing is changing the world and what we eat. The New Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Connallon T, Cox RM, Calsbeek R (2010) Fitness consequences of sex-specific selection. Evolution 64:1671–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daan S, Deerenberg C, Dijkstra C (1996) Increased daily work precipitates natural death in the kestrel. J Anim Ecol 65:539–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darden SK, Croft DP (2008) Male harassment drives females to alter habitat use and leads to segregation of the sexes. Biol Lett 4:449–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Deerenberg C, Pen I, Dijkstra C, Arkies BJ, Visser GH, Daan S (1995) Parental energy expenditure in relation to manipulated brood size in the European kestrel Falco tinnunculus. Zool Anal Complex Syst 99:38–47Google Scholar
  8. Dennett DC (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea. Touchstone Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamilton WD (1971) Selection of selfish and altruistic behaviour in some extreme models. In: Eisenberg JF, Dillon WS (eds) Man and beast: comparative social behaviour. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC, pp 57–91Google Scholar
  10. Kingsland SE (1995) Modeling nature. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Kokko H (1997) Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kokko H, Heubel KU (2011) Prudent males, group adaptation, and the tragedy of the commons. Oikos 120:641–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kokko H, Heubel KU, Rankin DJ (2008) How populations persist when asexuality requires sex: the spatial dynamics of coping with sperm parasites. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:817–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Lawson DW, Mace R (2011) Parental investment and the optimization of human family size. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 366:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Le Galliard J-F, Fitze PS, Ferrière R, Clobert J (2005) Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102:18231–18236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehtonen J, Jennions MD, Kokko H (2012) The many costs of sex. Trends Ecol Evol 27:172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ludwig D, Hilborn R, Walters CJ (1993) Uncertainty, resource exploitation and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260:17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mokkonen M, Kokko H, Koskela E, Lehtonen J, Mappes T, Martiskainen H, Mills SC (2011) Negative frequency dependent selection maintains sexually antagonistic alleles in “Myodes glareolus”. Science 334:972–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker G (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos Trans R Soc B 361:235–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rankin DJ, Dieckmann U, Kokko H (2011) Sexual conflict and the tragedy of the commons. Am Nat 177:780–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlupp I (2009) Behaviour of fishes in the sexual/unisexual mating system of the Amazon molly (Poecilia formosa). Adv Study Behav 39:153–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research School of Biology, ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Australian National UniversityActonAustralia

Personalised recommendations