Does sociality affect evolutionary speed?use asterix (*) to get italics

Lluís Socias-Martínez, Louise Rachel PeckrePlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2023

<p>An overlooked source of variation in evolvability resides in the social lives of animals. In trying to foster research in this direction, we offer a critical review of previous work on the link between evolutionary speed and sociality. A first set of studies emerged that we grouped under the “selectionist perspective”. These studies conceive social interactions as knitting forces of an environment with specific selection pressures. Social pressures, in turn, promote evolutionary change in the characters they depend on. Studies in this perspective have investigated cladogenetic effects of sexual selection, while non-sexual contexts have been relatively ignored. We grouped a second set of studies grounded on population genetics under the “populationist perspective”. Such studies regard social interactions and the social units arising from them as a dividing force that splits a population into smaller parts, tweaking the number of reproducing individuals and unbalancing the contribution of both sexes. The consequences of these effects on the effective breeding population size are made responsible for changes in the speed of neutral evolution. Despite the manifold approaches used to measure sociality and evolutionary speed, there is support for both the selectionist and populationist perspectives on anagenesis. On the contrary, evidence for cladogenetic consequences is mixed. We suggest six areas for improvement to cope with the current situation: 1) Conceptually separating the potential for evolutionary change from its realization. 2) Considering that under social competition, a single axis of variation is unlikely to explain reproductive success. Acknowledging the existence of alternative social tactics could enrich the current framework. 3) Address both the selectionist and populationist perspectives simultaneously. Social selection strength and Ne consequences need to be assessed using 4) as many axes of social variation as possible and 5) in both sexes. 6) Considering the evolutionary covariances in communicative systems might improve the validity of tests for the current framework. In addition, we develop predictions for how variation in each social dimension and component might affect evolutionary speed. Continuing to refine the theory and evidence on social effects on evolutionary speed might come at a benefit not only for the current issue but also for the domains it integrates.</p>

Social system, Social selection, Sexual selection, Anagenesis, Cladogenesis, Evolvability

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Behavior & Social Evolution, Evolutionary Dynamics, Evolutionary Theory, Genome Evolution, Macroevolution, Molecular Evolution, Population Genetics / Genomics, Sexual Selection, Speciation

Maria R. Servedio - servedio@email.unc.edu, Jacques Labonne - j.labonne@univ-pau.fr, Janette Wenrick Boughman - boughman@msu.edu

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEvolBiol. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Peter M. Kappeler, Claudia Fichtel, Clemence Poirottee.g. John Doe john@doe.com

2023-03-03 00:10:49

Michael D Greenfield