Plants and their arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal symbionts interact in complex underground networks involving multiple partners. This increases the potential for exploitation and defection by individuals, raising the question of how partners maintain a fair, two-way transfer of resources. We manipulated cooperation in plants and fungal partners to show that plants can detect, discriminate, and reward the best fungal partners with more carbohydrates. In turn, their fungal partners enforce cooperation by increasing nutrient transfer only to those roots providing more carbohydrates. On the basis of these observations we conclude that, unlike many other mutualisms, the symbiont cannot be "enslaved." Rather, the mutualism is evolutionarily stable because control is bidirectional, and partners offering the best rate of exchange are rewarded.

Explaining mutualistic cooperation between species remains one of the greatest problems for evolutionary biology. Why do symbionts provide costly services to a host, indirectly benefiting competitors sharing the same individual host? Host monitoring of symbiont performance and the imposition of sanctions on 'cheats' could stabilize mutualism. Here we show that soybeans penalize rhizobia that fail to fix N(2) inside their root nodules. We prevented a normally mutualistic rhizobium strain from cooperating (fixing N(2)) by replacing air with an N(2)-free atmosphere (Ar:O(2)). A series of experiments at three spatial scales (whole plants, half root systems and individual nodules) demonstrated that forcing non-cooperation (analogous to cheating) decreased the reproductive success of rhizobia by about 50%. Non-invasive monitoring implicated decreased O(2) supply as a possible mechanism for sanctions against cheating rhizobia. More generally, such sanctions by one or both partners may be important in stabilizing a wide range of mutualistic symbioses.

In an era of ecosystem degradation and climate change, maximizing microbial functions in agroecosystems has become a prerequisite for the future of global agriculture. However, managing species-rich communities of plant-associated microbiomes remains a major challenge. Here, we propose interdisciplinary research strategies to optimize microbiome functions in agroecosystems. Informatics now allows us to identify members and characteristics of 'core microbiomes', which may be deployed to organize otherwise uncontrollable dynamics of resident microbiomes. Integration of microfluidics, robotics and machine learning provides novel ways to capitalize on core microbiomes for increasing resource-efficiency and stress-resistance of agroecosystems.

The majority of studies on environmental change focus on the response of single species and neglect fundamental biotic interactions, such as mutualism, competition, predation, and parasitism, which complicate patterns of species persistence. Under global warming, disruption of community interactions can arise when species differ in their sensitivity to rising temperature, leading to mismatched phenologies and/or dispersal patterns. To study species persistence under global climate change, it is critical to consider the ecology and evolution of multispecies interactions; however, the sheer number of potential interactions makes a full study of all interactions unfeasible. One mechanistic approach to solving the problem of complicated community context to global change is to (i) define strategy groups of species based on life-history traits, trophic position, or location in the ecosystem, (ii) identify species involved in key interactions within these groups, and (iii) determine from the interactions of these key species which traits to study in order to understand the response to global warming. We review the importance of multispecies interactions looking at two trait categories: thermal sensitivity of metabolic rate and associated lifehistory traits and dispersal traits of species. A survey of published literature shows pronounced and consistent differences among trophic groups in thermal sensitivity of lifehistory traits and in dispersal distances. Our approach increases the feasibility of unraveling such a large and diverse set of community interactions, with the ultimate goal of improving our understanding of community responses to global warming.

The evolution of life on earth has been driven by a small number of major evolutionary transitions. These transitions have been characterized by individuals that could previously replicate independently, cooperating to form a new, more complex life form. For example, archaea and eubacteria formed eukaryotic cells, and cells formed multicellular organisms. However, not all cooperative groups are en route to major transitions. How can we explain why major evolutionary transitions have or haven't taken place on different branches of the tree of life? We break down major transitions into two steps: the formation of a cooperative group and the transformation of that group into an integrated entity. We show how these steps require cooperation, division of labor, communication, mutual dependence, and negligible within-group conflict. We find that certain ecological conditions and the ways in which groups form have played recurrent roles in driving multiple transitions. In contrast, we find that other factors have played relatively minor roles at many key points, such as within-group kin discrimination and mechanisms to actively repress competition. More generally, by identifying the small number of factors that have driven major transitions, we provide a simpler and more unified description of how life on earth has evolved.T he evolution of life, from simple organic compounds in a primordial soup to the amazing diversity of contemporary organisms, has taken roughly 3.5 billion years. How can we explain the evolution of increasingly complex organisms over this period? A traditional approach has been to consider the succession of taxonomic groups, such as the age of fishes giving rise to the age of amphibians, which gave way to the age of reptiles, and so on. Although this approach has some uses, it is biased toward relatively large plants and animals and lacks a conceptual or predictive framework, in that it suggests we look for different explanations for each succession (1).Twenty years ago, Maynard Smith and Szathmáry (2) revolutionized our understanding of life on earth by showing how the key steps in the evolution of life on earth had been driven by a small number of "major evolutionary transitions." In each transition, a group of individuals that could previously replicate independently cooperate to form a new, more complex life form. For example, genes cooperated to form genomes, archaea and eubacteria formed eukaryotic cells, and cells cooperated to form multicellular organisms (Table 1).The major transitions approach provides a conceptual framework that facilitates comparison across pivotal moments in the history of life (2, 3). It suggests that the same problem arises at each transition: How are the potentially selfish interests of individuals overcome to form mutually dependent cooperative groups? We can then ask whether there are any similarities across transitions in the answers to this problem. Consequently, rather than looking for different explanations for the succession of different taxonomic groups, we ...