Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species

Jessica L. Barker, Judith L Bronstein, Maren L. Friesen, Emily I. Jones, H. Kern Reeve, Andrew G. Zink, Megan E. Frederickson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Cooperation is widespread both within and between species, but are intraspecific and interspecific cooperation fundamentally similar or qualitatively different phenomena? This review evaluates this question, necessary for a general understanding of the evolution of cooperation. First, we outline three advantages of cooperation relative to noncooperation (acquisition of otherwise inaccessible goods and services, more efficient acquisition of resources, and buffering against variability), and predict when individuals should cooperate with a conspecific versus a heterospecific partner to obtain these advantages. Second, we highlight five axes along which heterospecific and conspecific partners may differ: relatedness and fitness feedbacks, competition and resource use, resource-generation abilities, relative evolutionary rates, and asymmetric strategy sets and outside options. Along all of these axes, certain asymmetries between partners are more common in, but not exclusive to, cooperation between species, especially complementary resource use and production. We conclude that cooperation within and between species share many fundamental qualities, and that differences between the two systems are explained by the various asymmetries between partners. Consideration of the parallels between intra- and interspecific cooperation facilitates application of well-studied topics in one system to the other, such as direct benefits within species and kin-selected cooperation between species, generating promising directions for future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)814-825
Number of pages12
JournalEvolution
Volume71
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

resource use
asymmetry
co-operation
Direction compound
resource
buffering
relatedness
fitness
rate
goods and services

Keywords

  • Competition
  • cooperation
  • interspecific interactions
  • mutualism
  • social evolution

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Genetics
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Barker, J. L., Bronstein, J. L., Friesen, M. L., Jones, E. I., Reeve, H. K., Zink, A. G., & Frederickson, M. E. (2017). Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species. Evolution, 71(4), 814-825. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13174

Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species. / Barker, Jessica L.; Bronstein, Judith L; Friesen, Maren L.; Jones, Emily I.; Reeve, H. Kern; Zink, Andrew G.; Frederickson, Megan E.

In: Evolution, Vol. 71, No. 4, 01.04.2017, p. 814-825.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Barker, JL, Bronstein, JL, Friesen, ML, Jones, EI, Reeve, HK, Zink, AG & Frederickson, ME 2017, 'Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species', Evolution, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 814-825. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13174
Barker, Jessica L. ; Bronstein, Judith L ; Friesen, Maren L. ; Jones, Emily I. ; Reeve, H. Kern ; Zink, Andrew G. ; Frederickson, Megan E. / Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species. In: Evolution. 2017 ; Vol. 71, No. 4. pp. 814-825.
@article{cf37ecb743a844719cc3a2dfb25d5777,
title = "Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species",
abstract = "Cooperation is widespread both within and between species, but are intraspecific and interspecific cooperation fundamentally similar or qualitatively different phenomena? This review evaluates this question, necessary for a general understanding of the evolution of cooperation. First, we outline three advantages of cooperation relative to noncooperation (acquisition of otherwise inaccessible goods and services, more efficient acquisition of resources, and buffering against variability), and predict when individuals should cooperate with a conspecific versus a heterospecific partner to obtain these advantages. Second, we highlight five axes along which heterospecific and conspecific partners may differ: relatedness and fitness feedbacks, competition and resource use, resource-generation abilities, relative evolutionary rates, and asymmetric strategy sets and outside options. Along all of these axes, certain asymmetries between partners are more common in, but not exclusive to, cooperation between species, especially complementary resource use and production. We conclude that cooperation within and between species share many fundamental qualities, and that differences between the two systems are explained by the various asymmetries between partners. Consideration of the parallels between intra- and interspecific cooperation facilitates application of well-studied topics in one system to the other, such as direct benefits within species and kin-selected cooperation between species, generating promising directions for future research.",
keywords = "Competition, cooperation, interspecific interactions, mutualism, social evolution",
author = "Barker, {Jessica L.} and Bronstein, {Judith L} and Friesen, {Maren L.} and Jones, {Emily I.} and Reeve, {H. Kern} and Zink, {Andrew G.} and Frederickson, {Megan E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/evo.13174",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "814--825",
journal = "Evolution; international journal of organic evolution",
issn = "0014-3820",
publisher = "Society for the Study of Evolution",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species

AU - Barker, Jessica L.

AU - Bronstein, Judith L

AU - Friesen, Maren L.

AU - Jones, Emily I.

AU - Reeve, H. Kern

AU - Zink, Andrew G.

AU - Frederickson, Megan E.

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Cooperation is widespread both within and between species, but are intraspecific and interspecific cooperation fundamentally similar or qualitatively different phenomena? This review evaluates this question, necessary for a general understanding of the evolution of cooperation. First, we outline three advantages of cooperation relative to noncooperation (acquisition of otherwise inaccessible goods and services, more efficient acquisition of resources, and buffering against variability), and predict when individuals should cooperate with a conspecific versus a heterospecific partner to obtain these advantages. Second, we highlight five axes along which heterospecific and conspecific partners may differ: relatedness and fitness feedbacks, competition and resource use, resource-generation abilities, relative evolutionary rates, and asymmetric strategy sets and outside options. Along all of these axes, certain asymmetries between partners are more common in, but not exclusive to, cooperation between species, especially complementary resource use and production. We conclude that cooperation within and between species share many fundamental qualities, and that differences between the two systems are explained by the various asymmetries between partners. Consideration of the parallels between intra- and interspecific cooperation facilitates application of well-studied topics in one system to the other, such as direct benefits within species and kin-selected cooperation between species, generating promising directions for future research.

AB - Cooperation is widespread both within and between species, but are intraspecific and interspecific cooperation fundamentally similar or qualitatively different phenomena? This review evaluates this question, necessary for a general understanding of the evolution of cooperation. First, we outline three advantages of cooperation relative to noncooperation (acquisition of otherwise inaccessible goods and services, more efficient acquisition of resources, and buffering against variability), and predict when individuals should cooperate with a conspecific versus a heterospecific partner to obtain these advantages. Second, we highlight five axes along which heterospecific and conspecific partners may differ: relatedness and fitness feedbacks, competition and resource use, resource-generation abilities, relative evolutionary rates, and asymmetric strategy sets and outside options. Along all of these axes, certain asymmetries between partners are more common in, but not exclusive to, cooperation between species, especially complementary resource use and production. We conclude that cooperation within and between species share many fundamental qualities, and that differences between the two systems are explained by the various asymmetries between partners. Consideration of the parallels between intra- and interspecific cooperation facilitates application of well-studied topics in one system to the other, such as direct benefits within species and kin-selected cooperation between species, generating promising directions for future research.

KW - Competition

KW - cooperation

KW - interspecific interactions

KW - mutualism

KW - social evolution

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012928679&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012928679&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/evo.13174

DO - 10.1111/evo.13174

M3 - Article

C2 - 28071790

AN - SCOPUS:85012928679

VL - 71

SP - 814

EP - 825

JO - Evolution; international journal of organic evolution

JF - Evolution; international journal of organic evolution

SN - 0014-3820

IS - 4

ER -