Search

Human-wildlife cooperation occurs when humans and free-living wild animals actively coordinate their behavior to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. These interactions provide important benefits to both the human and wildlife communities involved, have wider impacts on the local ecosystem, and represent a unique intersection of human and animal cultures. The remaining active forms are human-honeyguide and human-dolphin cooperation, but these are at risk of joining several inactive forms (including human-wolf and human-orca cooperation). Human-wildlife cooperation faces a unique set of conservation challenges, as it requires multiple components-a motivated human and wildlife partner, a suitable environment, and compatible interspecies knowledge-which face threats from ecological and cultural changes. To safeguard human-wildlife cooperation, we recommend: (i) establishing ethically sound conservation strategies together with the participating human communities; (ii) conserving opportunities for human and wildlife participation; (iii) protecting suitable environments; (iv) facilitating cultural transmission of traditional knowledge; (v) accessibly archiving Indigenous and scientific knowledge; and (vi) conducting long-term empirical studies to better understand these interactions and identify threats. Tailored safeguarding plans are therefore necessary to protect these diverse and irreplaceable interactions. Broadly, our review highlights that efforts to conserve biological and cultural diversity should carefully consider interactions between human and animal cultures. Please see AfricanHoneyguides.com/abstract-translations for Kiswahili and Portuguese translations of the abstract.

There has long been a fundamental divide in the study of cooperation: researchers focus either on cooperation within species, including but not limited to sociality, or else on cooperation between species, commonly termed mutualism. Here, we explore the ecologically and evolutionarily significant ways in which within- and between-species cooperation interact. We highlight two primary cross-linkages. First, cooperation of one type can change the context in which cooperation of the other type functions, and thus potentially its outcome. We delineate three possibilities: (i) within-species cooperation modulates benefits for a heterospecific partner; (ii) between-species cooperation affects the dynamics of within-species cooperation; and (iii) both processes take place interactively. The second type of cross-linkage emerges when resources or services that cooperation makes available are obtainable either from members of the same species or from different species. This brings cooperation at the two levels into direct interaction, to some extent obscuring the distinction between them. We expand on these intersections between within- and between-species cooperation in a diversity of taxa and interaction types. These interactions have the potential to weave together social networks and trophic dynamics, contributing to the structure and functioning of ecological communities in ways that are just beginning to be explored. This article is part of the theme issue 'Connected interactions: enriching food web research by spatial and social interactions'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biologists have taken the concept of organism largely for granted. However, advances in the study of chimerism, symbiosis, bacterial-eukaryote associations, and microbial behavior have prompted a redefinition of organisms as biological entities exhibiting low conflict and high cooperation among their parts. This expanded view identifies organisms in evolutionary time. However, the ecological processes, mechanisms, and traits that drive the formation of organisms remain poorly understood. Recognizing that organismality can be context dependent, we advocate elucidating the ecological contexts under which entities do or do not act as organisms. Here we develop a "contextual organismality" framework and provide examples of entities, such as honey bee colonies, tumors, and bacterial swarms, that can act as organisms under specific life history, resource, or other ecological circumstances. We suggest that context dependence may be a stepping stone to the development of increased organismal unification, as the most integrated biological entities generally show little context dependence. Recognizing that organismality is contextual can identify common patterns and testable hypotheses across different entities. The contextual organismality framework can illuminate timeless as well as pressing issues in biology, including topics as disparate as cancer emergence, genomic conflict, evolution of symbiosis, and the role of the microbiota in impacting host phenotype.

Predicting the impacts of global warming on mutualisms poses a significant challenge given the functional and life history differences that usually exist among interacting species. However, this is a critical endeavour since virtually all species on Earth depend on other species for survival and/or reproduction. The field of thermal ecology can provide physiological and mechanistic insights, as well as quantitative tools, for addressing this challenge. Here, we develop a conceptual and quantitative framework that connects thermal physiology to species' traits, species' traits to interacting mutualists' traits and interacting traits to the mutualism. We first identify the functioning of reciprocal mutualism‐relevant traits in diverse systems as the key temperature‐dependent mechanisms driving the interaction. We then develop metrics that measure the thermal performance of interacting mutualists' traits and that approximate the thermal performance of the mutualism itself. This integrated approach allows us to additionally examine how warming might interact with resource/nutrient availability and affect mutualistic species' associations across space and time. We offer this framework as a synthesis of convergent and critical issues in mutualism science in a changing world, and as a baseline to which other ecological complexities and scales might be added. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding mechanisms that generate range limits is central to knowing why species are found where they are and how they will respond to environmental change. There is growing awareness that biotic interactions play an important role in generating range limits. However, current theory and data overwhelmingly focus on abiotic drivers and antagonistic interactions. Here we explore the effect that mutualists have on their partner's range limits: the geographic "footprint" of mutualism. This footprint arises from two general processes: modification of a partner's niche through environment‐dependent fitness effects and, for a subset of mutualisms, dispersal opportunities that lead suitable habitats to be filled. We developed a conceptual framework that organizes different footprints of mutualism and the underlying mechanisms that shape them, and evaluated supporting empirical evidence from the primary literature. In the available literature, we found that the fitness benefits and dispersal opportunities provided by mutualism can extend species' ranges; conversely, the absence of mutualism can constrain species from otherwise suitable regions of their range. Most studies found that the footprint of mutualism is driven by changes in the frequency of mutualist partners from range core to range edge, whereas fewer found changes in interaction outcomes, the diversity of partners, or varying sensitivities of fitness to the effects of mutualists. We discuss these findings with respect to specialization, dependence, and intimacy of mutualism. Much remains unknown about the geographic footprint of mutualisms, leaving fruitful areas for future work. A particularly important future direction is to explore the role of mutualism during range shifts under global change, including the promotion of shifts at leading edges and persistence at trailing edges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of People & Nature is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Eco‐evolutionary feedbacks among multiple species occur when one species affects another species' evolution via its effects on the abundance and traits of a shared partner species. What happens if those two species enact opposing effects on their shared partner's population growth? Furthermore, what if those two kinds of interactions involve separate traits? For example, many plants produce distinct suites of traits that attract pollinators (mutualists) and deter herbivores (antagonists). Here, we develop a model to explore how pollinators and herbivores may influence each other's interactions with a shared plant species via evolutionary effects on the plant's nectar and toxin traits. The model results predict that herbivores indirectly select for the evolution of increased nectar production by suppressing plant population growth. The model also predicts that pollinators indirectly select for the evolution of increased toxin production by plants and increased counterdefenses by herbivores via their positive effects on plant population growth. Unless toxins directly affect pollinator foraging, plants always evolve increases in attraction and defense traits when they interact with both kinds of foragers. This work highlights the value of incorporating ecological dynamics to understand the entangled evolution of mutualisms and antagonisms in natural communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many different analyses have shown how antagonistic interactions (e.g. predation, disease, interference competition) can foster the coexistence of two species that compete for a single resource. In contrast, whether interactions with mutualist partners can similarly foster coexistence between resource competitors has been little considered. Here, we derive a mechanistic model of two plant species that compete for a single abiotic resource and that each produce nectar that supports a single shared pollinator species. In our model, plant coexistence requires three relationships: 1) one plant species must be better at utilizing the abiotic resource to produce more ovules; 2) this better resource competitor must also be more pollen‐limited in the absence of the pollinator; and 3) this species must produce much less nectar, such that pollinator abundance depends primarily on nectar produced by the less pollen‐limited species. Pollinators can also shape the competitive hierarchy among plant species without promoting coexistence, an influence determined by the amount of nectar produced by the entire plant assemblage that supports pollinator abundance. Our results show that patterns of pollen limitation and nectar production across competing plant species will be essential data to evaluating whether pollinators may foster the plants' coexistence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resource dynamics influence the contemporary ecology of consumer-resource mutualisms. Suites of resource traits, such as floral nectar components, also evolve in response to different selective pressures, changing the ecological dynamics of the interacting species at the evolutionary equilibrium. Here we explore the evolution of resource-provisioning traits in a biotically pollinated plant that produces nectar as a resource for beneficial consumers. We develop a mathematical model describing natural selection on two quantitative nectar traits: maximum nectar production rate and maximum nectar reservoir volume. We use this model to examine how nectar production dynamics evolve under different ecological conditions that impose varying cost-benefit regimes on resource provisioning. The model results predict that natural selection favors higher nectar production when ecological factors limit the plant or pollinator's abundance (e.g., a lower productivity environment or a higher pollinator conversion efficiency). We also find that nectar traits evolve as a suite in which higher costs of producing one trait select for a compensatory increase in investment in the other trait. This empirically explicit approach to studying the evolution of consumer-resource mutualisms illustrates how natural selection acting via direct and indirect pathways of species interactions generates patterns of resource provisioning seen in natural systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

1. Competition alters animal foraging, including promoting the use of alternative resources. It may also impact how animals feed when they are able to handle the same food with more than one tactic. Competition likely impacts both consumers and their resources through its effects on food handling, but this topic has received little attention. 2. Bees often use two tactics for extracting nectar from flowers: they can visit at the flower opening, or rob nectar from holes at the base of flowers. Exploitative competition for nectar is thought to promote nectar robbing. If so, higher competition among floral visitors should reduce constancy to a single foraging tactic as foragers will seek food using all possible tactics. To test this prediction, field observations and two experiments involving bumble bees visiting three montane Colorado plant species (Mertensia ciliata, Linaria vulgaris, Corydalis caseana) were used under various levels of inter‐ and intra‐specific competition for nectar. 3. In general, individual bumble bees remained constant to a single foraging tactic, independent of competition levels. However, bees that visited M. ciliata in field observations decreased their constancy and increased nectar robbing rates as visitation rates by co‐visitors increased. 4. While tactic constancy was high overall regardless of competition intensity, this study highlights some intriguing instances in which competition and tactic constancy may be linked. Further studies investigating the cognitive underpinnings of tactic constancy should provide insight on the ways in which animals use alternative foraging tactics to exploit resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information on direct and indirect drivers of temporal variation in ant–plant interactions is scarce, compromising our ability to predict the functioning of these ecologically important interactions.We investigated the roles of precipitation, ant activity, abundance of young plant tissues bearing extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) and EFN phenotypes in the establishment of EFN‐mediated ant–plant interactions throughout the year in Amazonia, Brazil. We hypothesized that the frequency of ant–plant interactions follows a predictable seasonal pattern, being higher in wetter periods, during which plants invest more in the production of new plant tissues bearing EFNs, ultimately promoting ant attendance. We surveyed and tagged every understorey Bignonieae plant rooted inside 28,500‐m2 plots, and recorded ant–EFN interactions on each plant five times throughout the year. We also sampled ants with honey baits to estimate temporal variation in general ant activity.Contrary to our hypothesis, the proportion of plants tended by ants in each plot was higher in drier, not wetter, months. Ant attendance was indirectly and negatively related to precipitation, which was attributed to a decrease in the proportion of plants producing new EFN‐bearing plant tissues during the wetter period. Additionally, seasonal variation in an ant activity did not explain temporal patterns of plant attendance. At the plant level, ant attendance increased strongly with the number of recently formed shoot nodes, and ants almost never attended plants with limited or no young tissue. Among the 12 most abundant Bignonieae species, the amount of young tissue was the most important predictor of ant attendance, secondarily explained by the EFN secretory area.Synthesis. Our results suggest that seasonal variation in the production of new plant tissues bearing EFNs is the primary driver of the temporal patterns of EFN–plant attendance by ants in this system. Contrary to our expectations, production of new plant tissue is higher in the drier months of the year, which in turn boosts the frequency of interactions between ants and EFN‐bearing plants in the dry season. These results highlight the role of plant phenology in the remarkable variation encountered in ant visitation to EFN‐bearing plants in both space and time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intraspecific variation in floral visitor behaviour and pollination efficiency has been much less studied than interspecific variation. Nevertheless, it is clear that large differences in these traits exist within species, and in particular between sexes within species. With the exception of a few well‐studied interactions, however, the consequences of these differences in the pollinators and visited plants remain to be investigated.In this review, we document large and consistent differences in the foraging patterns of male and female pollinators that have been demonstrated to directly affect plant reproduction or that have clear potential to do so.Males and females differ in visitation frequency, type of flowers visited, and per‐visit pollen transfer. Females gather more and different resources from flowers compared to males, and males generally tend to show more mobile foraging patterns than females.We argue that these sex‐associated patterns have broad generality across pollinators, and that sex‐associated differences can in some cases be larger than differences between species. We offer predictions about how these patterns will influence pollinator preference, specialization, and fidelity, as well as the cost, quality and quantity of pollination service to plants.In the face of increasing threats to plant–pollinator interactions, understanding their basic functioning and the variation inherent in their component parts is critical. We advocate for more attention to sex‐based differences among pollinators in particular, and the consequences of intraspecific variation more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Many mutualisms are taken advantage of by organisms that take rewards from their partners but provide no benefit in return. In the absence of traits that limit exploitation, facultative exploiters (partners that can either exploit or cooperate) are widely predicted by mutualism theory to choose an exploitative strategy, potentially threatening mutualism stability. However, it is unknown whether facultative exploiters choose to exploit, and, if so, make this choice because it is the most beneficial strategy for them. We explored these questions in a subalpine plant‐insect community in which individuals of several bumble bee species visit flowers both “legitimately” (entering via the flower opening, picking up and depositing pollen, and hence behaving mutualistically) and via nectar robbing (creating holes through corollas or using an existing hole, bypassing stigmas and anthers). We applied foraging theory to (1) quantify handling costs, benefits and foraging efficiencies incurred by three bumble bee species as they visited flowers legitimately or robbed nectar in cage experiments, and (2) determine whether these efficiencies matched the food handling tactics these bee species employed in the field. Relative efficiencies of legitimate and robbing tactics depended on the combination of bee and plant species. In some cases (Bombus mixtus visiting Corydalis caseana or Mertensia ciliata), the robbing tactic permitted more efficient nectar removal. As both mutualism and foraging theory would predict, in the field, B. mixtus visiting C. caseana were observed more frequently robbing than foraging legitimately. However, for Bombus flavifrons visiting M. ciliata, the expectation from mutualism theory did not hold: legitimate visitation was the more efficient tactic. Legitimate visitation to M. ciliata was in fact more frequently observed in free‐flying B. flavifrons. Free‐flying B. mixtus also frequently visited M. ciliata flowers legitimately. This may reflect lower nectar volumes in robbed than unrobbed flowers in the field. These results suggest that a foraging ecology perspective is informative to the choice of tactics facultative exploiters make. In contrast, the simple expectation that exploiters should always have an advantage, and hence could threaten mutualism persistence unless they are deterred or punished, may not be broadly applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Premise of the Study: Organisms engage in multiple species interactions simultaneously. While pollination studies generally focus on plants and pollinators exclusively, secondary robbing, a behavior that requires other species (primary robbers) to first create access holes in corollas, is common. It has been shown that secondary robbing can reduce plants' female fitness; however, we lack knowledge about its impact on male plant fitness. Methods: We experimentally simulated primary and secondary robbing in the monocarpic perennial Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae), quantifying indirect effects on pollinator‐mediated pollen (dye) donation. We also assessed whether continual nectar removal via the floral opening has similar effects on hummingbird‐pollinator behavior as continual secondary robbing through robber holes. Key Results: We found no significant indirect effects of secondary robbing on a component of Ipomopsis male fitness. Although robbing did reduce pollen (dye) donation due to avoidance of robbed plants by pollinating hummingbirds, pollen donation did not differ between the two robbing treatments. The effects of secondary robbing on hummingbird behavior resembled effects of chronic nectar removal by pollinators. Our results indicate that hummingbird pollinators may use a combination of cues, including cues given by the presence or absence of nectar, to make foraging decisions. Conclusions: Combined with prior research, this study suggests that secondary robbing is less costly to a component of male fitness than to female fitness in Ipomopsis, broadening our knowledge of the overall costs of mutualism exploitation to total plant fitness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]