Search

There is now good evidence that many mutualisms evolved from antagonism; why or how, however, remains unclear. We advance the Co-Opted Antagonist (COA) Hypothesis as a general mechanism explaining evolutionary transitions from antagonism to mutualism. COA involves an eco-coevolutionary process whereby natural selection favors co-option of an antagonist to perform a beneficial function and the interacting species coevolve a suite of phenotypic traits that drive the interaction from antagonism to mutualism. To evaluate the COA hypothesis, we present a generalized eco-coevolutionary framework of evolutionary transitions from antagonism to mutualism and develop a data-based, fully ecologically-parameterized model of a small community in which a lepidopteran insect pollinates some of its larval host plant species. More generally, our theory helps to reconcile several major challenges concerning the mechanisms of mutualism evolution, such as how mutualisms evolve without extremely tight host fidelity (vertical transmission) and how ecological context influences evolutionary outcomes, and vice-versa. While there is strong evidence that many mutualisms evolved from antagonism, how or why remains unclear. A study combining theory and a data-based model sheds light on how mutualisms evolve without extremely tight host fidelity and how ecological context affects evolutionary outcomes and vice-versa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many adult Lepidoptera nectar at flowers of plant species on which they also deposit their eggs. As a consequence, the same partner may act as both a pollinator and herbivore. How high are the costs associated with such herbivorous pollinators, relative to the potential benefits they confer? We addressed this question in the association between Datura wrightii (Solanaceae) and Manduca sexta (Sphingidae), which in southern Arizona, USA is both the plant's most important pollinator (as adults) and most significant herbivore (as larvae). We manually inflicted two biologically relevant levels of artificial folivory (33% and 66% leaf removal) at two points during the growing season, to nearly 200 D. wrightii plants established in a common-garden outdoor plot. We recorded plant survival, growth, and several components of reproduction (bud, flower, and fruit production). We found no detectable effect of damage on plant growth rate, fruit set in the same or the following growing season, or plant volume or survival in the same or the following three seasons. These results suggest that D. wrightii may be highly tolerant of leaf consumption by the herbivorous offspring of its specialized, nectar-feeding pollinators. We argue that this mechanism would likely foster persistence of the pollination mutualism more effectively than would resistance to, or deterrence of, herbivores. Tolerance to the costs of mutualism is an underexplored phenomenon that could contribute to the stability of these interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parasitic plants often attack multiple host species with unique defenses, physiology, and ecology. Reproductive phenology and vectors of parasitic plant genes (pollinators and dispersers) can contribute to or erode reproductive isolation of populations infecting different host species. We asked whether desert mistletoe, Phoradendron californicum (Santalaceae tribe Visceae syn. Viscaceae), differs ecologically across its dominant leguminous hosts in ways affecting reproductive isolation. Parasite flowering phenology on one host species (velvet mesquite, Prosopis velutina) differed significantly from that on four others, and phenology was not predicted by host species phenology or host individual. Comparing mistletoe populations on mesquite and another common host species (catclaw acacia, Senegalia greggii) for which genetically distinct host races are known, we tested for differences in interactions with vectors by quantifying pollinator visitation, reward production, pollen receipt, and fruit consumption. Mistletoes on mesquite produced more pollinator rewards per flower (1.86 times the nectar and 1.92 times the pollen) and received ~ 2 more pollen grains per flower than those on acacia. Mistletoes on the two host species interacted with distinct but overlapping pollinator communities, and pollinator taxa differed in visitation according to host species. Yet, mistletoes of neither host showed uniformly greater reproductive success. Fruit set (0.70) did not differ by host, and the rates of fruit ripening and removal differed in contrasting ways. Altogether, we estimate strong but asymmetric pre-zygotic isolating barriers between mistletoes on the two hosts. These host-associated differences in reproduction have implications for interactions with mutualist vectors and population genetic structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

nnual migrations of birds profoundly influence terrestrial communities. However, few empirical studies examine why birds migrate, in part due to the difficulty of testing causal hypotheses in long-distance migration systems. Short-distance altitudinal migrations provide relatively tractable systems in which to test explanations for migration. Many past studies explain tropical altitudinal migration as a response to spatial and temporal variation in fruit availability. Yet this hypothesis fails to explain why some coexisting, closely-related frugivorous birds remain resident year-round. We take a mechanistic approach by proposing and evaluating two hypotheses (one based on competitive exclusion and the other based on differences in dietary specialization) to explain why some, but not all, tropical frugivores migrate. We tested predictions of these hypotheses by comparing diets, fruit preferences, and the relationships between diet and preference in closely-related pairs of migrant and resident species. Fecal samples and experimental choice trials revealed that sympatric migrants and residents differed in both their diets and fruit preferences. Migrants consumed a greater diversity of fruits and fewer arthropods than did their resident counterparts. Migrants also tended to have slightly stronger fruit preferences than residents. Most critically, diets of migrants more closely matched their preferences than did the diets of residents. These results suggest that migrants may be competitively superior foragers for fruit compared to residents (rather than vice versa), implying that current competitive interactions are unlikely to explain variation in migratory behavior among coexisting frugivores. We found some support for the dietary specialization hypothesis, propose refinements to the mechanism underlying this hypothesis, and discuss how dietary specialization might ultimately reflect past interspecific competition. We recommend that future studies quantify variation in nutritional content of tropical fruits, and determine whether frugivory is a consequence or a cause of migratory behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The application of ecological concepts and principles to the study of organization design and system development is now commonplace. Population ecology is one biological perspective that has been especially influential within the organization design literature. In the current study, we illustrate for the first time how this framework can be used to reveal when and in what ways intervention is warranted within a system that, like a biological population in nature, has emerged with little to no purposeful design. Specifically, we use 20 years of data on 1,074 Arizona charter schools to illustrate how population analysis can be used to uncover the characteristics of individual organizations that have the highest ability to survive over time within systems that have been allowed to emerge with little to no purposeful design. Our findings lead us to argue how pre-intervention population analysis at the system level can influence organization-level design choices in a way that enables dynamic fit and thereby enhances the likelihood of organization survivorship and innovation over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: How do nectar-feeding animals choose among alternative flower-handling tactics? Such decisions have consequences not only for animal fitness (via food intake) but for plant fitness as well: many animals can choose to “rob” nectar through holes chewed in the base of a flower instead of “legitimately” collecting it through the flower’s opening, thus failing to contact pollen. Although variation within a species in these nectar-foraging tactics is well documented, it is largely unknown why some individuals specialize (at least in the short term) on robbing, others on legitimate visitation, and others switch between these behaviors. We investigated whether the tendency to rob nectar through previously-made holes (secondary robbing) is influenced by prior foraging experience. In a laboratory experiment, we trained groups of bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) either to visit artificial flowers legitimately or to secondary-rob; a third group received no training. On subsequent visits to flowers, all bees had the opportunity to use either foraging tactic. We found that experience did affect bees’ tendency to secondary-rob: trained bees were more likely to adopt the tactic they had previously experienced. Untrained bees initially sampled both tactics, but over time preferred to secondary-rob. Experience also increased bees’ success at gaining nectar from flowers, but only when visiting flowers legitimately (the less preferred tactic). Overall, these findings highlight the importance of experience in animals’ choices of alternative handling tactics while foraging and help explain long-standing observations of variation in nectar-robbing behavior among individuals of the same population.Significance statement: Animals that can adopt alternative behaviors frequently use only one of them. A widespread but little understood example of this is nectar feeding, in which foragers can choose between “legitimately” collecting nectar through a flower’s opening or “robbing” nectar via holes chewed through a flower’s base. We showed in a laboratory experiment that prior foraging experience can bias bumble bees’ choices to rob nectar from pre-existing holes (i.e., to “secondary”-rob). Initial exposure to flowers that could only be robbed or only be legitimately visited increased bees’ tendency to subsequently adopt that behavior at the expense of sampling the alternative behavior, even when other bees seemed to prefer the alternative. These results help explain field observations that bees often specialize on a single nectar-collecting behavior and that there is individual variation in which behavior is adopted, contributing to our understanding of nectar robbing from the animals’ perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]