Skip to main content
Log in

Synthesis of Tinbergen’s four questions and the future of sociogenomics

  • Review
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 31 January 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

It has been 55 years since Nikolaas Tinbergen formalized the field of ethology by identifying four types of inquiry that address the “how” and “why” of animal behavior from both a contemporary and historical perspective. This framework has been particularly useful in exploring eusocial behavior among insects, due to integration across levels of analysis and timescales of influence. Although the former has proceeded quite deliberately, the latter has received less attention. Here, I synthesize recent findings regarding the mechanisms, ontogeny, evolution, and function of eusociality in ants, bees, and wasps. This synthesis reveals that there has been rapid gain of knowledge regarding the genetic underpinnings of eusocial behavior, but an understanding of the fitness consequences of these molecular mechanisms lags behind. Similarly, it has become clear that maternal or sibling effects on development are major drivers of caste-related behavior, but the mechanisms that produce these effects are largely unknown. Developmental caste determination and caste-biasing require sensitivities to social cues, but how this plasticity evolved from solitary ancestors is unknown. Understanding the origins of developmental plasticity is necessary to understand how plasticity shapes the evolutionary trajectory of social traits. Likewise, the influence of social function on molecular evolution has been studied within a robust theoretical framework; however, these studies will benefit from an understanding of how ancestral conditions promote the acquisition of social function in the first place. Future studies that span both levels of analysis and timescales of influence will further advance the integrative field of ethology that Tinbergen envisioned.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 31 January 2019

    This article is a part of the topical collection “Social complexity: patterns, processes, and evolution”. For this reason, though it was originally inadvertently published in 2018, in Vol. 72, Issue 12, citation ID 186, it has now been reassigned and republished in 2019, in Vol. 73, Issue 1, citation ID 186.

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to P. Kappeler, S. Schultz, D. Lukas, and T. Clutton-Brock for organizing this topical issue. This manuscript was improved by helpful discussion with lab members and by suggestions from P. Kappeler, D. Lukas, and two anonymous reviewers.

Funding

This study received financial support from Utah State University and the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station (project 1297).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen M. Kapheim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by P. M. Kappeler

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised as this was inadvertently published in 2018, in Vol. 72, Issue 12, citation ID 186, it has now been reassigned and republished in 2019, in Vol. 73, Issue 1, citation ID 186.

This article is a contribution to the Topical Collection Social complexity: patterns, processes, and evolution - Guest Editors: Peter Kappeler, Susanne Shultz, Tim Clutton-Brock, and Dieter Lukas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kapheim, K.M. Synthesis of Tinbergen’s four questions and the future of sociogenomics. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73, 186 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2606-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2606-3

Keywords

Navigation