The Evolution of Host Specialization: Are Trade-Offs Overrated?

The idea that traits that adapt a population to one habitat or host are deleterious in other habitats or on other hosts is central to most theories for the evolution of ecological specialization. The trade-off concept has played an especially prominent role in discussions of the evolution of host specialization in phytophagous insects. The evidence for genetically based trade-offs in phytophagous insect populations is ambiguous, however. Cross-host genetic correlations for fitness traits are seldom negative, but this does not preclude the existence of trade-offs at a subset of loci controlling the fitness variation. One clear result is that cross-host genetic correlations for fitness traits are often less than one, which implies that genotypes have different fitness rankings on different hosts (i.e., that reaction norms for fitness cross). Using verbal arguments and a mathematical model, I show that crossing of reaction norms for fitness is a sufficient condition for selection to favor specialized host choice, in the absence of search costs and other disadvantages of specialization. In other words, selection will favor specialization if alleles that are positively selected on one host are less strongly positively selected, or neutral, on other hosts; it is not necessary for the alleles to be deleterious on the other hosts. Search costs and other factors may oppose the evolution of specialization, but introducing trade-offs into a model does not result in a quantum jump in the strength of selection favoring specialization, and thus in the likelihood of specialization evolving, compared to the situation in which alleles that affect fitness on one host are neutral on others. There is therefore no justification for focusing on the qualitative presence or absence of trade-offs as the critical issue in predicting or explaining the evolution of specialization. Furthermore, the quantitative genetic data, rather than give little information on why specialization evolves, indicate that the potential for selection to favor specialization exists in many phytophagous populations.

[1]  J. B. S. Haldane,et al.  The Effect of Variation of Fitness , 1937, The American Naturalist.

[2]  Vincent G. Dethier,et al.  EVOLUTION OF FEEDING PREFERENCES IN PHYTOPHAGOUS INSECTS , 1954 .

[3]  A. Robertson THE SAMPLING VARIANCE OF THE GENETIC CORRELATION COEFFICIENT , 1959 .

[4]  P. Raven,et al.  BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A STUDY IN COEVOLUTION , 1964 .

[5]  R. Levins Evolution in Changing Environments , 1968 .

[6]  M. Kimura,et al.  An introduction to population genetics theory , 1971 .

[7]  James F. Crow,et al.  Genetic Loads and the Cost of Natural Selection , 1970 .

[8]  C. F. Wilkinson,et al.  Detoxication Enzymes in the Guts of Caterpillars: An Evolutionary Answer to Plant Defenses? , 1971, Science.

[9]  M. Feldman,et al.  Selection for migration modification. , 1973, Genetics.

[10]  L. Schroeder Energy, matter and nitrogen utilization by the larvae of the monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus , 1976 .

[11]  L. Schroeder Energy, matter and nitrogen utilization by larvae of the milkweed tiger moth Euchaetias egle , 1977 .

[12]  J. Gillespie Natural Selection for Variances in Offspring Numbers: A New Evolutionary Principle , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[13]  R. May,et al.  Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems , 1976, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[14]  J. M. Scriber,et al.  Growth of Herbivorous Caterpillars in Relation to Feeding Specialization and to the Growth Form of Their Food Plants , 1979 .

[15]  John Maynard Smith,et al.  Polymorphism in a varied environment: how robust are the models? , 1980, Genetical research.

[16]  D. Futuyma,et al.  FOOD PLANT SPECIALIZATION AND FEEDING EFFICIENCY IN THE TENT CATERPILLARS MALACOSOMA DISSTRIA AND M. AMERICANUM , 1981 .

[17]  M. Berenbaum COUMARINS AND CATERPILLARS: A CASE FOR COEVOLUTION , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  M. Rausher CHAPTER 7 – Ecology of Host-Selection Behavior in Phytophagous Insects , 1983 .

[19]  Fred Gould,et al.  Role of Behavior in the Evolution of Insect Adaptation to Insecticides and Resistant Host Plants , 1984 .

[20]  S. Via THE QUANTITATIVE GENETICS OF POLYPHAGY IN AN INSECT HERBIVORE. II. GENETIC CORRELATIONS IN LARVAL PERFORMANCE WITHIN AND AMONG HOST PLANTS , 1984, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  J. Lawton,et al.  Insects on Plants , 1984 .

[22]  D. Futuyma,et al.  GENETIC VARIATION AND COVARIATION IN RESPONSES TO HOST PLANTS BY ALSOPHILA POMETARIA (LEPIDOPTERA: GEOMETRIDAE) , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  A. C. James,et al.  ON THE CAUSES OF MONOPHAGY IN DROSOPHILA QUINARIA , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[24]  S. Levin,et al.  PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL ADAPTATION TO VARYING ENVIRONMENTS: A MATHEMATICAL MODEL , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[25]  D. P. Pashley QUANTITATIVE GENETICS, DEVELOPMENT, AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ADAPTATION IN HOST STRAINS OF FALL ARMYWORM , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[26]  E. Bernays,et al.  On the Evolution of Host Specificity in Phytophagous Arthropods , 1988 .

[27]  D. Futuyma,et al.  The Evolution of Ecological Specialization , 1988 .

[28]  Lawrence S. Kroll Mathematica--A System for Doing Mathematics by Computer. , 1989 .

[29]  D. Karowe PREDICTING HOST RANGE EVOLUTION: COLONIZATION OF CORONILLA VARIA BY COLIAS PHILODICE (LEPIDOPTERA: PIERIDAE) , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[30]  J. Jaenike Host Specialization in Phytophagous Insects , 1990 .

[31]  B. Charlesworth OPTIMIZATION MODELS, QUANTITATIVE GENETICS, AND MUTATION , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[32]  D. Futuyma,et al.  PHYLOGENY AND THE EVOLUTION OF HOST PLANT ASSOCIATIONS IN THE LEAF BEETLE GENUS OPHRAELLA (COLEOPTERA, CHRYSOMELIDAE) , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[33]  T. Nagylaki,et al.  Error bounds for the fundamental and secondary theorems of natural selection. , 1991, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  S. Via THE GENETIC STRUCTURE OF HOST PLANT ADAPTATION IN A SPATIAL PATCHWORK: DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABILITY AMONG RECIPROCALLY TRANSPLANTED PEA APHID CLONES , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[35]  D. Houle GENETIC COVARIANCE OF FITNESS CORRELATES: WHAT GENETIC CORRELATIONS ARE MADE OF AND WHY IT MATTERS , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[36]  J. D. Fry THE “GENERAL VIGOR” PROBLEM: CAN ANTAGONISTIC PLEIOTROPY BE DETECTED WHEN GENETIC COVARIANCES ARE POSITIVE? , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[37]  C. Fox A QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF OVIPOSITION PREFERENCE AND LARVAL PERFORMANCE ON TWO HOSTS IN THE BRUCHID BEETLE, CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[38]  M. Whitlock The Red Queen Beats the Jack-Of-All-Trades: The Limitations on the Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity and Niche Breadth , 1996, The American Naturalist.