The evolution of division of labour in structured and unstructured groups
- St John's College, United Kingdom
- Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
- Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Figures
Figure 1
Division of labour is favoured by accelerating returns from individual specialisation.
(A) Theory has shown that either a linear or diminishing return from more cooperation (or reproduction) favours uniform cooperation, with all individuals investing the same amount of effort into …
Figure 2
Division of labour is favoured by between-individual differences.
Division of labour is favoured if some individuals are predisposed to being reproductives or helpers. (A) In the absence of another mechanism, if there are no differences between individuals (black …
Figure 3
Division of labour is favoured by reciprocal specialisation.
We assume that there are diminishing returns from specialisation in either viability or fecundity (Figure 1A). (A) In this case, a unilateral increase in cooperation by helpers or a unilateral …
Figure 4
The impact of topological constraints on the division of labour.
We show here different scenarios in which division of labour can evolve (non-white shades) and the size of its fitness benefit if so (darker shades). We consider three specific spatial models, …
Figure 5
Experimental guidelines to distinguish the causes of division of labour.
(A) To test whether division of labour is favoured by an accelerating return from individual specialisation, we must separately determine whether an increase in helper cooperation or a decrease in …
Appendix 1—figure 1
A star.
Appendix 1—figure 2
A tree.
Appendix 1—figure 3
A ring of cells.
Appendix 1—figure 4
Some tessellation patterns, and the associated ranges of λ for which reciprocal specialisation is possible in each case.
Each figure should be regarded as showing just a few cells of the infinite tesselation.
Appendix 1—figure 5
Values of μ for different filament (d = 2) graphs.
Appendix 1—figure 6
Values of μ for different trivalent (d = 3) graphs.
Appendix 1—figure 7
