@article {11581,
	title = {Benefits of cooperation with genetic kin in a subsocial spider},
	journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of AmericaProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
	volume = {105},
	number = {31},
	year = {2008},
	note = {00278424 (ISSN)Cited By (since 1996): 6Export Date: 8 November 2011Source: ScopusCODEN: PNASAdoi: 10.1073/pnas.0804126105PubMed ID: 18658236Language of Original Document: EnglishCorrespondence Address: Schneider, J. M.; Biozentrum Grindel, University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King Platz 3, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany; email: js@gilgamesh.deReferences: Pennisi, E., How did cooperative behavior evolve (2005) Science, 309, p. 93558; Hardin, G., The tragedy of the commons (1968) Science, 162, pp. 1243-1248; Rankin, D.J., Bargum, K., Kokko, H., The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology (2007) Trends Ecol Evol, 22, pp. 643-651; Sigmund, K., Retaliation and collaboration among humans (2007) Trends Ecol Evol, 22, pp. 593-600; Keller, L., (1999) Levels of Selection, , Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ; Hamilton, W.D., The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I (1964) J Theor Biol, 7, pp. 1-1652; Hamilton, W.D., The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II (1964) J Theor Biol, 7, pp. 17-52; West, S.A., Pen, I., Griffin, A.S., Cooperation and competition between relatives (2002) Science, 296, pp. 72-75; Cockburn, A., Evolution of helping behavior in cooperatively breeding birds (1998) Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 29, pp. 141-177; West, S.A., Griffin, A.S., Gardner, A., Evolutionary explanations for cooperation (2007) Curr Biol, 17, pp. R661-R672; Lubin, Y., Bilde, T., The evolution of sociality in spiders (2007) Adv Study Behav, 37, pp. 83-145; Foelix, R.F., (1996) Biology of Spiders, , Oxford Univ Press, New York; Schneider, J.M., Survival and growth in groups of a subsocial spider (Stegodyphus lineatus) (1995) Insect Soc, 42, pp. 237-248; Ward, P.I., Enders, M.M., Conflict and cooperation in the group feeding of the social spider Stegodyphus mimosarum (1985) Behaviour, 94, pp. 167-182; Whitehouse, M.E.A., Lubin, Y., Competitive foraging in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola (1999) Anim Behav, 58, pp. 677-688; Maklakov, A.A., Bilde, T., Lubin, Y., Sexual selection for increased male body size and protandry in a spider (2004) Anim Behav, 68, pp. 1041-1048; Schneider, J.M., Lubin, Y., Does high adult mortality explain semelparity in the spider Stegodyphus lineatus (Eresidae)? (1997) Oikos, 79, pp. 92-100; Head, G., Selection on fecundity and variation in the degree of sexual size dimorphism among spider species (class Araneae) (1995) Evolution, 49, pp. 776-781; Agnarsson, I., Aviles, L., Coddington, J.A., Maddison, W.P., Sociality in Theridiid spiders: Repeated origins of an evolutionary dead end (2006) Evolution, 60, pp. 2342-2351; Johannesen, J., Lubin, Y., Smith, D.R., Bilde, T., Schneider, J.M., The age and evolution of sociality in Stegodyphus spiders: A molecular phylogenetic perspective (2007) Proc R Soc London Ser B, 274, pp. 231-237; Bilde, T., Survival benefits select for group living in a social spider despite reproductive costs (2007) J Evol Biol, 20, pp. 2412-2426; Bilde, T., Lubin, Y., Smith, D., Schneider, J.M., Maklakov, A.A., The transition to social inbred mating systems in spiders: Role of inbreeding tolerance in a subsocial predecessor (2005) Evolution, 59, pp. 160-174; Kraus, O., Kraus, M., The genus Stegodyphus (Arachnida, Araneae) sibling species, species groups, and parallel evolution of social living (1988) Verh Naturwiss Ver Hamburg, 30, pp. 151-254; Mateo, J.M., Holmes, W.G., Cross-fostering as ameans to study kin recognition (2004) Anim Behav, 68, pp. 1451-1459; Sherman, P.W., Reeve, H.K., Pfennig, D.W., Recognition Systems (1997) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, pp. 69-96. , eds Krebs JR, Davis NB Blackwell, London, pp; Schneider, J.M., Reproductive state and care giving in Stegodyphus (Araneae: Eresidae) and the implications for the evolution of sociality (2002) Anim Behav, 63, pp. 649-658; Secor, S.M., Gastric function and its contribution to the postprandial metabolic response of the Burmese python Python molurus (2003) J Exp Biol, 206, pp. 1621-1630; Kaiser, D., Coupling cell movement to multicellular development in myxobacteria (2003) Nat Rev Microbiol, 1, pp. 45-54; Hauber, M.E., Sherman, P.W., Self-referent phenotype matching: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence (2001) Trends Neurosci, 24, pp. 609-616; Getz, W.M., Smith, K.B., Honey bee kin recognition: Learning self and nestmate phenotypes (1986) Anim Behav, 34, pp. 1617-1626; Boomsma, J.J., Informational constraints on optimal sex allocation in ants (2003) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 100, pp. 8799-8804; Meunier, J., West, S.A., Chapuisat, M., Split sex ratios in the social Hymenoptera: A meta-analysis (2008) Behav Ecol, 19, pp. 382-390; Bilde, T., Lubin, Y., Kin recognition and cannibalism in a subsocial spider (2001) J Evol Biol, 14, pp. 959-966; Kullmann, E.J., Evolution of social behavior in spiders (Araneae - Eresidae and Theridiidae) (1972) Am Zool, 12, pp. 419-426; Queller, D.C., Does population viscosity promote kin selection? (1992) Trends Ecol Evol, 7, pp. 322-324},
	pages = {10843-10846},
	abstract = {Interaction within groups exploiting a common resource may be prone to cheating by selfish actions that result in disadvantages for all members of the group, including the selfish individuals. Kin selection is one mechanism by which such dilemmas can be resolved This is because selfish acts toward relatives include the cost of lowering indirect fitness benefits that could otherwise be achieved through the propagation of shared genes. Kin selection theory has been proved to be of general importance for the origin of cooperative behaviors, but other driving forces, such as direct fitness benefits, can also promote helping behavior in many cooperatively breeding taxa. Investigating transitional systems is therefore particularly suitable for understanding the influence of kin selection on the initial spread of cooperative behaviors. Here we investigated the role of kinship in cooperative feeding. We used a cross-fostering design to control for genetic relatedness and group membership. Our study animal was the periodic social spider Stegodyphus lineatus, a transitional species that belongs to a genus containing both permanent social and periodic social species. In S. lineatus, the young cooperate in prey capture and feed communally. We provide clear experimental evidence for net benefits of cooperating with kin. Genetic relatedness within groups and not association with familiar individuals directly improved feeding efficiency and growth rates, demonstrating a positive effect of kin cooperation. Hence, in communally feeding spiders, nepotism favors group retention and reduces the conflict between selfish interests and the interests of the group. Β{\textcopyright} 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA.},
	keywords = {animal behavior, Animalia, animals, Araneae, article, Behavior, Animal, breeding, Cooperative Behavior, evolution, feeding, Feeding Behavior, female, Greece, kin selection, Linear Models, Nepotism, nonhuman, prey, priority journal, social behavior, Social spiders, spider, spiders, Stegodyphus, Stegodyphus lineatus, Tragedy of the commons},
	author = {Schneider, J. M. and Bilde, T.}
}
