What sets the odds of winning and losing?

Social experience influences the outcome of conflicts such that winners are more likely to win again and losers will more likely lose again, even against different opponents. Although winner and loser effects prevail throughout the animal kingdom and crucially influence social structures, the ultimate and proximate causes for their existence remain unknown. We propose here that two hypotheses are particularly important among the potential adaptive explanations: the 'social-cue hypothesis', which assumes that victory and defeat leave traces that affect the decisions of subsequent opponents; and the 'self-assessment hypothesis', which assumes that winners and losers gain information about their own relative fighting ability in the population. We discuss potential methodologies for experimental tests of the adaptive nature of winner and loser effects.

The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology

Garrett Hardin's tragedy of the commons is an analogy that shows how individuals driven by self-interest can end up destroying the resource upon which they all depend. The proposed solutions for humans rely on highly advanced skills such as negotiation, which raises the question of how non-human organisms manage to resolve similar tragedies. In recent years, this question has promoted evolutionary biologists to apply the tragedy of the commons to a wide range of biological systems. Here, we provide tools to categorize different types of tragedy and review different mechanisms, including kinship, policing and diminishing returns that can resolve conflicts that could otherwise end in tragedy. A central open question, however, is how often biological systems are able to resolve these scenarios rather than drive themselves extinct through individual-level selection favouring self-interested behaviours.

Ecological explanations for (incomplete) speciation

Divergent natural selection has been shown to promote speciation in many taxa. However, although divergent selection often initiates the process of speciation, it often fails to complete it. Several time-based, geographic and genetic factors have been recognized to explain this variability in how far speciation proceeds. We review here recent evidence indicating that variability in the completeness of speciation can also be associated with the nature of divergent selection itself, with speciation being greatly promoted by (i) stronger selection on a given, single trait (the 'stronger selection' hypothesis) and (ii) selection on a greater number of traits (the 'multifarious selection' hypothesis). However, evidence for each selective hypothesis is still scarce, and further work is required to determine their relative importance.

Hybridization and adaptive radiation

Whether interspecific hybridization is important as a mechanism that generates biological diversity is a matter of controversy. Whereas some authors focus on the potential of hybridization as a source of genetic variation, functional novelty and new species, others argue against any important role, because reduced fitness would typically render hybrids an evolutionary dead end. By drawing on recent developments in the genetics and ecology of hybridization and on principles of ecological speciation theory, I develop a concept that reconciles these views and adds a new twist to this debate. Because hybridization is common when populations invade new environments and potentially elevates rates of response to selection, it predisposes colonizing populations to rapid adaptive diversification under disruptive or divergent selection. I discuss predictions and suggest tests of this hybrid swarm theory of adaptive radiation and review published molecular phylogenies of adaptive radiations in light of the theory. Some of the confusion about the role of hybridization in evolutionary diversification stems from the contradiction between a perceived necessity for cessation of gene flow to enable adaptive population differentiation on the one hand [1], and the potential of hybridization for generating adaptive variation, functional novelty and new species 2, 3 and 4 on the other. Much progress in the genetics 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and ecology of hybridization 9, 10 and 11, and in our understanding of the role of ecology in speciation (see Glossary) 12, 13 and 14 make a re-evaluation timely. Whereas botanists traditionally stressed the diversity-generating potential of hybridization 2, 3 and 14, zoologists traditionally saw it as a process that limits diversification [1] and refer to it mainly in the contexts of hybrid zones (Box 1) and reinforcement of reproductive isolation [15]. Judging by the wide distribution of allopolyploidy among plants, many plant species might be of direct hybrid origin or descended from a hybrid species in the recent past [16]. The ability to reproduce asexually might explain why allopolyploid hybrid species are more common in plants than in animals. Allopolyploidy arises when meiotic mismatch of parental chromosomes or karyotypes causes hybrid sterility. Mitotic error, duplicating the karyotype, can restore an asexually maintained hybrid line to fertility. Although bisexual allopolyploid hybrid species are not uncommon in fish [17] and frogs [18], the difficulty with which allopolyploid animals reproduce, typically requiring gynogenesis[19], makes establishment and survival of allopolyploid animal species difficult.