The Stability and Persistence of Mutualisms Embedded in Community Interactions

In this paper we argue that two-species models of mutualism may be oversimplifications of the real world that lead to erroneous predictions. We present a four-species model of a pollination mutualism embedded in other types of community interactions. Conclusions derived from two-species models about the destabilizing effect of mutualisms are misleading when applied to the present scenario; although the mutualisms are locally destabilizing, the effect is more than canceled by an increased chance of feasibility. The crucial difference is the interaction of the mutualists with other species in a larger web. Furthermore, community persistence (without unrealistic population explosion), arguably a superior ecological criterion, is greatly enhanced by the presence of mutualisms. Therefore, we predict that mutualisms should be common in the real world, a prediction matching empirial findings and in contrast to the predictions from local stability analysis of basic two-species models. This method of stabilizing a mutualism appears superior in some ways to the often-used method of introducing density dependence in the strength of the mutualism, because it permits obligate mutualisms to exist even at low densities, again matching empirical findings. Lastly, this study is an example of how complex model assemblages can behave qualitatively differently from analogous simpler ones.     

Mutualisms in a changing world: an evolutionary perspective

Ecology Letters (2010) 13: 1459-1474 ABSTRACT: There is growing concern that rapid environmental degradation threatens mutualistic interactions. Because mutualisms can bind species to a common fate, mutualism breakdown has the potential to expand and accelerate effects of global change on biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption. The current focus on the ecological dynamics of mutualism under global change has skirted fundamental evolutionary issues. Here, we develop an evolutionary perspective on mutualism breakdown to complement the ecological perspective, by focusing on three processes: (1) shifts from mutualism to antagonism, (2) switches to novel partners and (3) mutualism abandonment. We then identify the evolutionary factors that may make particular classes of mutualisms especially susceptible or resistant to breakdown and discuss how communities harbouring mutualisms may be affected by these evolutionary responses. We propose a template for evolutionary research on mutualism resilience and identify conservation approaches that may help conserve targeted mutualisms in the face of environmental change.     

Interactions between seed predators/pollinators and their host plants: a first step towards mutualism?

The mutualisms between fig trees and their pollinator fig wasps and between yucca plants and yucca moths are spectacular examples of coevolution. The characteristics of these independently evolved mutualisms have resulted from long‐term processes, the first stages of which are unknown. A fundamental question in the study of mutualism is how these interactions evolve. Seed predator/pollinator and host plant interactions, which may initially be considered as mainly antagonistic, have the potential to provide good model systems for the study of the first stages of evolution towards mutualism. We present here theoretical models assessing the consequences of interactions between specialized seed predator insects and their host plants. These models describe the parameters that affect the fitness of an individual female seed predator and her influence on the fitness of the host plant. In an optimal strategy for the seed predator, the number of eggs laid in each flower depends on the interaction between the adult and larva survival. Along with a growing predation pressure on adults and larvae several eggs must be laid in each flower by the female seed predator to enhance her fitness. However, in a situation where the host plant selectively aborts flowers with a high number of eggs the fitness of the seed predator will seriously decrease. If the cost of selective abortion is less than the cost of seed predation the host plant will maintain fitness. In a mutualistic relationship a balance between the cost and the benefit of the parameters in the fitness models of the seed predator and the host plant has to occur so that the net seed output is larger than zero (0). Any unselfish behaviour or quality of the seed predator that would benefit the host plant in such a way that the net seed output increases might be a first stage in an interaction becoming mutualistic. The models presented here will not only provide a platform for empirical studies on interactions that may swing from parasitism to mutualism, but also for seed predator/pollinator and host plant interactions in general.     

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.     

Partner choice in nitrogen-fixation mutualisms of legumes and rhizobia

Mutualistic interactions are widespread and obligatory for manyorganisms, yet their evolutionary persistence in the face ofcheating is theoretically puzzling. Nutrient-acquisition symbiosesbetween plants and soil microbes are critically important toplant evolution and ecosystem function, yet we know almost nothingabout the evolutionary dynamics and mechanisms of persistenceof these ancient mutualisms. Partner-choice and partner-fidelityare mechanisms for dealing with cheaters, and can theoreticallyallow mutualisms to persist despite cheaters. Many models of cooperative behavior assume pairwise interactions,while most plant-microbe nutrient-acquisition symbioses involvea single plant interacting with numerous microbes. Market models,in contrast, are well suited to mutualisms in which single plantsattempt to conduct mutually beneficial resource exchange withmultiple individuals. Market models assume that one partnerchooses to trade with a subset of individuals selected froma market of potential partners. Hence, determining whether partner-choiceoccurs in plant-microbe mutualisms is critical to understandingthe evolutionary persistence and dynamics of these symbioses.The nitrogen-fixation/carbon-fixation mutualism between leguminousplants and rhizobial bacteria is widespread, ancient, and importantfor ecosystem function and human nutrition. It also involvessingle plants interacting simultaneously with several to manybacterial partners, including ineffective ("cheating") strains.We review the existing literature and find that this mutualismdisplays several elements of partner-choice, and may match therequirements of the market paradigm. We conclude by identifyingprofitable questions for future research.     

Global stability of obligate mutualism in community modules with facultative mutualists

Mutualism is a fundamental building block of ecological communities and an important driver of biotic evolution. Classic theory suggests that a pairwise two‐species obligate mutualism is fragile, with a large perturbation potentially driving both mutualist populations into extinction. In nature, however, there are many cases of pairwise obligate mutualism. Such pairwise obligate mutualisms are occasionally associated with additional interactions with facultative mutualists. Here, we use a mathematical model to show that when a two‐species obligate mutualism has a single additional link to a third facultative mutualist, the obligate mutualism can become permanently persistent. In the model, a facultative mutualist interacts with one of two inter‐dependent obligate mutualists, and the facultative mutualist enhances the persistence not only of its directly interacting obligate mutualist, but also that of the other obligate mutualist indirectly, enabling the permanent coexistence of the three mutualist species. The effect of the facultative mutualist is strong; it can allow a three‐species permanent coexistence even when two obligate mutualists by themselves are not sustainable (i.e. not locally stable). These results suggest that facultative mutualists can play a pivotal role for the persistence of obligate mutualisms, and contribute to a better understanding on the mechanisms maintaining more complex mutualistic networks of multiple species.     

榕-传粉榕小蜂间的专一性与协同进化

共生体系的长期维持引发了一系列进化问题, 特别是共生双方的相互适应、协同进化成为进化理论的一大挑战。榕和传粉榕小蜂是目前所知的专性最强的共生体系之一, 两者异常丰富的物种组成以及宿主多样的生活型为以上问题的研究提供了理想的体系。早期认为榕与其传粉小蜂间均为狭义协同进化, 一对一原则在该体系中具有普适性。然而近年来发现越来越多的例外, 特别是宿主转移现象在某些地区、某些榕属类群中的普遍存在, 使榕及其传粉小蜂间严格的物种专一性及协同进化发生在物种水平的观点受到质疑, 最近提出了一个新的协同进化模式来解释榕与其传粉小蜂的对应关系。榕与传粉小蜂间的进化模式说明两者间既有狭义的协同进化, 也有发散协同进化关系, 从而导致它们之间物种专一性不同。目前, 两种协同进化模式在该系统中的相对重要性仍存在很大争议, 不同地区、不同榕属类群中两者的物种专一性程度和产生原因可能有很大差异, 榕与传粉榕小蜂系统的复杂性决定了不能将某些地区和某些类群的结论简单扩展, 有关该体系协同进化主导模式的正确评判有待于对不同地区和不同榕属类群对应传粉小蜂的物种组成、来源方式, 以及共生双方的系统发生关系进行更广泛、更深入的研究。     

Tolerance traits and the stability of mutualism

Identifying factors which allow the evolution and persistence of cooperative interactions between species is a fundamental issue in evolutionary ecology. Various hypotheses have been suggested which generally focus on mechanisms that allow cooperative genotypes in different species to maintain interactions over space and time. Here, we emphasise the fact that even within mutualisms (interactions with net positive fitness effects for both partners), there may still be inherent costs, such as the occasional predation by ants upon aphids. Individuals engaged in mutualisms benefit from minimising these costs as long as it is not at the expense of breaking the interspecific interaction, which offers a net positive benefit. The most common and obvious defence traits to minimise interspecific interaction costs are resistance traits, which act to reduce encounter rate between two organisms. Tolerance traits, in contrast, minimise fitness costs to the actor, but without reducing encounter rate. Given that, by definition, it is beneficial to remain in mutualistic interactions, the only viable traits to minimise costs are tolerance-based 'defence' strategies. Thus, we propose that tolerance traits are an important factor promoting stability in mutualisms. Furthermore, because resistance traits tend to propagate coevolutionary arms races between antagonists, whilst tolerance traits do not, we also suggest that tolerance-based defence strategies may be important in facilitating the transition from antagonistic interactions into mutualisms. For example, the mutualism between ants and aphids has been suggested to have evolved from parasitism. We describe how phenotypic plasticity in honeydew production may be a tolerance trait that has prevented escalation into an antagonistic arms race and instead led to mutualistic coevolution.     

Parasites of mutualisms

Cooperation invites cheating, and nowhere is this more apparent than when different species cooperate, known as mutualism. In almost all mutualisms studied, specialist parasites have been identified that purloin the benefits that one mutualist provides another. Explaining how parasites are kept from driving mutualisms extinct remains an unsolved problem because existing theories explaining the maintenance of cooperation do not apply to parasites of mutualisms. Nonetheless, these theories can be summarized in such a way as to suggest how mutualisms can persist in the face of parasites. (1) For cooperation to occur, the recipient of a benefit must reciprocate, and the recriprocated benefit must be captured by the initial giver or its offspring. (2) For cooperation to persist, the mutualism must be re-assembled each generation. Because most mutualisms are of the "by-product' type, broadly defined, the first condition is normally always fulfilled. Thus, the maintenance of mutualism usually requires enforcement of the second condition: reliable re-assembly. Hence, I argue that the persistence of mutualism is best understood by using theories of species coexistence, because each mutualist can be considered a resource for the other, and species coexistence theory explains how multiple taxa (e.g. parasites and mutualists) can stably partition a resource over multiple generations. This approach connects the study of mutualism to theories of population regulation and helps to identify key factors that have promoted the evolution, maintenance and breakdown of mutualism. I discuss how these ideas might apply to and be tested in ant-plant, fig-wasp and yucca-moth mutualisms.     

The Costs of Mutualism

Mutualisms are of central importance in biological systems.Despite growing attention in recent years, however, few conceptualthemes have yet to be identified that span mutualisms differingin natural history. Here I examine the idea that the ecologyand evolution of mutualisms are shaped by diverse costs, notonly by the benefits they confer. This concept helps link mutualismto antagonisms such as herbivory, predation, and parasitism,interactions defined largely by the existence of costs. I firstbriefly review the range of costs associated with mutualisms,then describe how one cost, the consumption of seeds by pollinatoroffspring, was quantified for one fig/pollinator mutualism.I compare this cost to published values for other fig/pollinatormutualisms and for other kinds of pollinating seed parasitemutualisms, notably the yucca/yucca moth interaction. I thendiscuss four issues that fundamentally complicate comparativestudies of the cost of mutualism: problems of knowing how tomeasure the magnitude of any one cost accurately; problems associatedwith using average estimates in the absence of data on sourcesof variation; complications arising from the complex correlatesof costs, such as functional linkages between costs and benefits;and problems that arise from considering the cost of mutualismas a unilateral issue in what is fundamentally a reciprocalinteraction. The rich diversity of as-yet unaddressed questionssurrounding the costs of mutualism may best be investigatedvia detailed studies of individual interactions.     

Phenological shifts and the fate of mutualisms

Climate change is altering the timing of life history events in a wide array of species, many of which are involved in mutualistic interactions. Because many mutualisms can form only if partner species are able to locate each other in time, differential phenological shifts are likely to influence their strength, duration and outcome. At the extreme, climate change‐driven shifts in phenology may result in phenological mismatch: the partial or complete loss of temporal overlap of mutualistic species. We have a growing understanding of how, when, and why phenological change can alter one type of mutualism–pollination. However, as we show here, there has been a surprising lack of attention to other types of mutualism. We generate a set of predictions about the characteristics that may predispose mutualisms in general to phenological mismatches. We focus not on the consequences of such mismatches but rather on the likelihood that mismatches will develop. We explore the influence of three key characteristics of mutualism: 1) intimacy, 2) seasonality and duration, and 3) obligacy and specificity. We predict that the following characteristics of mutualism may increase the likelihood of phenological mismatch: 1) a non‐symbiotic life history in which co‐dispersal is absent; 2) brief, seasonal interactions; and 3) facultative, generalized interactions. We then review the limited available data in light of our a priori predictions and point to mutualisms that are more and less likely to be at risk of becoming phenologically mismatched, emphasizing the need for research on mutualisms other than plant–pollinator interactions. Future studies should explicitly focus on mutualism characteristics to determine whether and how changing phenologies will affect mutualistic interactions.     

Stability properties of 2-species models of mutualism: Simulation studies

Summary Most previous analyses of the stability properties of models of mutualism have emphasized the destabilizing effects of mutualism. However, these analyses can be shown to be based upon inappropriate assumptions, or to be applicable only for special cases of mutualism. In this paper three basic 2-species models of mutualism are presented and their six combinations are analyzed by computer simulation for their return time stability and persistence stability. Four out of six models show greater return time stability than an appropriate model without mutualism, and all models show higher persistence stability than the model without mutualism. It is argued that real biological systems can be related to the qualitative structure of each of the basic models of mutualism, and that therefore none of the basic models or their stability properties can be eliminated a priori as being inappropriate. The conclusion follows that while some kinds of mutualistic interactions may be relatively unstable, other mutualisms, probably representing the majority of cases, can be considered to be relatively stable. The limitations of these models and analyses are considered.     

Mutualistic networks: moving closer to a predictive theory

Plant–animal mutualistic networks sustain terrestrial biodiversity and human food security. Global environmental changes threaten these networks, underscoring the urgency for developing a predictive theory on how networks respond to perturbations. Here, I synthesise theoretical advances towards predicting network structure, dynamics, interaction strengths and responses to perturbations. I find that mathematical models incorporating biological mechanisms of mutualistic interactions provide better predictions of network dynamics. Those mechanisms include trait matching, adaptive foraging, and the dynamic consumption and production of both resources and services provided by mutualisms. Models incorporating species traits better predict the potential structure of networks (fundamental niche), while theory based on the dynamics of species abundances, rewards, foraging preferences and reproductive services can predict the extremely dynamic realised structures of networks, and may successfully predict network responses to perturbations. From a theoretician's standpoint, model development must more realistically represent empirical data on interaction strengths, population dynamics and how these vary with perturbations from global change. From an empiricist's standpoint, theory needs to make specific predictions that can be tested by observation or experiments. Developing models using short‐term empirical data allows models to make longer term predictions of community dynamics. As more longer term data become available, rigorous tests of model predictions will improve.     

Parasites may help stabilize cooperative relationships

Background  

The persistence of cooperative relationships is an evolutionary paradox; selection should favor those individuals that exploit their partners (cheating), resulting in the breakdown of cooperation over evolutionary time. Our current understanding of the evolutionary stability of mutualisms (cooperation between species) is strongly shaped by the view that they are often maintained by partners having mechanisms to avoid or retaliate against exploitation by cheaters. In contrast, we empirically and theoretically examine how additional symbionts, specifically specialized parasites, potentially influence the stability of bipartite mutualistic associations. In our empirical work we focus on the obligate mutualism between fungus-growing ants and the fungi they cultivate for food. This mutualism is exploited by specialized microfungal parasites (genus Escovopsis) that infect the ant's fungal gardens. Using sub-colonies of fungus-growing ants, we investigate the interactions between the fungus garden parasite and cooperative and experimentally-enforced uncooperative ("cheating") pairs of ants and fungi. To further examine if parasites have the potential to help stabilize some mutualisms we conduct Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD) simulations, a common framework for predicting the outcomes of cooperative/non-cooperative interactions, which incorporate parasitism as an additional factor.     

Preferential allocation to beneficial symbiont with spatial structure maintains mycorrhizal mutualism

Mutualisms, beneficial interactions between species, are expected to be unstable because delivery of benefit likely involves fitness costs and selection should favour partners that deliver less benefit. Yet, mutualisms are common and persistent, even in the largely promiscuous associations between plants and soil microorganisms such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. In two different systems, we demonstrate preferential allocation of photosynthate by host plants to the more beneficial of two AM fungal symbionts. This preferential allocation could allow the persistence of the mutualism if it confers sufficient advantage to the beneficial symbiont that it overcomes the cost of mutualism. We find that the beneficial fungus does increase in biomass when the fungi are spatially separated within the root system. However, in well-mixed fungal communities, non-beneficial fungi proliferate as expected from their reduced cost of mutualism. Our findings suggest that preferential allocation within spatially structured microbial communities can stabilize mutualisms between plants and root symbionts.     

Limiting cheaters in mutualism: evidence from hybridization between mutualist and cheater yucca moths

Mutualisms are balanced antagonistic interactions where both species gain a net benefit. Because mutualisms generate resources, they can be exploited by individuals that reap the benefits of the interaction without paying any cost. The presence of such 'cheaters' may have important consequences, yet we are only beginning to understand how cheaters evolve from mutualists and how their evolution may be curtailed within mutualistic lineages. The yucca-yucca moth pollination mutualism is an excellent model in this context as there have been two origins of cheating from within the yucca moth lineage. We used nuclear and mitochondrial DNA markers to examine genetic structure in a moth population where a cheater species is parapatric with a resident pollinator. The results revealed extensive hybridization between pollinators and cheaters. Hybrids were genetically intermediate to parental populations, even though all individuals in this population had a pollinator phenotype. The results suggest that mutualisms can be stable in the face of introgression of cheater genes and that the ability of cheaters to invade a given mutualism may be more limited than previously appreciated.     

The Benefits of Mutualism: A Conceptual Framework

There are three general mechanisms by which phenotypic benefits are transferred between unrelated organisms. First, one organism may purloin benefits from another by preying on or parasitizing the other organism. Second, one organism may enjoy benefits that are incidental to or a by-product of the self-serving traits of another organism. Third, an organism may invest in another organism if that investment produces return benefits which outweigh the cost of the investment. Interactions in which both parties gain a net benefit are mutualistic. The three mechanisms by which benefits are transferred between organisms can be combined in pairs to produce six possible kinds of original or 'basal' mutualisms that can arise from an amutualistic state. A review of the literature suggests that most or all interspecific mutualism have origins in three of the six possible kinds of basal mutualism. Each of these three basal mutualisms have byproduct benefits flowing in at least one direction. The transfer of by-product benefits and investment are common to both intra- and interspecific mutualisms, so that some interspecific mutualisms have intraspecific analogs. A basal mutualism may evolve to the point where each party invests in the other, sometimes obscuring the nature of the original interaction along the way. Two prominent models for the evolution of mutualism do not include by-product benefits: Roughgarden's model for the evolution of the damsel-fish anemone mutualism and the 'Tit-for-Tat' model of reciprocity. Using the conceptual framework presented here, including in particular by-product benefits, I have shown how it is possible to construct more parsimonious alternatives to both models.     

Coevolution by different functional mechanisms modulates the structure and dynamics of antagonistic and mutualistic networks

A central problem in the study of species interactions is to understand the underlying ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that shape and are shaped by trait evolution in interacting assemblages. The patterns of interaction among species (i.e. network structure) provide the pathways for evolution and coevolution, which are modulated by how traits affect individual fitness (i.e. functional mechanisms). Functional mechanisms, in turn, also affect the likelihood of an ecological interaction, shaping the structure of interaction networks. Here, we build adaptive network models to explore the potential role of coevolution by two functional mechanisms, trait matching and exploitation barrier, in driving trait evolution and the structure of interaction networks. We use these models to explore how different scenarios of coevolution and functional mechanisms reproduce the empirical network patterns observed in antagonistic and mutualistic interactions and affect trait evolution. Scenarios assuming coevolutionary feedback with a strong effect of functional mechanism better reproduce the empirical structure of networks. Antagonistic and mutualistic networks, however, are better explained by different functional mechanisms and the structure of antagonisms is better reproduced than that of mutualisms. Scenarios assuming coevolution by strong trait matching between interacting partners better explain the structure of antagonistic networks, whereas those assuming strong barrier effects better reproduce the structure of mutualistic networks. The dynamics resulting from the feedback between strong functional mechanisms and coevolution favor the stability of antagonisms and mutualisms. Selection favoring trait matching reduces temporal trait fluctuation and the magnitude of arms races in antagonisms, whereas selection due to exploitation barriers reduces temporal trait fluctuations in mutualisms. Our results indicate that coevolutionary models better reproduce the network structure of antagonisms than those of mutualisms and that different functional mechanisms may favor the persistence of antagonistic and mutualistic interacting assemblages.     

Pathways to mutualism breakdown

Mutualisms are ubiquitous in nature despite the widely held view that they are unstable interactions. Models predict that mutualists might often evolve into parasites, can abandon their partners to live autonomously and are also vulnerable to extinction. Yet a basic empirical question, whether mutualisms commonly break down, has been mostly overlooked. As we discuss here, recent progress in molecular systematics helps address this question. Newly constructed phylogenies reveal that parasites as well as autonomous (non-mutualist) taxa are nested within ancestrally mutualistic clades. Although models have focused on the propensity of mutualism to become parasitic, such shifts appear relatively rarely. By contrast, diverse systems exhibit reversions to autonomy, and this might be a common and unexplored endpoint to mutualism.     

Facultative mutualisms: A double‐edged sword for foundation species in the face of anthropogenic global change

Ecosystems worldwide depend on habitat‐forming foundation species that often facilitate themselves with increasing density and patch size, while also engaging in facultative mutualisms. Anthropogenic global change (e.g., climate change, eutrophication, overharvest, land‐use change), however, is causing rapid declines of foundation species‐structured ecosystems, often typified by sudden collapse. Although disruption of obligate mutualisms involving foundation species is known to precipitate collapse (e.g., coral bleaching), how facultative mutualisms (i.e., context‐dependent, nonbinding reciprocal interactions) affect ecosystem resilience is uncertain. Here, we synthesize recent advancements and combine these with model analyses supported by real‐world examples, to propose that facultative mutualisms may pose a double‐edged sword for foundation species. We suggest that by amplifying self‐facilitative feedbacks by foundation species, facultative mutualisms can increase foundation species’ resistance to stress from anthropogenic impact. Simultaneously, however, mutualism dependency can generate or exacerbate bistability, implying a potential for sudden collapse when the mutualism's buffering capacity is exceeded, while recovery requires conditions to improve beyond the initial collapse point (hysteresis). Thus, our work emphasizes the importance of acknowledging facultative mutualisms for conservation and restoration of foundation species‐structured ecosystems, but highlights the potential risk of relying on mutualisms in the face of global change. We argue that significant caveats remain regarding the determination of these feedbacks, and suggest empirical manipulation across stress gradients as a way forward to identify related nonlinear responses.