Abstract
Summary Interactions between mutualists, competitors, and antagonists have contrasting ecological effects that, sustained over generations, can influence micro‐ and macroevolution. Dissimilar benefits and costs for these interactions should cause contrasting co‐diversification patterns between interacting clades, with prevalent co‐speciation by mutualists, association loss by competitors, and host switching by antagonists.We assessed these expectations for a local assemblage of 26 fig species (Moraceae: Ficus), 26 species of mutualistic (pollinating), and 33 species of parasitic (galling) wasps (Chalcidoidea). Using newly acquired gene sequences, we inferred the phylogenies for all three clades. We then compared the three possible pairs of phylogenies to assess phylogenetic congruence and the relative frequencies of co‐speciation, association duplication, switching, and loss.The paired phylogenies of pollinators with their mutualists and competitors were significantly congruent, unlike that of figs and their parasites. The distributions of macroevolutionary events largely agreed with expectations for mutualists and antagonists. By contrast, that for competitors involved relatively frequent association switching, as expected, but also unexpectedly frequent co‐speciation. The latter result likely reflects the heterogeneous nature of competition among fig wasps.These results illustrate the influence of different interspecific interactions on co‐diversification, while also revealing its dependence on specific characteristics of those interactions.
Highlights
IntroductionPairs of species can interact in manners that are mutually beneficial (mutualism), mutually detrimental (competition), or beneficial to one partner but detrimental to the other (antagonism: predation, herbivory, parasitism)
Pairs of species can interact in manners that are mutually beneficial, mutually detrimental, or beneficial to one partner but detrimental to the other
By contrast, pollinating and galling wasps hosted by these fig species exhibited significant phylogenetic congruence (Fig. 2c), regardless of whether the analysis considered independent divergence or contingent divergence (Gallers|Pollinators, mX2Y = 0.00008, P < 0.001; Pollinators| Gallers, mX2Y = 0.00006, P < 0.001)
Summary
Pairs of species can interact in manners that are mutually beneficial (mutualism), mutually detrimental (competition), or beneficial to one partner but detrimental to the other (antagonism: predation, herbivory, parasitism) If these interactions occur frequently and significantly influence individual performance, mutualism, competition and antagonism should promote contrasting evolutionary responses (Yoder & Nuismer, 2010; Hembry et al, 2014; Barraclough, 2015; Nuismer & Harmon, 2015; Manceau et al, 2017). Benefits to both partners favour increased interaction frequency and efficiency, establishing interspecific coalitions (Cafaro & Currie, 2005) If one or both mutualistic partners become specialized in their interaction, their phylogenies could become enmeshed Instead, competition is asymmetrical, with one partner dominating consistently, evolutionary repulsion should promote
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
