Cheating can stabilize cooperation in mutualisms

Mutualisms present a challenge for evolutionary theory. How is cooperation maintained in the face of selection for selfishness and cheating? Both theory and data suggest that partner choice, where one species preferentially directs aid to the more cooperative members of the other species, is central to cooperation in many mutualisms. However, the theory has only so far considered the evolutionary effects of partner choice on one of the species in a mutualism in isolation. Here, we investigate the co-evolution of cooperation and choice in a choosy host and its symbiont. Our model reveals that even though choice and cooperation may be initially selected, it will often be unstable. This is because choice reduces variation in the symbiont and, therefore, tends to remove the selective incentive for its own maintenance (a scenario paralleled in the lek paradox in female choice and policing in within-species cooperation). However, we also show that when variability is reintroduced into symbionts each generation, in the form of less cooperative individuals, choice is maintained. This suggests that the presence of cheaters and cheater species in many mutualisms is central to the maintenance of partner choice and, paradoxically, cooperation itself.

[1]  S. Washburn The evolution of man. , 1978, Scientific American.

[2]  R. Connor Pseudo-reciprocity: Investing in mutualism , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES II. THE “HANDICAP” PRINCIPLE , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[4]  M. Kirkpatrick,et al.  The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek , 1991, Nature.

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

[6]  Yoh Iwasa,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES I. FISHER AND BIASED MUTATION , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[7]  J. Clegg,et al.  The physiological significance of metabolite channeling: an idea whose time has come. , 1991, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  S. Frank Genetics of mutualism: the evolution of altruism between species. , 1994, Journal of theoretical biology.

[9]  O. Pellmyr,et al.  Evolutionary stability of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths , 1994, Nature.

[10]  R. Connor The Benefits of Mutualism: A Conceptual Framework , 1995 .

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

[12]  Bao,et al.  Cheating in mutualism: defection of Yucca baccata against its yucca moths , 1998 .

[13]  L. Eguiarte,et al.  Why be a honeyless honey mesquite? Reproduction and mating system of nectarful and nectarless individuals. , 1999, American journal of botany.

[14]  U. Mueller,et al.  The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[15]  A. Grutter Cleaner fish really do clean , 1999, Nature.

[16]  J. Burdon,et al.  Variation in the effectiveness of symbiotic associations between native rhizobia and temperate Australian Acacia: within‐species interactions , 1999 .

[17]  Edward G. Ruby,et al.  Vibrio fischeri lux Genes Play an Important Role in Colonization and Development of the Host Light Organ , 2000, Journal of bacteriology.

[18]  J. Burdon,et al.  Variation in the effectiveness of symbiotic associations between native rhizobia and temperate Australian legumes: interactions within and between genera , 2000 .

[19]  T. Sherratt,et al.  Horizontally acquired mutualisms, an unsolved problem in ecology? , 2001 .

[20]  C. Currie,et al.  Weeding and grooming of pathogens in agriculture by ants , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[21]  N. Barton,et al.  Multifactorial genetics: Understanding quantitative genetic variation , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[22]  R. Bshary,et al.  Asymmetric cheating opportunities and partner control in a cleaner fish mutualism , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

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

[24]  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.

[25]  Stuart A. West,et al.  Sanctions and mutualism stability: when should less beneficial mutualists be tolerated? , 2002 .

[26]  R. Johnstone,et al.  From parasitism to mutualism: partner control in asymmetric interactions , 2002 .

[27]  A. Smithson,et al.  The Evolution of Empty Flowers Revisited , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[28]  H. Kokko,et al.  The evolution of mate choice and mating biases , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

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

[30]  S. Frank REPRESSION OF COMPETITION AND THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION , 2003 .

[31]  B. Hause,et al.  Review Paper: Arbuscular Mycorrhiza: Biological, Chemical, and Molecular Aspects , 2003, Journal of Chemical Ecology.

[32]  S. Frank PERSPECTIVE: REPRESSION OF COMPETITION AND THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION , 2003 .

[33]  W. Wilson,et al.  COEXISTENCE OF MUTUALISTS AND EXPLOITERS ON SPATIAL LANDSCAPES , 2003 .

[34]  Andy Gardner,et al.  Cooperation and Punishment, Especially in Humans , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[35]  M. Higashi,et al.  Evolution of mutualism through spatial effects. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

[36]  U. Mueller,et al.  Symbiont choice in a fungus-growing ant (Attini, Formicidae) , 2004 .

[37]  J. Bull,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation , 2004, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[38]  J. L. Tomkins,et al.  Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[39]  P. Hammerstein,et al.  Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating , 1994, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[40]  J. Boomsma,et al.  Mutualistic Fungi Control Crop Diversity in Fungus-Growing Ants , 2005, Science.

[41]  T. Wilcox,et al.  A shift to parasitism in the jellyfish symbiont Symbiodinium microadriaticum , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[42]  E. Simms,et al.  An empirical test of partner choice mechanisms in a wild legume–rhizobium interaction , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[43]  K R Foster,et al.  A general model for the evolution of mutualisms , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[44]  K. Foster,et al.  Conflict resolution in insect societies. , 2006, Annual review of entomology.

[45]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild , 2006, Nature.

[46]  H. Kokko,et al.  Unifying and Testing Models of Sexual Selection , 2006 .