×

Evolutionary stability of one-to-many mutualisms. (English) Zbl 1397.92487

Summary: One-to-many mutualisms – interspecific cooperations in which each host individual can potentially interact with multiple symbiont individuals while each symbiont individual can only one host individual – are widely found in nature, while their evolutionary stability has not been explored. It has been often thought that partner choice can stabilize multi-player mutualisms. However, in one-to-many mutualisms partner choice is inevitably asymmetric between hosts and symbionts, which might destabilize the system. Here I develop a simple mathematical model for an obligate one-to-many mutualism, with explicitly considering imperfect ability of symbiont choice by hosts. I fix the trait of hosts and concentrate on the evolutionary dynamics of cooperativeness in symbiont population. Each host chooses a constant number of symbionts from a potential symbiont population, a fraction of which are chosen through preferential choice depending on cooperativeness of the symbionts, while the rest are through random choice. After the association between the host and the symbionts is established, the host offers a constant amount of resource to each associating symbiont. It spends a part of the resource to increase the fitness of the host in proportion to its cooperativeness, and the rest for its own reproduction. I show that pure mutualist population is evolutionarily stable when the fraction of preferential choice c is large and the strength of preferential choice k is small, otherwise mutualists and cheaters coexist. In addition, in the coexistence state the frequency of mutualists increases with c. In contrast, it decreases with k, while the cooperativeness of mutualists increases. The two factors offset against each other, so that the fitness gain of host remains constant.

MSC:

92D15 Problems related to evolution
92D25 Population dynamics (general)
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Akçay, E.; Simms, E.L., Negotiation sanctions and context dependency in the legume – rhizobium mutualism, Am. nat., 178, 1-14, (2011)
[2] Boots, M.; Sasaki, A., “small worlds” and the evolution of virulenceinfection occurs locally and at a distance, Proc. R. soc. London B, 266, 1933-1938, (1999)
[3] Bronstein, J.L.; Wilson, W.G.; Morris, W.F., Ecological dynamics of mutualist/antagonist communities, Am. nat., 162, S24-S39, (2003)
[4] Bull, J.J.; Rice, W.R., Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of co-operation, J. theor. biol., 149, 63-74, (1991)
[5] Doebeli, M.; Knowlton, N., The evolution of interspecific mutualisms, Proc. natl. acad. sci. U.S.A., 95, 8676-8680, (1998)
[6] Eshel, I.; Motro, U., Kin selection and strong evolutionary stability of mutual help, Theor. popul. biol., 19, 420-433, (1981) · Zbl 0473.92014
[7] Ezoe, H., Dual lattice model of the evolution of facultative symbiosis with continuous Prisoner’s dilemma game, J. theor. biol., 259, 744-750, (2009) · Zbl 1402.91040
[8] Ferriere, R.; Bronsterin, J.L.; Rinaldi, S.; Law, R.; Gauduchon, M., Cheating and the evolutionary stability of mutualisms, Proc. R. soc. London B, 269, 773-780, (2002)
[9] Foster, K.R.; Kokko, H., Cheating can stabilize cooperation in mutualisms, Proc. R. soc. London B, 273, 2233-2239, (2006)
[10] Frank, S., Host control of symbiont transmissionthe separation of symbionts into germ and soma, Am. nat., 148, 1113-1124, (1996)
[11] Genkai-Kato, M.; Yamamura, N., Evolution of mutualistic symbiosis without vertical transmission, Theor. popul. biol., 55, 309-323, (1999) · Zbl 0946.92014
[12] Golubski, A.J.; Klausmeier, C.A., Control in mutualismscombined implications of partner choice and bargaining roles, J. theor. biol., 267, 535-545, (2010) · Zbl 1414.92218
[13] Haraguchi, Y.; Sasaki, A., The evolution of parasite virulence and transmission rate in a spatially structured population, J. theor. biol., 203, 85-96, (2000)
[14] Heath, K.D.; Tiffin, P., Context dependence in the coevolution of plant and rhizobial mutualists, Proc. R. soc. B, 274, 1905-1912, (2007)
[15] Heath, K.D.; Tiffin, P., Stabilizing mechanisms in a legume – rhizobium mutualism, Evolution, 63, 652-662, (2009)
[16] Hoeksema, J.D.; Kummel, M., Ecological persistence of the plant – mycorrhizal mutualisma hypothesis from species coexistence theory, Am. nat., 162, S40-S50, (2003)
[17] Jandér, K.C.; Herre, E.A., Host sanctions and pollinator cheating in the fig tree-fig wasp mutualism, Proc. R. soc. B, 277, 1481-1488, (2010)
[18] Kiers, E.T.; Rousseau, R.A.; Denison, R.F., Measured sanctionslegume hosts detect quantitative variation in rhizobium cooperation and punish accordingly, Evol. ecol. res., 8, 1077-1086, (2006)
[19] Kiers, E.T.; Duhamel, M.; Beesetty, Y.; Mensah, J.A.; Franken, O.; Verbruggen, E.; Fellbaum, C.R.; Kowalchuk, G.A.; Hart, M.M.; Bago, A.; Palmer, T.M.; West, S.A.; Vandenkoornhuyse, P.; Jansa, J.; Bücking, H., Reciprocal rewards stabilize cooperation in the mycorrhizal symbiosis, Science, 333, 880-882, (2011)
[20] Kiers, E.T.; Rousseau, R.A.; West, S.A.; Denison, R.F., Host sanctions and the legume – rhizobium mutualism, Nature, 425, 78-81, (2003)
[21] Kummel, M.; Salant, S., The economics of mutualismsoptimal utilization of mycorrhizal mutualistic partners by plants, Ecology, 87, 892-902, (2006)
[22] Law, R.; Bronstein, J.L.; Ferrière, R., On mutualists and exploitersplant – insect coevolution in pollinating seed – parasite systems, J. theor. biol., 212, 373-389, (2001)
[23] Levin, S.A.; Pimentel, D., Selection of intermediate rates of increase in parasite – host systems, Am. nat., 117, 308-315, (1981)
[24] Maynard Smith, J.; Szathmáry, E., The major transitions in evolution, (1995), W.H. Freeman & Co Oxford
[25] Noë, R.; Hammerstein, P., Biological marketssupply-and-demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating, Behav. ecol. sociobiol., 35, 1-11, (1994)
[26] Noë, R.; Hammerstein, P., Biological markets, Trends ecol. evol., 10, 336-339, (1995)
[27] Nowak, M.A.; May, R.M., Superinfection and the evolution of parasite virulence, Proc. R. soc. London B, 255, 81-89, (1994)
[28] Oono, R.; Denison, R.F.; Kiers, E.T., Controlling the reproductive fate of rhizobiahow universal are legume sanctions?, New phytol., 183, 967-979, (2009)
[29] Rankin, D.J.; Bargum, K.; Kokko, H., The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology, Trends ecol. evol., 22, 643-651, (2007)
[30] Schwartz, M.W.; Hoeksema, J.D., Specialization and resource tradebiological markets as a model of mutualisms, Ecology, 79, 1029-1038, (1998)
[31] Simms, E.L.; Taylor, D.L., Partner choice in nitrogen-fixation mutualisms of legumes and rhizobia, Integr. comp. biol., 42, 369-380, (2002)
[32] Stanton, M.L., Interacting guildsmoving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms, Am. nat., 162, S10-S23, (2003)
[33] Travis, J.M.; Brooker, R.W.; Dytham, C., The interplay of positive and negative species interactions across an environmental gradientinsights from an individual-based simulation model, Biol. lett., 1, 5-8, (2005)
[34] Travis, J.M.; Brooker, R.W.; Clark, E.J.; Dytham, C., The distribution of positive and negative species interactions across environmental gradients on a dual-lattice model, J. theor. biol., 241, 896-902, (2006) · Zbl 1447.92541
[35] Yamamura, N., Vertical transmission and evolution of mutualism from parasitism, Theor. popul. biol., 44, 95-109, (1993) · Zbl 0777.92020
[36] Yamamura, N., Evolution of muturalistic symbiosisa differential equation model, Res. popul. ecol., 38, 211-218, (1996)
[37] Yamamura, N.; Higashi, M.; Behera, N.; Wakano, J.Y., Evolution of mutualism through spatial effects, J. theor. biol., 226, 421-428, (2004) · Zbl 1439.92140
[38] Yu, D.W.; Wilson, H.B.; Pierce, N.E., An empirical model of species coexistence in a spatially structured environment, Ecology, 82, 1761-1771, (2001)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.