Premium
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF A PRIMITIVELY SOCIAL BEE: DOES GENETIC POPULATION STRUCTURE FACILITATE ALTRUISM?
Author(s) -
Blows M. W.,
Schwarz M. P.
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
evolution
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.84
H-Index - 199
eISSN - 1558-5646
pISSN - 0014-3820
DOI - 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1991.tb04338.x
Subject(s) - biology , inbreeding , population , identity by descent , altruism (biology) , brood , genetic structure , kin selection , reproductive value , kin recognition , ecology , evolutionary biology , genetic variation , demography , genetics , allele , haplotype , gene , sociology , pregnancy , offspring
Exoneura bicolor is a univoltine, facultatively social bee exhibiting a solitary/quasisocial/semisocial colony polymorphism (Schwarz, 1986, 1987). Intracolony relatedness in semisocial colonies has been previously estimated at 0.49 ± 0.06 (Schwarz, 1987), although the crucial relatedness between altruists and the brood that they rear will be about half this value. This value is unlikely to be increased by the preferential rearing of only close relatives (Schwarz, 1988 a ) and no known morphological specializations preclude workers from reproducing in this species. Hamilton (1972, 1975) suggested that relatedness may be increased through population subdivision, if this leads to significant inbreeding and increased between‐colony genetic variance. The same process may also operate at higher levels of population structure (e.g., Wade, 1978). Population structure and intracolony relatedness in E. bicolor were investigated in seven localities in southern Victoria, Australia, to determine if inbreeding at any level of population structure was contributing to relatedness between altruists and beneficiaries within these colonies. Population structure was described using hierarchical F ‐statistics and an identity by descent measure, developed by Queller and Goodnight (1989), was used to estimate intracolony relatedness. It was found that inbreeding was not contributing to between‐group genetic variance, at any level, in a consistent manner across localities. Therefore relatedness, considered in isolation, does not seem sufficient to account for the presence of worker behavior. It is suggested that large benefits for group living may be responsible for maintaining altruistic behavior, in part, in this species. Significant heterogeneity among localities for all F ‐statistics estimated in our analysis was found and this may be attributable to stochastic elements such as cofounding behavior and the low percentage of males in the brood. The possible consequences of such heterogeneity in population structure for the maintenance of altruism in E. bicolor are discussed.