The exploitation of mutualisms

Mutualisms (interspecific cooperative interactions) are ubiquitously exploited by organisms that obtain the benefits mutualists offer, while delivering no benefits in return. The natural history of these exploiters is well-described, but relatively little effort has yet been devoted to analysing their ecological or evolutionary significance for mutualism. Exploitation is not a unitary phenomenon, but a set of loosely related phenomena: exploiters may follow mixed strategies or pure strategies at either the species or individual level, may or may not be derived from mutualists, and may or may not inflict significant costs on mutualisms. The evolutionary implications of these different forms of exploitation, especially the threats they pose to the stability of mutualism, have as yet been minimally explored. Studies of this issue are usually framed in terms of a "temptation to defect" that generates a destabilizing conflict of interest between partners. I argue that this idea is in fact rather inappropriate for interpreting most observed forms of exploitation in mutualisms. I suggest several alternative and testable ideas for how mutualism can persist in the face of exploitation.     

Three-way coexistence in obligate mutualist-exploiter interactions: the potential role of competition

Many mutualisms host "exploiter" species that consume the benefits provided by one or both mutualists without reciprocating. Exploiters have been widely assumed to destabilize mutualisms, yet they are common. We develop models to explore conditions for local coexistence of obligate plant/pollinating seed parasite mutualisms and nonpollinating exploiters. As the larvae of both pollinators and (at a later time) exploiters consume seeds, we examine the importance of intraspecific and (asymmetric) interspecific competition among and between pollinators and exploiters for achieving three-way coexistence. With weak intra- and interspecific competition, exploiters can invade the stable mutualism and coexist with the mutualists (either stably or with oscillations), provided the exploiters' intrinsic birthrate (b(E)) slightly exceeds that of the pollinators. At higher b(E), all three species go locally extinct. When facing strong interspecific competition, exploiters cannot invade and coexist with the mutualists if intraspecific competition in pollinators and exploiters is weak. However, strong intraspecific competition in pollinators and exploiters facilitates exploiter invasion and coexistence and greatly expands the range of b(E) over which stable coexistence occurs. Our results suggest that mutualist/exploiter coexistence may be more easily achieved than previously thought, thus highlighting the need for a better understanding of competition among and between mutualists and exploiters.     

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.     

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.     

Ecological theory of mutualism: Robust patterns of stability and thresholds in two‐species population models

Mutualisms are ubiquitous in nature, provide important ecosystem services, and involve many species of interest for conservation. Theoretical progress on the population dynamics of mutualistic interactions, however, comparatively lagged behind that of trophic and competitive interactions, leading to the impression that ecologists still lack a generalized framework to investigate the population dynamics of mutualisms. Yet, over the last 90 years, abundant theoretical work has accumulated, ranging from abstract to detailed. Here, we review and synthesize historical models of two‐species mutualisms. We find that population dynamics of mutualisms are qualitatively robust across derivations, including levels of detail, types of benefit, and inspiring systems. Specifically, mutualisms tend to exhibit stable coexistence at high density and destabilizing thresholds at low density. These dynamics emerge when benefits of mutualism saturate, whether due to intrinsic or extrinsic density dependence in intraspecific processes, interspecific processes, or both. We distinguish between thresholds resulting from Allee effects, low partner density, and high partner density, and their mathematical and conceptual causes. Our synthesis suggests that there exists a robust population dynamic theory of mutualism that can make general predictions.     

Anthropogenic effects on interaction outcomes: examples from insect-microbial symbioses in forest and savanna ecosystems

The influence of humans on ecosystem dynamics has been, and continues to be, profound. Anthropogenic effects are expected to amplify as human populations continue to increase. Concern over these effects has given rise to a large number of studies focusing on impacts of human activities on individual species or on biotic community structure and composition. Lacking are studies on interactions, particularly mutualisms. Because of the role of mutualisms in ecosystem stability, such studies are critically needed if we are to begin to better understand and predict the responses of ecosystems to anthropogenic change. Most organisms are involved in at least one mutualism, and many in several. Mutualisms facilitate the ability of partners to exploit particular habitats and resources, and play a large role in determining ecological boundaries. When change disrupts, enhances, or introduces new organisms into a mutualism, the outcome and stability of the original partnership(s) is altered as are effects of the symbiosis on the community and ecosystem as a whole. In this paper, using examples from six microbe-insect mutualisms in forest and savanna settings, we showcase how varied and complex the responses of mutualisms can be to an equally varied set of anthropogenic influences. We also show how alterations of mutualisms may ramify throughout affected systems. We stress that researchers must be cognizant that many observed changes in the behaviors, abundances, and distributions of organisms due to human activities are likely to be mediated by mutualists which may alter predictions and actual outcomes in significant ways.     

Evolutionary stability of mutualism: interspecific population regulation as an evolutionarily stable strategy

Interspecific mutualisms are often vulnerable to instability because low benefit : cost ratios can rapidly lead to extinction or to the conversion of mutualism to parasite-host or predator-prey interactions. We hypothesize that the evolutionary stability of mutualism can depend on how benefits and costs to one mutualist vary with the population density of its partner, and that stability can be maintained if a mutualist can influence demographic rates and regulate the population density of its partner. We test this hypothesis in a model of mutualism with key features of senita cactus (Pachycereus schottii)-senita moth (Upiga virescens) interactions, in which benefits of pollination and costs of larval seed consumption to plant fitness depend on pollinator density. We show that plants can maximize their fitness by allocating resources to the production of excess flowers at the expense of fruit. Fruit abortion resulting from excess flower production reduces pre-adult survival of the pollinating seed-consumer, and maintains its density beneath a threshold that would destabilize the mutualism. Such a strategy of excess flower production and fruit abortion is convergent and evolutionarily stable against invasion by cheater plants that produce few flowers and abort few to no fruit. This novel mechanism of achieving evolutionarily stable mutualism, namely interspecific population regulation, is qualitatively different from other mechanisms invoking partner choice or selective rewards, and may be a general process that helps to preserve mutualistic interactions in nature.     

Mutualism can mediate competition and promote coexistence

Mutualistic interactions are not believed to promote coexistence of competitors because mutualisms produce positive feedbacks on abundances whereas coexistence requires negative feedbacks. Here we show that a mutualism between an anemonefish (Amphiprion) and its sea anemone host mediates the effect of asymmetrical competition for space between the anemonefish and another damselfish (Dascyllus) in a manner that fosters their coexistence. Amphiprion stimulates increases in host area, the shared resource, but social interactions cap the number of anemonefish to two adults per host. Space generated by the mutualism becomes differentially available to Dascyllus because the effectiveness of an anemonefish in excluding its competitor declines with increases in the area it defends. This alters Amphiprion's ratio of per capita intra‐ to interspecific effects and thus facilitates coexistence of the fishes. This mechanism may be prevalent in nature, adding another major pathway by which mutualism can enhance diversity.     

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.     

Mutualism and adaptive divergence: co-invasion of a heterogeneous grassland by an exotic legume-rhizobium symbiosis

Species interactions play a critical role in biological invasions. For example, exotic plant and microbe mutualists can facilitate each other's spread as they co-invade novel ranges. Environmental context may influence the effect of mutualisms on invasions in heterogeneous environments, however these effects are poorly understood. We examined the mutualism between the legume, Medicago polymorpha, and the rhizobium, Ensifer medicae, which have both invaded California grasslands. Many of these invaded grasslands are composed of a patchwork of harsh serpentine and relatively benign non-serpentine soils. We grew legume genotypes collected from serpentine or non-serpentine soil in both types of soil in combination with rhizobium genotypes from serpentine or non-serpentine soils and in the absence of rhizobia. Legumes invested more strongly in the mutualism in the home soil type and trends in fitness suggested that this ecotypic divergence was adaptive. Serpentine legumes had greater allocation to symbiotic root nodules in serpentine soil than did non-serpentine legumes and non-serpentine legumes had greater allocation to nodules in non-serpentine soil than did serpentine legumes. Therefore, this invasive legume has undergone the rapid evolution of divergence for soil-specific investment in the mutualism. Contrary to theoretical expectations, the mutualism was less beneficial for legumes grown on the stressful serpentine soil than on the non-serpentine soil, possibly due to the inhibitory effects of serpentine on the benefits derived from the interaction. The soil-specific ability to allocate to a robust microbial mutualism may be a critical, and previously overlooked, adaptation for plants adapting to heterogeneous environments during invasion.     

Kin selection and the Evolution of Mutualisms between Species

Hamilton's theory of kin selection has revolutionized and inspired fifty years of additional theories and experiments on social evolution. Whereas Hamilton's broader intent was to explain the evolutionary stability of cooperation, his focus on shared genetic history appears to have limited the application of his theory to populations within a single species rather than across interacting species. The evolutionary mechanisms for cooperation between species require both spatial and temporal correlations among interacting partners for the benefits to be not only predictable but of sufficient duration to be reliably delivered. As a consequence when the benefits returned by mutualistic partners are redirected to individuals other than the original donor, cooperation usually becomes unstable and parasitism may evolve. However, theoretically, such redirection of mutualistic benefits may actually reinforce, rather than undermine, mutualisms between species when the recipients of these redirected benefits are genetically related to the original donor. Here, I review the few mathematical models that have used Hamilton's theory of kin selection to predict the evolution of mutualisms between species. I go on to examine the applicability of these models to the most well‐studied case of mutualism, pollinating seed predators, where the role of kin selection may have been previously overlooked. Future detailed studies of the direct, and indirect, benefits of mutualism are likely to reveal additional possibilities for applying Hamilton's theory of kin selection to mutualisms between species.     

Do cleaning organisms reduce the stress response of client reef fish?

Background

Marine cleaning interactions in which cleaner fish or shrimps remove parasites from visiting 'client' reef fish are a textbook example of mutualism. However, there is yet no conclusive evidence that cleaning organisms significantly improve the health of their clients. We tested the stress response of wild caught individuals of two client species, Chromis dimidiata and Pseudanthias squamipinnis, that had either access to a cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus, or to cleaner shrimps Stenopus hispidus and Periclimenes longicarpus, or no access to cleaning organisms.

Results

For both client species, we found an association between the presence of cleaner organisms and a reduction in the short term stress response of client fish to capture, transport and one hour confinement in small aquaria, as measured with cortisol levels.

Conclusion

It is conceivable that individuals who are more easily stressed than others pay a fitness cost in the long run. Thus, our data suggest that marine cleaning mutualisms are indeed mutualistic. More generally, measures of stress responses or basal levels may provide a useful tool to assess the impact of interspecific interactions on the partner species.     

Strategy Diversity Stabilizes Mutualism through Investment Cycles,Phase Polymorphism,and Spatial Bubbles

There is continuing interest in understanding factors that facilitate the evolution and stability of cooperation within and between species. Such interactions will often involve plasticity in investment behavior, in response to the interacting partner''s investments. Our aim here is to investigate the evolution and stability of reciprocal investment behavior in interspecific interactions, a key phenomenon strongly supported by experimental observations. In particular, we present a comprehensive analysis of a continuous reciprocal investment game between mutualists, both in well-mixed and spatially structured populations, and we demonstrate a series of novel mechanisms for maintaining interspecific mutualism. We demonstrate that mutualistic partners invariably follow investment cycles, during which mutualism first increases, before both partners eventually reduce their investments to zero, so that these cycles always conclude with full defection. We show that the key mechanism for stabilizing mutualism is phase polymorphism along the investment cycle. Although mutualistic partners perpetually change their strategies, the community-level distribution of investment levels becomes stationary. In spatially structured populations, the maintenance of polymorphism is further facilitated by dynamic mosaic structures, in which mutualistic partners form expanding and collapsing spatial bubbles or clusters. Additionally, we reveal strategy-diversity thresholds, both for well-mixed and spatially structured mutualistic communities, and discuss factors for meeting these thresholds, and thus maintaining mutualism. Our results demonstrate that interspecific mutualism, when considered as plastic investment behavior, can be unstable, and, in agreement with empirical observations, may involve a polymorphism of investment levels, varying both in space and in time. Identifying the mechanisms maintaining such polymorphism, and hence mutualism in natural communities, provides a significant step towards understanding the coevolution and population dynamics of mutualistic interactions.     

INTERGENOMIC EPISTASIS AND COEVOLUTIONARY CONSTRAINT IN PLANTS AND RHIZOBIA

Studying how the fitness benefits of mutualism differ among a wide range of partner genotypes, and at multiple spatial scales, can shed light on the processes that maintain mutualism and structure coevolutionary interactions. Using legumes and rhizobia from three natural populations, I studied the symbiotic fitness benefits for both partners in 108 plant maternal family by rhizobium strain combinations. Genotype‐by‐genotype (G × G) interactions among local genotypes and among partner populations determined, in part, the benefits of mutualism for both partners; for example, the fitness effects of particular rhizobium strains ranged from uncooperative to mutualistic depending on the plant family. Correlations between plant and rhizobium fitness benefits suggest a trade off, and therefore a potential conflict, between the interests of the two partners. These results suggest that legume–rhizobium mutualisms are dynamic at multiple spatial scales, and that strictly additive models of mutualism benefits may ignore dynamics potentially important to both the maintenance of genetic variation and the generation of geographic patterns in coevolutionary interactions.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Nutrient loading alters the performance of key nutrient exchange mutualisms

Nutrient exchange mutualisms between phototrophs and heterotrophs, such as plants and mycorrhizal fungi or symbiotic algae and corals, underpin the functioning of many ecosystems. These relationships structure communities, promote biodiversity and help maintain food security. Nutrient loading may destabilise these mutualisms by altering the costs and benefits each partner incurs from interacting. Using meta‐analyses, we show a near ubiquitous decoupling in mutualism performance across terrestrial and marine environments in which phototrophs benefit from enrichment at the expense of their heterotrophic partners. Importantly, heterotroph identity, their dependence on phototroph‐derived C and the type of nutrient enrichment (e.g. nitrogen vs. phosphorus) mediated the responses of different mutualisms to enrichment. Nutrient‐driven changes in mutualism performance may alter community organisation and ecosystem processes and increase costs of food production. Consequently, the decoupling of nutrient exchange mutualisms via alterations of the world's nitrogen and phosphorus cycles may represent an emerging threat of global change.     

Population dynamics and mutualism: functional responses of benefits and costs

We develop an approach for studying population dynamics resulting from mutualism by employing functional responses based on density-dependent benefits and costs. These functional responses express how the population growth rate of a mutualist is modified by the density of its partner. We present several possible dependencies of gross benefits and costs, and hence net effects, to a mutualist as functions of the density of its partner. Net effects to mutualists are likely a monotonically saturating or unimodal function of the density of their partner. We show that fundamental differences in the growth, limitation, and dynamics of a population can occur when net effects to that population change linearly, unimodally, or in a saturating fashion. We use the mutualism between senita cactus and its pollinating seed-eating moth as an example to show the influence of different benefit and cost functional responses on population dynamics and stability of mutualisms. We investigated two mechanisms that may alter this mutualism's functional responses: distribution of eggs among flowers and fruit abortion. Differences in how benefits and costs vary with density can alter the stability of this mutualism. In particular, fruit abortion may allow for a stable equilibrium where none could otherwise exist.