Skip to main content
Log in

Genetic relatedness and group size in an aggregation economy

  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

We use Hamilton's Rule to investigate effects of genetic relatedness on the predicted size of social groups. We assume an aggregation economy; individual fitness initially increases with group size, but in sufficiently large groups each member's individual fitness declines with further increments in the size of the group. We model two processes of group formation, designated free entry and group-controlled entry. The first model assumes that solitary individuals decide to join groups or remain alone; group size equilibrates when solitaries no longer choose to join. The second model allows group members to regulate the size of the group, so that the predicted group size results from members' decisions to repel or accept intruding solitaries. Both the Nash equilibrium group size and any change in the equilibrium caused by varying the level of relatedness depend on the particular entry rule assumed. The largest equilibrium group size occurs when solitaries choose between joining or not joining and individuals are unrelated. Increasing genetic relatedness may reduce and can never increase, equilibrium group size when this entry rule applies. The smallest equilibrium group size occurs when group members choose between repelling or accepting intruders and individuals are unrelated. Under this entry rule, increasing genetic relatedness can increase and can never decrease, equilibrium group size. We extend the models' predictions to suggest when individuals should prefer kin vs non-kin as members of the same group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blaustein, A.R., Bekoff, M., Byers, J.A. and Daniels, T.J. (1991) Kin recognition in vertebrates: what do we really know about adaptive value?Anim. Behav. 41, 1079–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caraco, T. and Wolf, L.L. (1975) Ecological determinants of group sizes of foraging lions.Am. Nat. 109, 343–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C.W. and Mangel, M. (1984) Foraging and flocking strategies: information in an uncertain environment.Am. Nat. 123, 626–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C.W. and Mangel, M. (1986) The evolutionary advantages of group foraging.Theor. Pop. Biol. 30, 45–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giraldeau, L.-A. (1988) The stable group and the determinants of foraging group size. InThe Ecology of Social Behavior (C.N. Slobodchikoff, ed.), pp 33–53. Academic Press, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giraldeau, L.-A. and Gillis, D. (1985) Optimal group size can be stable: a reply to Sibly.Anim. Behav. 33, 666–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giraldeau, L.-A. and Gillis, D. (1988) Do lions hunt in group sizes that maximize hunters' daily food returns?Anim. Behav. 36, 611–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen, A. (1982) How not to measure inclusive fitness.Nature 298, 425–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A. (1986) Natural selection, kin selection and group selection. InBehavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, eds), 2nd edn, pp. 62–84. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen, A. (1991) Modelling in behavioural ecology. InBehavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, eds), 3rd edn, pp. 5–31. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higashi, M. and Yanamura, N. (1993) What determines the animal group size: insider—outsider conflict and its resolution.Am. Nat., (in press).

  • Jansson, C.H. (1985) Aggressive competition and individual food consumption in wild brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus appella).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18, 125–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noonan, K.M. (1981) Individual strategies of inclusive-fitness-maximizing inPolistes fuscatus foundresses. InNatural Selection and Social Behavior: Recent Research and New Theory (R.D. Alexander and D.W. Tinkle, eds), pp. 18–44. Chiron Press, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam, H.R. and Caraco, T. (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? InBehavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, eds), 3rd edn, pp. 122–47. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodman, P.S. (1981) Inclusive fitness and group size with a reconsideration of group sizes in lions and wolves.Am. Nat. 118, 275–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibly, R.M. (1983) Optimal group size is unstable.Anim. Behav. 31, 947–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E.A. (1981) The application of optimal foraging theory to the analysis of hunter—gatherer group size. InHunter—Gatherer Foraging Strategies (B. Winterhalder and E.A. Smith eds), pp. 36–65. Chicago University Press, Chicago, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E.A. (1985) Inuit foraging groups: some simple models incorporating conflicts of interest, relatedness, and central-place sharing.Ethol. Sociobiol. 6, 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vehrencamp, S.L. (1983) A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies.Anim. Behav. 31, 667–82.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Giraldeau, LA., Caraco, T. Genetic relatedness and group size in an aggregation economy. Evol Ecol 7, 429–438 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237874

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237874

Keywords

Navigation