Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T09:09:38.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the effectiveness of multilevel selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2016

Charles J. Goodnight
Charles J. Goodnight*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405. charles.goodnight@uvm.edu http://www.uvm.edu/~biology/?Page=faculty/goodnight.php&SM=facultysubmenu.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experimental studies of group selection show that higher levels of selection act on indirect genetic effects, making the response to group and community selection qualitatively different from that of individual selection. This suggests that multilevel selection plays a key role in the evolution of supersocial societies. Experiments showing the effectiveness of community selection indicate that we should consider the possibility that selection among communities may be important in the evolution of supersocial species.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bijma, P. & Wade, M. J. (2008) The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on the response to genetic selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1175–88.Google Scholar
Goodnight, C. J. (1990a) Experimental studies of community evolution. I. The response to selection at the community level. Evolution 44:1614–24.Google Scholar
Goodnight, C. J. (1990b) Experimental studies of community evolution. II. The ecological basis of the response to community selection. Evolution 44:1625–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodnight, C. J. & Stevens, L. (1997) Experimental studies of group selection: What do they tell us about group selection in nature? American Naturalist 150(Suppl.):S59–S79.Google Scholar
Landon, A. J. (2008) The “how” of the three sisters: The origins of agriculture in Mesoamerica and the human niche. Nebraska Anthropologist 23(Article No. 40):1–16.Google Scholar
Moorad, J. A. (2013) Multi-level sexual selection: Individual and family-level selection for mating success in a historical human population. Evolution 67(6):1635–48.Google Scholar
Muir, W. M. (1996) Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: Selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science 75:447–58.Google Scholar
Swenson, W., Arendt, J. & Wilson, D. S. (2000a) Artificial selection of microbial ecosystems for 3-chloroaniline biodegradation. Environmental Microbiology 2:564–71.Google Scholar
Swenson, W., Wilson, D. S. & Elias, R. (2000b) Artificial ecosystem selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:9110–14.Google Scholar
Wade, M. J. (1977) An experimental study of group selection. Evolution 31:134–53.Google Scholar
Wade, M. J., Bijma, P., Ellen, E. D. & Muir, W. M. (2010) Group selection and social evolution in domesticated animals. Evolutionary Applications 3:453–65.Google Scholar