Wild marmots' social networks reveal controversial evolutionary theory in action
It may seem like the answer is also an obvious 'yes.' But the idea that a group's composition or structure can affect the individuals in it has been among the most controversial ideas in biology.
This phenomenon, called multilevel selection, is an extension of natural selection: the process by which organisms with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. Over generations, these advantageous traits – behavioral, morphological or physiological – become more common in the population.
In the traditional view of how evolution works, natural selection acts on an individual organism's traits. For instance, mammals with more friends typically live longer lives and have more offspring. The trait under selection in this case is the number of social connections.
Multilevel selection proposes that at the same time selection is happening on the traits of individuals, selection also acts on the traits of groups. Here's an example: Living in a more social and interconnected group may be beneficial for the members of that group, meaning the group's traits are under selection. In nature, this means individuals in well-connected groups may live longer lives and have more offspring because well-connected groups may be better at finding limited resources or detecting predators. The traits of the group as a whole are what's under selection in this case.
Multilevel selection could even select for traits that seem at odds at the individual and group levels. For instance, it could mean that selection favors individuals that are more reserved while at the same time favoring groups that are very social, or vice versa.
Multilevel selection has been a controversial idea since Charles Darwin first suggested that groups likely affect individuals in his 1871 book 'The Descent of Man.'
The only evidence for multilevel selection acting simultaneously on individuals' social relationships and on social groups comes from laboratory experiments. Experiments like these are vital to the scientific process, but without evidence for multilevel selection in wild animals, the 154-year-old debate rages on. As two field biologists interested in the evolution of behavior, we investigated multilevel selection in the wild by studying yellow-bellied marmots.
Our newly published study provides support for this contested concept, suggesting that the structure of the groups marmots are members of may matter for survival just as much as, if not more than, the friendly one-on-one relationships they have with other marmots.
It's taken a century and a half to answer the question of multilevel selection because you need an incredible amount of data to have an adequate sample size to address it.
Scientists at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory in Crested Butte, Colorado, have been studying the marmots nearby since 1962. This research is the second-longest study of individually identifiable wild mammals in the world.
Each year, the team ensures that all marmots are individually marked. We trap them so we can give them unique ear tags and paint a mark on their back that lets us identify them from afar. Then trained 'marmoteers,' as we call them, spend about 1,000 hours a year watching these chunky cat-sized rodents through binoculars and spotting scopes.
Since 2003, the team has paid particular attention to the marmots' social interactions and relationships. Our analysis of multilevel selection was based on 42,369 unique affiliative social interactions – behaviors such as playing and grooming – between 1,294 individuals from 180 social groups, with group sizes ranging from two to 35 marmots. We also tracked how long marmots lived – up to 16 years in some cases – and how many offspring individual animals had each year.
Using this data, we mapped out the marmots' social networks. Our goal was to identify how many social relationships each marmot had, who was connected to whom, and the overall structure of each group.
Understanding all these marmot connections let us ask two crucial questions. First, how do social relationships affect individual survival and reproduction – that is, what individual traits are under selection? Second, how do social groups affect individual survival and reproduction – in other words, what group traits are under selection?
Importantly, we didn't ask these two questions in isolation – we asked them at the same time. After all, marmots are influenced simultaneously by both their social relationships and the social groups they're part of. Our statistical approach, which researchers call contextual analysis, tells us how much social relationships and social groups matter relative to each other.
It can be tricky to distinguish how group-level selection differs from traditional individual-level selection. It's like a more complex version of thinking about the relationships that affect an individual. Instead of just your own behavior affecting you, your group – a product of many individuals – is affecting you.
Our new analysis shows that there is indeed multilevel selection for social behavior in the wild. We found that not only do both social relationships and social groups affect individual animals' survival and reproduction, but social groups matter just as much, if not more. We calculated the selection gradient, a measure of how strong the selection is on a trait, to be 0.76 for individual traits, while for group traits it was 1.03.
Interestingly, the type of impact on survival and reproduction wasn't always the same across the two levels. In some cases, selection favored marmots with fewer social relationships while favoring marmots living in more social and connected groups. In human terms, think of an introvert at a really bustling party.
Evolution and multilevel selection are complex natural processes, so these types of complicated findings are not unexpected.
Multilevel selection is relevant for human groups, too, which come in many forms, whether friend groups, local communities, businesses we frequent or work at, economies or even entire nations. Our marmot study suggests it's not uniquely human for groups at every level to have consequences for individual success.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Conner Philson, University of California, Santa Barbara and Daniel T. Blumstein, University of California, Los Angeles
Read more:
Wild animals can experience trauma and adversity too − as ecologists, we came up with an index to track how it affects them
Margaret Morse Nice thought like a song sparrow and changed how scientists understand animal behavior
Amid a tropical paradise known as 'Lizard Island,' researchers are cracking open evolution's black box – scientist at work
This work was supported by the UCLA, American Society of Mammalogists, Animal Behaviour Society, Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the University of Ottawa, National Geographic Society, and the U.S. National Science Foundation.
Daniel T. Blumstein received funding from UCLA, the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the National Geographic Society, and the U.S. National Science Foundation. He is the President of the Board of Trustees at the RMBL where the research was conducted.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
31-07-2025
- Forbes
Going Wild (Again): Feral Rabbits In Australia Evolve New Morphologies
Is 'feralization' a process of recapitulating what domesticated animals once looked like and once were? How does domestication change wild animals? When domesticated animals return to a wild state, is this 'feralization' a process of recapitulating what these animals once looked like and once were? Even Charles Darwin pondered the effects of domestication in his book, The variation of animals and plants under domestication, initially published in 1869 (ref). But first, let's understand a little better about feralization: what is it? 'Feralization is the process by which domestic animals become established in an environment without purposeful assistance from humans,' explained the study's lead author, evolutionary biologist Emma Sherratt, an Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide, where she specializes in macroevolution and morphometric methods. This study was part of Professor Sherratt's ARC Future Fellowship. To do this study, Professor Sherratt collaborated with a team of international experts to assess the body sizes and skull shapes of domesticated, feral and wild rabbits. Their study revealed that when domesticated rabbit breeds return to the wild and feralize, they do not simply revert to their wild form – instead, they undergo distinct, novel anatomical changes. 'While you might expect that a feral animal would revert to body types seen in wild populations, we found that feral rabbits' body-size and skull-shape range is somewhere between wild and domestic rabbits, but also overlaps with them in large parts,' Professor Sherratt briefly explained. Australia's feral rabbits are descendants of rabbits that newly arriving European colonists brought with them to supply meat and fur. The European rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, or coney, is originally native to the Iberian Peninsula and southwestern France, but currently has an almost global presence. They live in grasslands and are herbivorous, mainly eating grasses and leaves, though they consume all sorts of things, including a variety of berries and even food crops, making them a persistent and formidable agricultural pest. They dig burrows to live in and produce many litters of blind and helpless offspring, known as kits or kittens, every year. The European rabbit is the only rabbit species that has been widely domesticated for meat, fur, wool, or as a pet, so all domesticated rabbits belong to the same species. Paradoxically, this rabbit species is endangered in its native range, despite being an invasive pest just about everywhere else. The goal of Professor Sherratt and collaborators' study was to measure and characterize the morphological differences of the European rabbit skull in wild, feral and domestic animals sampled globally, and contrast those measurements with other rabbit species. To do this, they sampled 912 rabbit specimens held by natural history museums or collected by invasive species control programs. They included wild individuals collected in their contemporary native range in Spain, Portugal and southwestern France, along with independent feral populations and domestic rabbits collected from 20 different worldwide locations (countries, territories, islands). Professor Sherratt and collaborators used well-established scientific methods to quantify shape and size variation in the skull, and to assess size-related (allometric) shape variations that this species acquired through several hundred years of domestication and feralization. Why focus specifically on these animals' skull shapes and sizes? What do these dimensions tell you? '[W]e focus on skull shape because it tells us how animals interact with their environment, from feeding, sensing and even how they move,' Professor Sherratt replied. Professor Sherratt and collaborators examined whether domestic rabbits have predictable skull proportions – relatively shorter face length and smaller braincase size, which are hypothesized to be part of 'domestication syndrome' – and whether feralization has resulted in a reversion to the original wild form. Finally, they compared their measurements to an existing dataset of 24 rabbit species that included representatives of all 11 modern rabbit genera to provide an evolutionary baseline of morphological changes with which to compare wild, feral and domesticated rabbits. Not surprisingly, Professor Sherratt and collaborators discovered that the 121 domesticated study rabbits showed much more variation in skull shape and size than do wild and feral rabbits, with substantial shape differences (figure 1A,B), which is attributed in part to their greater diversity in body size (figure 1C). Why is there so much variation in feral rabbits' skulls? To answer this, Professor Sherratt and collaborators investigated several hypotheses regarding the feralization process. 'Exposure to different environments and predators in introduced ranges may drive rabbit populations to evolve different traits that help them survive in novel environments, as has been shown in other species,' proposed Professor Sherratt. 'Alternatively, rabbits may be able to express more trait plasticity in environments with fewer evolutionary pressures,' Professor Sherratt continued. 'In particular, relaxed functional demands in habitats that are free of large predators, such as Australia and New Zealand, might drive body size variation, which we know drives cranial shape variation in introduced rabbits.' Does the process of feralization follow a precise, predictable pathway? 'Because the range is so variable and sometimes like neither wild nor domestic, feralization in rabbits is not morphologically predictable if extrapolated from the wild or the domestic stock,' Professor Sherratt replied. What surprised you most about this study's findings? 'That feral rabbits can get so big!" replied Professor Sherratt in email. 'Almost double the mass of one from southern Spain.' Why don't rabbits show as much morphological diversity as dogs or cats? For example, a recent study (ref) found that dogs and cats have both been selected to have short faces, so why isn't this seen in rabbits? 'We think this is because the long face of rabbits is a biomechanical necessity for this species,' explained Professor Sherratt in email. 'Important for herbivores.' Why is this research so important? 'Understanding how animals change when they become feral and invade new habitats helps us to predict what effect other invasive animals will have on our environment, and how we may mitigate their success.' What's next? 'Our next paper will look at the environmental factors that have influenced the diversity of skull shapes in Australia,' Professor Sherratt replied in email. '[For example], we have found that temperatures and precipitation have a lot of influence on the traits we see.' Source: Emma Sherratt, Christine Böhmer, Cécile Callou, Thomas J. Nelson, Rishab Pillai, Irina Ruf, Thomas J. Sanger, Julia Schaar, Kévin Le Verger, Brian Kraatz and Madeleine Geiger (2025). From wild to domestic and in between: how domestication and feralization changed the morphology of rabbits, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 292:20251150 | doi:10.1098/rspb.2025.1150 © Copyright by GrrlScientist | hosted by Forbes | Socials: Bluesky | CounterSocial | LinkedIn | Mastodon Science | Spoutible | SubStack | Threads | Tumblr | Twitter
Yahoo
31-07-2025
- Yahoo
In Darwin's wake: Two-year global conservation voyage sparks hope
After a two-year around-the-world ocean voyage inspired by Charles Darwin, scientists and crew sailed home on a historic vessel into Rotterdam Thursday bearing a warning about climate change -- but also a message of hope. The majestic three-masted Oosterschelde, the last remaining vessel from a fleet of Dutch schooners that criss-crossed the globe in the early 20th century, arrived to a welcome befitting a voyage of more than 40,000 nautical miles (74,000 kilometres, 46,000 miles). Ceremonially escorted by more than a dozen vessels ranging from tall ships to steamships, all blaring horns, the Oosterschelde received a "water cannon salute" from fire service boats, as hundreds waved and cheered from the banks. Like Darwin in 1831, the Oosterschelde departed the British port of Plymouth in August 2023 to embark on a voyage of discovery that took in the major stops explored during the British naturalist's world-changing mission aboard the HMS Beagle. From the Falkland Islands to the southern tips of Africa, South America and Australia, the trip closely shadowed Darwin's voyage that inspired his groundbreaking theory of natural selection described in "On the Origin of Species". Aboard the Oosterschelde at various points of the voyage were some of the world's best young conservationists, 100 scientists aged 18-25, selected to study a species also observed by Darwin, himself aged 22 at the time of his trip. Giant tortoises, Chilean dolphins, and howler monkeys were just some of the weird and wonderful creatures the young "Darwin Leaders" investigated, tracking changes since their appearance in "Origin of Species" two centuries ago. With "online classrooms" onboard and slick social media output, the mission also hoped to inspire a new generation around the message: "Conservation isn't about what we've lost, it's about protecting what we still have." - 'Barely anything left' - One of the Darwin Leaders, 23-year-old Lotta Baten, spent a week on the ship and conducted a study into the impact of tourism on forests in Tenerife, Spain. She said only roughly four percent of the forest that Darwin would have seen from the Beagle is still alive today, with much torn down to support the tourism industry. "There's barely anything left, mainly the strips around the coast," the Dutch-German scientist told AFP. She said it was "quite something" to follow in the footsteps of Darwin, but noted that the botanist's legacy is divided, as a European in colonial times. "He basically explored and discovered things that maybe had already been explored and discovered by people at the places themselves. And then he claimed he discovered them," said Baten. Science co-ordinator Rolf Schreuder admitted that "it's not a rosy picture", with habitat loss and climate change all transforming the environment beyond what Darwin would have recognised. "You see the natural world degrading in many places," the 55-year-old told AFP. But Schreuder, like many on board, found the mission inspiring rather than depressing. He ran more than 100 local projects during the trip with people seeking to preserve their landscapes. "We met so many great people that are actually on the ground working on the survival of those species," he said. He found himself inspired too by the young scientists, "full of ideas, full of commitment and determination to really make a difference." - 'Do another tour' - Crew member Daan van Roosmalen was a boy of 17 when he set sail on the Oosterschelde. He returned to his native Netherlands having just turned 19. "I've just been to so many places. To the Galapagos Islands, French Polynesia. We went so far away and to then sail back up this river and see the skyline of Rotterdam again is just super special," he told AFP. He said he hoped the round-the-world voyage completed by scientists and crew his age would send a message to his generation. "I think it's very important that we keep inspiring young people to look after our world, because we are going to be the ones taking over," he said. "So to see all these young conservationists putting so much effort in Mother Earth... I think that should inspire more people to also take care of our planet." And what of Darwin, the inspiration behind the mission? "I would say he would have been enthused by his fellow young people taking care of this natural world, which he described so nicely," said Schreuder. "I think he would hop on this boat again and do another tour." ric/srg/rmb
Time Magazine
30-06-2025
- Time Magazine
The Ocean Still Holds Mysteries. That's Why We Must Save It
When the world's first marine reserves were established in the 1920s, Jacques Cousteau was an adolescent. The deepest we could dive was about 500 ft. Humans were beginning to imagine what could be beneath the surface, what discoveries lay waiting, and what might deserve protecting. Nearly a century later, we've made a lot of progress. The ocean is the center of the world economy, providing food, labor, transportation, tourism, and so much more. It has brought us promising treatments for disease, animal-inspired engineering and robotics, and even the basis for space exploration technology. Inspired by the U.N. Decade of Ocean Science—which launched a 10-year push for action in 2021—marine researchers, philanthropists, and political leaders worldwide aim to map the entire seafloor and identify 100,000 new species by 2030. And at the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC) earlier this month, the global community made progress on financial commitments for preservation, support for pausing deep-sea mining, expanding marine protected areas—with French Polynesia notably vowing to protect 900,000 square kilometers of sea—and on the High Seas Treaty to protect marine life in international waters. And yet, much remains to be discovered about our ocean and its role in sustaining all life on Earth—and much remains to be done to protect it. To build on the momentum of UNOC, ocean conservation—through robust marine protected areas and other measures—must continue to advance, alongside exploration and research. And until the next conference in 2028, while governments must lead the way, every sector of society has a role in saving the seas. Over the past two decades, evidence has repeatedly shown that protecting the ocean supports not only the planet but also all of us who rely on it. One recent study found that protecting swaths of ocean increases catch for valuable fish, including large migratory species like bigeye and yellowfin tuna, which alone support $40 billion in global business. Another report showed that marine protected areas not only help rebuild fish stock, they also drive higher income and food security for nearby coastal communities. Despite the evidence, and despite our advances toward better stewardship, however, we are facing strong headwinds: from reversals on protected areas to warming ocean waters. Governments, international and civil society organizations, and philanthropies like the Schmidt Ocean Institute, Schmidt Sciences, Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy, and the Bertarelli Foundation, which we help lead, are stepping up to support ocean exploration and protection efforts—and it's working. Public-private sector partnerships will be essential in moving the needle from ocean science to ocean action. The waters surrounding the Galapagos Islands provide an example of what's possible through long-term partnership across sectors. Famed for their endemic plant and animal life that inspired Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, the islands' waters were first granted legal protection 50 years ago. Today, the reserve, managed by the Ecuadorian government in consultation with local fishers and scientists, allows for fishing and tourism while keeping stricter rules in more sensitive areas. Ecuador recently added more than 23,000 square miles to the protected waters, working in partnership with Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama. In a deal supported by Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy through Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy and other partners, Ecuador converted $1.6 billion of its existing commercial debt into a $656 million loan that will provide $12 million in financing for marine conservation activities each year, in perpetuity. Complementing this work, the Bertarelli Philanthropy also supported the development of the Global Fishing Watch Marine Manager, which provides open-source, interactive data on the Galapagos area, and worldwide, to support conservation, policy, and research. Indeed, scientists are still uncovering new findings around the Galapagos. The Schmidt Ocean Institute's philanthropic research vessel Falkor (too) undertook two expeditions around the islands in 2023 and encountered two large, pristine coral reefs as well as a hydrothermal vent field—all previously unknown to humankind, all livestreamed for free on YouTube to anyone who wished to watch. As with the Global Fishing Watch Marine Manager, the livestream offers an intimate connection with the ocean for a global audience—a far cry from the days when only a few humans had the chance to explore, and at no great depth. Both the reefs and vents offer clues about the still dramatically under-researched deep sea and the role it plays in keeping the broader ocean, and indeed the entire planet, healthy. The Galapagos aren't the only place where marine protected areas (MPA) have benefited both people and the planet. A recent study of 59 MPAs established by California—which created a network of reserves in 1999—saw more and larger fish across the entire network, particularly in species sought by fisheries. This was true despite the MPAs being diverse in how they choose to ban or limit activities like fishing, shipping, and tourism—though stronger and longer lasting protections correlated with more significant results. The more we explore and protect the ocean, the more we reap the benefits, whether in the form of economic returns or scientific breakthroughs. Advancing conservation—through MPAs as well as a host of complementary policies and data collection efforts—supports economies and scientific research in a virtuous cycle. The world has come a long way from just a century ago, when we could only see as far into the ocean as the sun allowed. As philanthropists, we seek to contribute to a better understanding of the ocean through science and data—the groundwork for accountability and action. We call on the policymakers, experts, and advocates—and everyone who is enthralled by the sea—to remember that the more we search and the more we find, the closer we come to a healthy ocean and a healthy planet. Dona Bertarelli is executive chair of Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy and co-chair of the Bertarelli Foundation. Wendy Schmidt is co-founder and president of the Schmidt Ocean Institute.
