Coevolution between hosts and parasites with partially overlapping geographic ranges

Many host species interact with a specific parasite within only a fraction of their geographical range. Where host and parasite overlap geographically, selection may be reciprocal constituting a coevolutionary hot spot. Host evolution, however, may be driven primarily by selection imposed by alternative biotic or abiotic factors that occur outside such hot spots. To evaluate the importance of coevolutionary hot spots for host and parasite evolution, we analyse a spatially explicit genetic model for a host that overlaps with a parasite in only part of its geographical range. Our results show that there is a critical amount of overlap beyond which reciprocal selection leads to a coevolutionary response in the host. This critical amount of overlap depends upon the explicit spatial configuration of hot spots. When the amount of overlap exceeds this first critical level, host–parasite coevolution commonly generates stable allele frequency clines rather than oscillations. It is within this region that one of the primary predictions of the geographic mosaic theory is realized, and local maladaptation is prevalent in both species. Past a further threshold of overlap between the species oscillations do evolve, but allele frequencies in both species are spatially synchronous and local maladaptation is absent in both species. A consequence of such transitions between coevolutionary dynamics is that parasite adaptation is inversely proportional to the fraction of its host's range that it occupies. Hence, as the geographical range of a parasite increases, it becomes increasingly maladapted to the host. This suggests a novel mechanism through which the geographical range of parasites may be limited.

[1]  P. Abrams The Evolution of Predator-Prey Interactions: Theory and Evidence , 2000 .

[2]  D. Ebert,et al.  TEMPORAL PATTERNS OF GENETIC VARIATION FOR RESISTANCE AND INFECTIVITY IN A DAPHNIA‐MICROPARASITE SYSTEM , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  M. Slatkin Gene flow and selection in a cline. , 1973, Genetics.

[4]  M. Woolhouse,et al.  Parasite―host coevolution and geographic patterns of parasite infectivity and host susceptibility , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  J. Burdon,et al.  Evolution of gene‐for‐gene systems in metapopulations: the effect of spatial scale of host and pathogen dispersal , 2002 .

[6]  C. Benkman,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF A COMPETITOR ON THE GEOGRAPHIC MOSAIC OF COEVOLUTION BETWEEN CROSSBILLS AND LODGEPOLE PINE , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[7]  J. Burdon,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Coevolving Plant and Pathogen Associations , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[8]  GENE FLOW AND THE COEVOLUTION OF PARASITE RANGE , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[10]  M. Taper,et al.  Interspecific Competition, Environmental Gradients, Gene Flow, and the Coevolution of Species' Borders , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[11]  M. Kirkpatrick,et al.  Evolution of a Species' Range , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[12]  Peter H. Thrall,et al.  The spatial scale of pathogen dispersal: Consequences for disease dynamics and persistence , 1999 .

[13]  Thomas L. Parchman,et al.  DIVERSIFYING COEVOLUTION BETWEEN CROSSBILLS AND BLACK SPRUCE ON NEWFOUNDLAND , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[14]  S G,et al.  Coevolutionary Chase in Two-species Systems with Applications to Mimicry , 1998 .

[15]  J. Seger Dynamics of some simple host-parasite models with more than two genotypes in each species. , 1988, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[16]  H. Godfray,et al.  Geographic Patterns in the Evolution of Resistance and Virulence in Drosophila and Its Parasitoids , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[17]  J. Thompson,et al.  Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection , 2002, Nature.

[18]  J. Roughgarden,et al.  Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology , 1979 .

[19]  Curtis M. Lively,et al.  Infection genetics: gene-for-gene versus matching-alleles models and all points in between , 2002 .

[20]  A. Sih,et al.  GENE FLOW AND INEFFECTIVE ANTIPREDATOR BEHAVIOR IN A STREAM‐BREEDING SALAMANDER , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  T. Nagylaki,et al.  Conditions for the existence of clines. , 1975, Genetics.

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

[23]  A. Sasaki Host-parasite coevolution in a multilocus gene-for-gene system , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[24]  E. Brodie,et al.  COSTS OF EXPLOITING POISONOUS PREY: EVOLUTIONARY TRADE‐OFFS IN A PREDATOR‐PREY ARMS RACE , 1999, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[25]  M. Moody,et al.  Coevolutionary interactions between a haploid species and a diploid species , 2001, Journal of mathematical biology.

[26]  A. D. Peters,et al.  The Red Queen and Fluctuating Epistasis: A Population Genetic Analysis of Antagonistic Coevolution , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[27]  B. M. Greenwood,et al.  Natural selection of hemi- and heterozygotes for G6PD deficiency in Africa by resistance to severe malaria , 1995, Nature.

[28]  S. Gandon,et al.  Local adaptation, evolutionary potential and host–parasite coevolution: interactions between migration, mutation, population size and generation time , 2002 .

[29]  C. Lively Migration, Virulence, and the Geographic Mosaic of Adaptation by Parasites , 1999, American Naturalist.

[30]  J. Thompson,et al.  The Coevolutionary Process , 1994 .

[31]  Damgaard,et al.  Coevolution of a plant host-pathogen gene-for-gene system in a metapopulation model without cost of resistance or cost of virulence , 1999, Journal of theoretical biology.

[32]  C. Benkman The Selection Mosaic and Diversifying Coevolution between Crossbills and Lodgepole Pine , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[33]  S. Gandon,et al.  Local adaptation and host-parasite interactions. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[34]  S. Gavrilets,et al.  Coevolutionary chase on exploiter-victim systems with polygenic characters. , 1997, Journal of theoretical biology.

[35]  M. Doebeli Genetic Variation and Persistence of Predator-prey Interactions in the Nicholson–Bailey Model , 1997 .

[36]  S. Gandon Local adaptation and the geometry of host–parasite coevolution , 2002 .

[37]  M. Baalen,et al.  Antagonistic Coevolution over Productivity Gradients , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[38]  C. Stringer,et al.  Evolution of a species , 1985 .

[39]  S. Gandon,et al.  Local adaptation and gene-for-gene coevolution in a metapopulation model , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[40]  Mark Kirkpatrick,et al.  GENETIC MODELS OF ADAPTATION AND GENE FLOW IN PERIPHERAL POPULATIONS , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[41]  George W. Tyler,et al.  The Evolution of Species , 1871, The British and foreign medico-chirurgical review.

[42]  S. Gandon,et al.  LOCAL MALADAPTATION IN THE ANTHER‐SMUT FUNGUS MICROBOTRYUM VIOLACEUM TO ITS HOST PLANT SILENE LATIFOLIA: EVIDENCE FROM A CROSS‐INOCULATION EXPERIMENT , 1999, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[43]  R. Gomulkiewicz,et al.  Hot Spots, Cold Spots, and the Geographic Mosaic Theory of Coevolution , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[44]  R. Gomulkiewicz,et al.  Gene flow and geographically structured coevolution , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[45]  A. Møller,et al.  GENETIC AND GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN REJECTION BEHAVIOR OF CUCKOO EGGS BY EUROPEAN MAGPIE POPULATIONS: AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF REJECTER‐GENE FLOW , 1999, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[46]  J. J. Emerson,et al.  Models and data on plant-enemy coevolution. , 2001, Annual review of genetics.

[47]  C. Lively,et al.  Spatial variation in susceptibility to infection in a snail–trematode interaction , 2000, Parasitology.

[48]  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.

[49]  R. Gomulkiewicz,et al.  How Does Immigration Influence Local Adaptation? A Reexamination of a Familiar Paradigm , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[50]  J. Bever,et al.  LOCAL ADAPTATION IN THE LINUM MARGINALE—MELAMPSORA LINI HOST‐PATHOGEN INTERACTION , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[51]  J. Enjalbert,et al.  Evolution of resistance against powdery mildew in winter wheat populations conducted under dynamic management. II. Adult plant resistance , 2000, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[52]  Nicholson,et al.  Genetic Variation and the Persistence of Predator-prey Interactions in the Nicholson – Bailey Model , 1997 .

[53]  C. Lively,et al.  Clinal variation for local adaptation in a host-parasite interaction , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[54]  M. Woolhouse,et al.  Cost of resistance: relationship between reduced fertility and increased resistance in a snail—schistosome host—parasite system , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[55]  Thompson,et al.  Weak sinks could cradle mutualistic symbioses – strong sources should harbour parasitic symbioses , 2000 .