Search

Interspecific mutualisms have been playing a central role in the functioning of all ecosystems since the early history of life. Yet the theory of coevolution of mutualists is virtually nonexistent, by contrast with well–developed coevolutionary theories of competition, predator–prey and host–parasite interactions. This has prevented resolution of a basic puzzle posed by mutualisms: their persistence in spite of apparent evolutionary instability. The selective advantage of‘cheatin’, that is, reaping mutualistic benefits while providing fewer commodities to the partner species, is commonly believed to erode a mutualistic interaction, leading to its dissolution or reciprocal extinction. However, recent empirical findings indicate that stable associations of mutualists and cheaters have existed over long evolutionary periods. Here, we show that asymmetrical competition within species for the commodities offered by mutualistic partners provides a simple and testable ecological mechanism that can account for the long–term persistence of mutualisms. Cheating, in effect, establishes a background against which better mutualists can display any competitive superiority. This can lead to the coexistence and divergence of mutualist and cheater phenotypes, as well as to the coexistence of ecologically similar, but unrelated mutualists and cheaters.

We investigate the coevolution of time of flowering and time of pollinator emergence in an obligate association between a plant and an insect that both pollinates and parasitizes flowers. Numerical analysis shows that the system in general evolves towards a time of flowering different from the time favoured by the abiotic environment. The equilibrium towards which the system evolves is a local fitness maximum (an ESS) with respect to mutational variation in flowering time but, for the insect, it can be a local fitness minimum at which selection on mutational variation in the time of insect emergence is disruptive. A consequence of evolutionary convergence to a fitness minimum is that pollinators having an earlier phenology can coexist with pollinators having a later phenology. Since late emerging insects are more likely to encounter and oviposit within previously pollinated flowers, their effect on the plant is more exploitative, leading them to function as cheaters within the system. Thus, in the long term, pollinators and exploiters are likely to be found in stable coexistence in pollinating seed–parasite systems.

The over 700 species of Ficusare thought to have co–speciated with their obligate pollinators (family Agaonidae). Some of these wasp species pollinate figs actively, while others are passive pollinators. Based on direct observations of mode of pollination in 88 species, we show that mode of pollination can confidently be predicted from fig traits only (anther–to–ovule ratio) or from wasp traits only (presence of coxal combs). The presence of pollen pockets is not a predictor of mode of pollination. Data, direct and indirect, on 142 species, demonstrate numerous cases of the loss of active pollination and suggest one or few origins of active pollination. Hence, active pollination, an impressive example of the sophisticated traits that may result from mutualistic coevolution, depends on selective forces that can be overcome in some species, allowing reversions. Despite frequent loss, active pollination remains the predominant mode of pollination in Ficus.

One common class of ant‐plant mutualism involves ants that defend plants from natural enemies in return for food and sometimes shelter. Studies of these interactions have played a major role in shaping our broad understanding of mutualism. Their central contribution has come via their development of approaches to measuring the benefits, costs, and net outcomes of mutualism, and their explicit consideration of variability in all of these phenomena. Current research on these interactions is suggesting ecological and evolutionary hypotheses that may be applicable to many other forms of mutualism. It is also generating comparative data for testing the few general theories about mutualism that currently exist.

Abstract: Mutualisms often involve significant costs for participants. Costs are inflicted by mutualists themselves, as well as by associated, non-mutualistic species. These costs are rarely quantified, however, particularly the ones extrinsic to the pairwise interaction. We compare costs inflicted by an obligate mutualist pollinator and two common exploiters of an Arizona yucca over a 2-year period. The magnitude of seed damage from seed and fruit-feeding beetle larvae (Carpophilus longus, Nitidulidae) was similar to damage from the seed-eating larvae of Yucca schottii's pollinator moth Tegeticula yuccasella (Prodoxidae), averaging about 15 seeds destroyed per fruit in each case. The two seed predators usually fed within the same fruits, although rarely side by side. In contrast, the presence of fruit-galling moth larvae (Prodoxusy-inversus, Prodoxidae) appeared to benefit the yucca: individual Tegeticula destroyed only half as many seeds in galled fruits as they did in ungalled fruits. We discuss three general implications of these results. Firstly, the costs of non-mutualists to the two mutualistic partners are not necessarily parallel. Secondly, measurable costs of non-mutualists do not necessarily translate into an impact on the success of the mutualism itself, because they may be incurred after mutualistic activities take place. Finally, the costs of mutualists to each other can differ substantially depending on the presence or absence of non-mutualistic species.

The obligate pollinators of figs (Ficus,Moraceae), species‐specific agaonid wasps, benefit figs only by transporting pollen between trees; larvae are seed predators. But given the high risk of mortality in flight between trees, adult wasps should prefer to pollinate and oviposit within inflorescences (syconia) at the same tree at which they developed. Flowering within individuals is tightly synchronous in most species, while different trees flower out of phase with each other, suggesting that fig phenology has evolved to assure outcrossing. However, some fig species show distinct within‐tree flowering asynchrony. It has been suggested that such asynchrony is an adaptation by which figs in seasonal environments can reduce pollinator mortality, by permitting wasps to persist on individual trees at times when flight would be impossible. We have evaluated and rejected the validity of this Seasonality Hypothesis for the Florida strangling fig, Ficus aurea,near its northern range limit. Crops of individual trees were most, not least, synchronous during the coldest, driest months of 2 years. Maximum asynchrony occurred in seasons that were probably most favorable for wasp transit between trees. However, temporal overlap of the phenological stages that permit wasps to remain on their natal trees was always very rare, implying that consecutive cohorts of developing syconia may be spaced in time to limit this occurrence. We suggest alternative costs and benefits for these phenological traits, as well as the proximate mechanisms that might produce them.

See PDF.

See PDF.

See PDF.

Mutualisms are of central importance in biological systems. Despite growing attention in recent years, however, few conceptual themes have yet to be identified that span mutualisms differing in natural history. Here I examine the idea that the ecology and evolution of mutualisms are shaped by diverse costs, not only by the benefits they confer. This concept helps link mutualism to antagonisms such as herbivory, predation, and parasitism, interactions defined largely by the existence of costs. I first briefly review the range of costs associated with mutualisms, then describe how one cost, the consumption of seeds by pollinator offspring, was quantified for one fig/pollinator mutualism. I compare this cost to published values for other fig/pollinator mutualisms and for other kinds of pollinating seed parasite mutualisms, notably the yucca/yucca moth interaction. I then discuss four issues that fundamentally complicate comparative studies of the cost of mutualism: problems of knowing how to measure the magnitude of any one cost accurately; problems associated with using average estimates in the absence of data on sources of variation; complications arising from the complex correlates of costs, such as functional linkages between costs and benefits; and problems that arise from considering the cost of mutualism as a unilateral issue in what is fundamentally a reciprocal interaction. The rich diversity of as-yet unaddressed questions surrounding the costs of mutualism may best be investigated via detailed studies of individual interactions.