Why do Hymenopteran workers drift to non‐natal groups? Generalized reciprocity and the maximization of group and parental success

Eusocial Hymenoptera are often characterized by having facultatively or obligately sterile worker castes. However, findings across an increasing number of species are that some workers are non‐natal—they have ‘drifted’ away from where they were born and raised. Moreover, drifters are often indistinguishable from natal workers in the work and benefits provided to joined groups. This seems an evolutionary paradox of providing benefits to potentially unrelated individuals over close kin. Rather than being mistakes, drifting is proposed to be adaptive if joiners either gain inclusive fitness by preferentially moving to other kin groups or through generalized reciprocity in which exchanging workers across groups raises group‐level genetic diversity and creates social heterosis. It is unclear, however, if reciprocity is unlikely because of a susceptibility to cheating. In resolving this question, a series of evolutionary simulations show: (1) Reciprocity can persist under a range of genetic assumptions and scenarios of cheating, (2) cheating almost always evolves, but can be expressed in a variety of ways that are not always predictable, (3) the inclusive fitness hypothesis is equally or more susceptible to cheating. Moreover, existing data in Hymenoptera (although not extensive) are more consistent with generalized reciprocity. This supports a hypothesis that drifting, as a phenomenon, may more often reflect maximization of group and parental fitness rather than fitness gains for the individual drifters.