EXPLAINING MUTUALISM VARIATION: A NEW EVOLUTIONARY PARADOX?

The paradox of mutualism is typically framed as the persistence of interspecific cooperation, despite the potential advantages of cheating. Thus, mutualism research has tended to focus on stabilizing mechanisms that prevent the invasion of low‐quality partners. These mechanisms alone cannot explain the persistence of variation for partner quality observed in nature, leaving a large gap in our understanding of how mutualisms evolve. Studying partner quality variation is necessary for applying genetically explicit models to predict evolution in natural populations, a necessary step for understanding the origins of mutualisms as well as their ongoing dynamics. An evolutionary genetic approach, which is focused on naturally occurring mutualist variation, can potentially synthesize the currently disconnected fields of mutualism evolution and coevolutionary genetics. We outline explanations for the maintenance of genetic variation for mutualism and suggest approaches necessary to address them.

[1]  H. Grüneberg,et al.  Introduction to quantitative genetics , 1960 .

[2]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[3]  R. Trivers The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism , 1971, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[4]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

[5]  S. J. Arnold,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF SELECTION ON CORRELATED CHARACTERS , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[6]  M. Turelli Effects of pleiotropy on predictions concerning mutation-selection balance for polygenic traits. , 1985, Genetics.

[7]  R. Law,et al.  On the evolution of non-specific mutualism , 1986 .

[8]  J. Thompson,et al.  VARIATION IN INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTIONS , 1988 .

[9]  M. Turelli,et al.  Genotype-environment interactions and the maintenance of polygenic variation. , 1989, Genetics.

[10]  J. Bull,et al.  Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of co-operation. , 1991, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  J. Bronstein Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  M. Parker Plant Fitness Variation Caused by Different Mutualist Genotypes , 1995 .

[13]  Steven A. Frank,et al.  Models of Parasite Virulence , 1996, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[14]  M. Doebeli,et al.  The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  J. Bever Dynamics within mutualism and the maintenance of diversity: inference from a model of interguild frequency dependence , 1999 .

[16]  M. Parker Mutualism in Metapopulations of Legumes and Rhizobia , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[17]  R. Gomulkiewicz,et al.  COEVOLUTIONARY CLINES ACROSS SELECTION MOSAICS , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  AN EMPIRICAL MODEL OF SPECIES COEXISTENCE IN A SPATIALLY STRUCTURED ENVIRONMENT , 2001 .

[19]  DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS AND GENETIC VARIATION FOR FLOWER SIZE IN MIMULUS GUTTATUS , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[20]  E D Brodie,et al.  THE EVOLUTIONARY RESPONSE OF PREDATORS TO DANGEROUS PREY: HOTSPOTS AND COLDSPOTS IN THE GEOGRAPHIC MOSAIC OF COEVOLUTION BETWEEN GARTER SNAKES AND NEWTS , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  R. Bshary,et al.  Experimental evidence that partner choice is a driving force in the payoff distribution among cooperators or mutualists: the cleaner fish case , 2002 .

[22]  S. Rinaldi,et al.  Cheating and the evolutionary stability of mutualisms , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  S. West,et al.  Sanctions and mutualism stability: why do rhizobia fix nitrogen? , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[24]  Craig W. Benkman,et al.  Reciprocal Selection Causes a Coevolutionary Arms Race between Crossbills and Lodgepole Pine , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[25]  Jason D. Hoeksema,et al.  Ecological Persistence of the Plant‐Mycorrhizal Mutualism: A Hypothesis from Species Coexistence Theory , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[26]  R. Gomulkiewicz,et al.  Coevolution in Temporally Variable Environments , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[27]  S. West,et al.  Host sanctions and the legume–rhizobium mutualism , 2003, Nature.

[28]  E. Kiers,et al.  Lifestyle alternatives for rhizobia: mutualism, parasitism, and forgoing symbiosis. , 2004, FEMS microbiology letters.

[29]  R. Rousseau,et al.  Measured sanctions: Legume hosts detect quantitative variation in rhizobium cooperation and punish accordingly , 2006 .

[30]  J. Thompson,et al.  Temporal dynamics of antagonism and mutualism in a geographically variable plant-insect interaction. , 2006, Ecology.

[31]  K. Foster,et al.  Cheating can stabilize cooperation in mutualisms , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  M. Wade The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities , 2007, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[33]  K. Heath,et al.  Context dependence in the coevolution of plant and rhizobial mutualists , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  D. Goldstein,et al.  Which evolutionary processes influence natural genetic variation for phenotypic traits? , 2007, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[35]  J. Hoeksema,et al.  Geographic structure in a widespread plant–mycorrhizal interaction: pines and false truffles , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[36]  J. Stinchcombe,et al.  An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[37]  Judith L Bronstein,et al.  Evolution and persistence of obligate mutualists and exploiters: competition for partners and evolutionary immunization. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[38]  R. Lande The maintenance of genetic variability by mutation in a polygenic character with linked loci. , 2007, Genetical research.

[39]  P. Keightley,et al.  A Comparison of Models to Infer the Distribution of Fitness Effects of New Mutations , 2013, Genetics.

[40]  R. Gomulkiewicz,et al.  Dos and don'ts of testing the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution , 2007, Heredity.

[41]  S. Gandon,et al.  Moving beyond Common‐Garden and Transplant Designs: Insight into the Causes of Local Adaptation in Species Interactions , 2008, The American Naturalist.

[42]  J. Hoeksema,et al.  Interactions of biotic and abiotic environmental factors in an ectomycorrhizal symbiosis, and the potential for selection mosaics , 2008, BMC Biology.

[43]  S. Nuismer,et al.  The contribution of parasitism to selection on floral traits in Heuchera grossulariifolia , 2008, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[44]  S. Johnson,et al.  THE GEOGRAPHICAL MOSAIC OF COEVOLUTION IN A PLANT–POLLINATOR MUTUALISM , 2007, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[45]  L. Clement,et al.  Divergent investment strategies of Acacia myrmecophytes and the coexistence of mutualists and exploiters , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  B. Walsh,et al.  Abundant Genetic Variation + Strong Selection = Multivariate Genetic Constraints: A Geometric View of Adaptation , 2009 .

[47]  K. Heath,et al.  Stabilizing Mechanisms in a Legume-Rhizobium Mutualism , 2009, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[48]  R. Preziosi,et al.  Community genetic interactions mediate indirect ecological effects between a parasitoid wasp and rhizobacteria. , 2010, Ecology.

[49]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Economic contract theory tests models of mutualism , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  K. Heath,et al.  INTERGENOMIC EPISTASIS AND COEVOLUTIONARY CONSTRAINT IN PLANTS AND RHIZOBIA , 2010, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[51]  M. Friesen,et al.  Mixed infections may promote diversification of mutualistic symbionts: why are there ineffective rhizobia? , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[52]  E. Simms,et al.  Origins of cheating and loss of symbiosis in wild Bradyrhizobium , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[53]  E. Leigh The evolution of mutualism , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[54]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Let the Right One In: A Microeconomic Approach to Partner Choice in Mutualisms , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[55]  Jason D. Hoeksema,et al.  Ongoing coevolution in mycorrhizal interactions. , 2010, The New phytologist.

[56]  J. McNamara,et al.  Variation and the response to variation as a basis for successful cooperation , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[57]  K. Heath,et al.  Mutualism variation in the nodulation response to nitrate , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[58]  M. Whitlock,et al.  NO EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HETEROGENEITY ON THE MAINTENANCE OF GENETIC VARIATION IN WING SHAPE IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER , 2010, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[59]  D. Doak,et al.  Synergy of multiple partners, including freeloaders, increases host fitness in a multispecies mutualism , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[60]  E. Kiers,et al.  The biological reality of host sanctions and partner fidelity , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[61]  Erol Akçay,et al.  Negotiation, Sanctions, and Context Dependency in the Legume-Rhizobium Mutualism , 2011, The American Naturalist.

[62]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Economic game theory for mutualism and cooperation. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[63]  Joel L. Sachs,et al.  Evolutionary Instability of Symbiotic Function in Bradyrhizobium japonicum , 2011, PloS one.

[64]  James K. M. Brown,et al.  Plant-parasite coevolution: bridging the gap between genetics and ecology. , 2011, Annual review of phytopathology.

[65]  Martin M Turcotte,et al.  New paradigms for the evolution of beneficial infections. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[66]  István Scheuring,et al.  COEXISTENCE OF COOPERATION AND DEFECTION IN PUBLIC GOODS GAMES , 2011, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[67]  Marc T. J. Johnson,et al.  Community genetics: what have we accomplished and where should we be going? , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[68]  Hiding in a crowd—does diversity facilitate persistence of a low-quality fungal partner in the mycorrhizal symbiosis? , 2012, Symbiosis.

[69]  R. Ferrière,et al.  The fundamental role of competition in the ecology and evolution of mutualisms , 2012, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[70]  H. Hoekstra,et al.  Molecular spandrels: tests of adaptation at the genetic level , 2011, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[71]  P. Thrall,et al.  Geographic adaptation in plant–soil mutualisms: tests using Acacia spp. and rhizobial bacteria , 2012 .

[72]  Rebecca E. Irwin,et al.  Precision of host sanctions in the fig tree-fig wasp mutualism: consequences for uncooperative symbionts. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[73]  J. Conner QUANTITATIVE GENETIC APPROACHES TO EVOLUTIONARY CONSTRAINT: HOW USEFUL? , 2012, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[74]  M. Rausher,et al.  EVOLUTION OF RESISTANCE TO A MULTIPLE‐HERBIVORE COMMUNITY: GENETIC CORRELATIONS, DIFFUSE COEVOLUTION, AND CONSTRAINTS ON THE PLANT'S RESPONSE TO SELECTION , 2013, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[75]  M. Archetti,et al.  Trading public goods stabilizes interspecific mutualism. , 2013, Journal of theoretical biology.

[76]  Megan E Frederickson,et al.  Rethinking Mutualism Stability: Cheaters and the Evolution of Sanctions , 2013, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[77]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  COEVOLUTION AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF MUTUALISTIC NETWORKS , 2013, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[78]  A. Griffin,et al.  TOWARD AN EVOLUTIONARY DEFINITION OF CHEATING , 2014, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.