Mutualisms in a changing world: an evolutionary perspective

Kiers, E. Toby; Palmer, Todd M.; Ives, Anthony R.; Bruno, John F.; Bronstein, Judith L.

doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01538.x

Cited by 470 publications

(247 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

219

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When perturbation or change disrupts, enhances or introduces new organisms into a mutualism, the outcome and stability of the original partnership(s) are altered as are the effects of the symbiosis on the community and ecosystem as a whole (Six 2009). This potential for human-induced environmental change to alter or decouple mutualisms is an area of critical need for research in ecology and evolution (Kiers et al 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have rarely considered impacts on interactions involving multiple trophic levels (Davis et al 1998;Janson et al 2009;Six 2009). In particular, very little attention has been given to effects of anthropogenic change on mutualisms, despite the fact that these symbioses are among the most important drivers of ecosystem function, structure, and process (Boucher et al 1982;Margulis and Fester 1991;Douglas 1994;Maynard Smith and Szathmary 1995;Del-Claro and Torezan-Silingardi 2009;Kiers et al 2010), and alterations in their composition and outcomes are likely to ramify throughout affected systems (Six 2009;Kiers et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anthropogenic effects on interaction outcomes: examples from insect-microbial symbioses in forest and savanna ecosystems

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of humans on ecosystem dynamics has been, and continues to be, profound. Anthropogenic effects are expected to amplify as human populations continue to increase. Concern over these effects has given rise to a large number of studies focusing on impacts of human activities on individual species or on biotic community structure and composition. Lacking are studies on interactions, particularly mutualisms. Because of the role of mutualisms in ecosystem stability, such studies are critically needed if we are to begin to better understand and predict the responses of ecosystems to anthropogenic change. Most organisms are involved in at least one mutualism, and many in several. Mutualisms facilitate the ability of partners to exploit particular habitats and resources, and play a large role in determining ecological boundaries. When change disrupts, enhances, or introduces new organisms into a mutualism, the outcome and stability of the original partnership(s) is altered as are effects of the symbiosis on the community and ecosystem as a whole. In this paper, using examples from six microbe-insect mutualisms in forest and savanna settings, we showcase how varied and complex the responses of mutualisms can be to an equally varied set of anthropogenic influences. We also show how alterations of mutualisms may ramify throughout affected systems. We stress that researchers must be cognizant that many observed changes in the behaviors, abundances, and distributions of organisms due to human activities are likely to be mediated by mutualists which may alter predictions and actual outcomes in significant ways.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropogenic effects on interaction outcomes: examples from insect-microbial symbioses in forest and savanna ecosystems

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Facilitative or positive interactions, like mutualisms, are rarely considered as potential factors affecting urban populations and communities (but see e.g. Thompson and McLachlan 2007;Gibb and Johansson 2010;Toby Kiers et al 2010), and it is claimed that this type of positive interaction plays an important part in the structuring of some biological communities by providing refuge from predation or competition (Stachowicz 2001). Conversely, it is important to consider that mutualisms have formed over evolutionary time scales, and we do not know if mutualisms have evolved to be resilient enough to endure anthropogenic disturbances (Sachs and Simms 2006;Toby Kiers et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does urbanization explain differences in interactions between an insect herbivore and its natural enemies and mutualists?

Rocha

Fellowes

2018

Urban Ecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization can alter the composition of arthropod communities. However, little is known about how urbanization affects ecological interactions. Using experimental colonies of the black bean aphid Aphis fabae Scopoli reared on Vicia faba L, we asked if patterns of predator-prey, host-parasitoid and ant-aphid mutualisms varied along an urbanization gradient across a large town in southern England. We recorded the presence of naturally occurring predators, parasitoid wasps and mutualistic ants together with aphid abundance. We examined how biotic (green areas and plant richness) and abiotic features (impervious surfaces and distance to town center) affected (1) aphid colony size, (2) the likelihood of finding predators, mutualistic ants and aphid mummies (indicating the presence of parasitoids), and (3) how the interplay among these factors affected patterns of parasitoid attack, predator abundance, mutualistic interactions and aphid abundance. Aphid abundance was best explained by the number of mutualistic ants attending the colonies. Aphid predators responded negatively to both the proportion of impervious surfaces and to the number of mutualistic ants farming the colonies, and positively to aphid population size, whereas parasitized aphids were found in colonies with higher numbers of aphids and ants. The number of mutualistic ants attending was positively associated with aphid colony size and negatively with the number of aphid predators. Our findings suggest that for insect-natural enemy interactions, urbanization may affect some groups, while not influencing others, and that local effects (mutualists, host plant presence) will also be key determinants of how urban ecological communities are formed.

show abstract

“…Additionally, the high invasive pressure of the studied urban forest stands, not only by exotic invasive trees but also by understory species (data not shown), suggests possible invasive meltdown, where introduced species facilitate the spread of new exotic species (Meltdown hypothesis; Simberloff 2006). Exotic species may alter soil communities potentially changing plant-soil feedback interactions of the native plant community (Mutualism disruption; Mitchell et al 2006;Toby Kiers et al 2010). Despite the high amount of pathogens present in the roots of the exotic invasive species R. cathartica compared with the other target species, R. cathartica is a successful invader of the sampled stand.…”

Section: Belowground Effectsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Parent tree distance-dependent recruitment limitation of native and exotic invasive seedlings in urban forests

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban forests are more vulnerable to exotic species invasions than natural forests and are often a pathway for exotic invasions into natural areas. Investigating the mechanisms responsible for species coexistence in urban ecosystems is important to prevent forest invasions and conserve native biodiversity. In this experiment, we studied seedling recruitment for two exotic invasive (Acer platanoides and Rhamnus cathartica) and two native tree species (Acer saccharum and Betula papyrifera) in two urban forests. We measured the effects of distance from a mature tree on the growth of conspecific seedlings and their belowground interactions (mutualisms and pathogens). We expected that native seedlings growing in close proximity to a mature conspecific tree would more likely be damaged by co-specific pathogens than those growing further away. In contrast, considering that exotic invaders have not coevolved with the local soil pathogens, distance from the adult conspecific tree would not affect their seedlings. We collected undisturbed soil cores at five incremental distances from each adult tree and grew conspecific seeds in these cores. After three months of growth, we measured plant biomass, mycorrhizal root colonization and root lesions. We found that biomass increased with distance from the mature conspecific tree only for A. platanoides and no distance dependent signal was detected for other response variables. Our results show that distance from a conspecific mature tree may not determine exotic species invasibility in an urban forest and that, instead, this may contribute to promote native and invasive species coexistence in urban forest systems.

show abstract

Mutualisms in a changing world: an evolutionary perspective

Cited by 470 publications

References 85 publications

Anthropogenic effects on interaction outcomes: examples from insect-microbial symbioses in forest and savanna ecosystems

Anthropogenic effects on interaction outcomes: examples from insect-microbial symbioses in forest and savanna ecosystems

Does urbanization explain differences in interactions between an insect herbivore and its natural enemies and mutualists?

Parent tree distance-dependent recruitment limitation of native and exotic invasive seedlings in urban forests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About