On Mutualists and Exploiters: Plant–insect Coevolution in Pollinating Seed–parasite Systems

Law, Richard; Bronstein, Judith L.; Ferrière, Régis

doi:10.1006/jtbi.2001.2383

Cited by 53 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Any emerging female wasp thus contributes to the fitness of the very same tree whose female function was reduced by the larval seed predators. In contrast, other pollinating seed parasites do not collect pollen from the flower in which they matured (Addicott et al, 1990); (5) there is a temporal component to how cooperative the pollinators are that has nothing to do with the pollinators' behavioral strategies (Law et al, 2001). The first individual to arrive at a flower must cooperate by pollinating, or else her offspring will starve (unless a second female visits and pollinates).…”

Section: N Interactions: Interactions Are Usually One-off Between Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Game Structures in Mutualistic Interactions: What Can the Evidence Tell Us About the Kind of Models We Need?

Bshary

Bronstein

2004

Advances in the Study of Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: N Interactions: Interactions Are Usually One-off Between Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Game Structures in Mutualistic Interactions: What Can the Evidence Tell Us About the Kind of Models We Need?

Bshary

Bronstein

2004

Advances in the Study of Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although cheating has been assumed to be under strict control, recent empirical findings (reviewed by Bronstein 2001b) indicate that cheating is rampant in most mutualisms; in some cases, cheaters have been associated with mutualisms over long spans of evolutionary time (Després and Jaeger 1999;Pellmyr and Leebens-Mack 1999;Lopez-Vaamonde et al 2001). Recent theoretical advances have increased our understanding of the ecological and evolutionary persistence of particular forms of mutualism (e.g., Holland and DeAngelis 2001;Law et al 2001;Yu 2001;Holland et al 2002;Morris et al 2003;Wilson et al 2003).…”

Section: Factors That Influence the Persistence Of Mutualismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coevolutionary Dynamics and the Conservation of Mutualisms

Bronstein¹,

Dieckmann

Ferrière

2004

Evolutionary Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several studies have modelled coevolutionary dynamics in mutualistic systems of a few species (Ferriere et al, 2007;Law et al, 2001;Ferdy et al, 2002;Gomulkiewicz et al, 2003;Jones et al, 2009), particularly highly specialized (i.e. obligatory mutualists) systems of plant-animal interactions, such as the fig-fig wasp mutualism (Bronstein et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nestedness patterns have been shown to provide information about the underlying network dynamics. For example, nestedness is associated with stability and coexistence of species in a community (Bastolla et al, 2009;Okuyama and Holland, 2008).Several studies have modelled coevolutionary dynamics in mutualistic systems of a few species (Ferriere et al, 2007;Law et al, 2001;Ferdy et al, 2002;Gomulkiewicz et al, 2003;Jones et al, 2009), particularly highly specialized (i.e. obligatory mutualists) systems of plant-animal interactions, such as the fig-fig wasp mutualism (Bronstein et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The emergence of network structure, complementarity and convergence from basic ecological and genetic processes

Encinas‐Viso

Etienne

2014

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant-animal mutualistic networks are highly diverse and structured. This has been explained by coevolution through niche based processes. However, this explanation is only warranted if neutral processes (e.g. limited dispersal, genetic and ecological drift) cannot explain these patterns. Here we present a spatially explicit model based on explicit genetics and quantitative traits to study the connection between genome evolution, speciation and plant-animal network demography. We consider simple processes for the speciation dynamics of plant-animal mutualisms: ecological (dispersal, demography) and genetic processes (mutation, recombination, drift) and morphological constraints (matching of quantitative trait) for species interactions, particularly mating. We find the evolution of trait convergence and complementarity and topological features observed in real plant-animal mutualistic webs (i.e. nestedness and centrality). Furthermore, the morphological constraint for plant reproduction generates higher centrality among plant individuals (and species) than in animals, consistent with observations. We argue that simple processes are able to reproduce some well known ecological and evolutionary patterns of plant-animal mutualistic webs. IntroductionSince Darwin's book "On The Origin of Species" (Darwin, 1862b), the idea of coevolution 1 has sparked interest from biologists trying to understand how species interactions generate trait changes. The first clear indication of coevolution was Darwin's moth example (Darwin, 1862a) showing that the long corolla from the orchid Angraecum sesquispedale could only be reached by a pollinator species with a similar proboscis length. However, much later Janzen (1980) argued that this amazingly high specialization between plants and animals was not the only example of coevolution. He explained that coevolution can also be the product of multiplespecies interactions, a term that he coined "diffuse coevolution". Diffuse coevolution means that selection on traits is determined by the interaction of all species in the community and not only * Corresponding author: franencinas@gmail.com 1 defined as reciprocal evolutionary change between species 1. CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.The copyright holder for this preprint . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/007393 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jul. 23, 2014; based on pair-wise interactions. This is based on the idea of pollination or dispersal "syndromes", where plants have a set of traits that attract a specific group of pollinator or animal seed-disperser species.Later, the idea of "diffuse coevolution" was related to patterns of nestedness detected across biogeographic regions in mutualistic networks. Nestedness, defined as a non-random pattern of interactions where specialist species interact with proper subsets of more generalist species puts the concept of "diffuse co...

show abstract

On Mutualists and Exploiters: Plant–insect Coevolution in Pollinating Seed–parasite Systems

Cited by 53 publications

References 54 publications

Game Structures in Mutualistic Interactions: What Can the Evidence Tell Us About the Kind of Models We Need?

Game Structures in Mutualistic Interactions: What Can the Evidence Tell Us About the Kind of Models We Need?

Coevolutionary Dynamics and the Conservation of Mutualisms

The emergence of network structure, complementarity and convergence from basic ecological and genetic processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About