Sanctions, Partner Recognition, and Variation in Mutualism
Mutualistic interactions can be stabilized against invasion by noncooperative individuals by putting such “cheaters” at a selective disadvantage. Selection against cheaters should eliminate genetic variation in partner quality—yet such variation is often found in natural populations. One explanation...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American naturalist 2017-10, Vol.190 (4), p.491-505 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 505 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 491 |
container_title | The American naturalist |
container_volume | 190 |
creator | Yoder, Jeremy B. Tiffin, Peter |
description | Mutualistic interactions can be stabilized against invasion by noncooperative individuals by putting such “cheaters” at a selective disadvantage. Selection against cheaters should eliminate genetic variation in partner quality—yet such variation is often found in natural populations. One explanation for this paradox is that mutualism outcomes are determined not only by responses to partner performance but also by partner signals. Here, we build a model of coevolution in a symbiotic mutualism, in which hosts’ ability to sanction noncooperative symbionts and recognition of symbiont signals are determined by separate loci, as are symbionts’ cooperation and expression of signals. In the model, variation persists without destabilizing the interaction, in part because coevolution of symbiont signals and host recognition is altered by the coevolution of sanctions and cooperation, and vice versa. Individual-based simulations incorporating population structure strongly corroborate these results. The dual systems of sanctions and partner recognition converge toward conditions similar to some economic models of mutualistic symbiosis, in which hosts offering the right incentives to potential symbionts can initiate symbiosis without screening for partner quality. These results predict that mutualists can maintain variation in recognition of partner signals or in the ability to sanction noncooperators without destabilizing mutualism, and they reinforce the notion that studies of mutualism should consider communication between partners as well as the exchange of benefits. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1086/693472 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_28937817</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26519623</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26519623</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-d2fa477819e9593b9eeea3e6bcd5472d653f95db094468f4dd9e62b5423359fc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0FtLwzAUB_AgiptTv4FSUGQPVtOeXBrfZHiDieLttaRJOjvWi0n74Lc3o3MDn3wKJ_z4n8MfocMIX0Q4YZdMAOHxFhpGFHhIIYZtNMQYQ4gjwgdoz7m5HwURdBcN4kQATyI-RFevslJtUVfuPHiWtq2MDV6MqmdVsfw9D2Slgw9pC7kcg6IKHru2k4vClftoJ5cLZw5W7wi93968Te7D6dPdw-R6GiqSiDbUcS4J99uEEVRAJowxEgzLlKb-ZM0o5ILqzN9GWJITrYVhcUZJDEBFrmCExn1uY-uvzrg2LQunzGIhK1N3Lo0EiTmQBBNPT_7Qed3Zyl_nFWUYADh4ddYrZWvnrMnTxhaltN9phNNlm2nfpofHq7guK41es9_6PDjtQac-CyVndWONc5ul65zxP1ja6NzTo57OXVvbzUZGI8F8Iz-sl5Ex</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1956033373</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sanctions, Partner Recognition, and Variation in Mutualism</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Yoder, Jeremy B. ; Tiffin, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>Yoder, Jeremy B. ; Tiffin, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>Mutualistic interactions can be stabilized against invasion by noncooperative individuals by putting such “cheaters” at a selective disadvantage. Selection against cheaters should eliminate genetic variation in partner quality—yet such variation is often found in natural populations. One explanation for this paradox is that mutualism outcomes are determined not only by responses to partner performance but also by partner signals. Here, we build a model of coevolution in a symbiotic mutualism, in which hosts’ ability to sanction noncooperative symbionts and recognition of symbiont signals are determined by separate loci, as are symbionts’ cooperation and expression of signals. In the model, variation persists without destabilizing the interaction, in part because coevolution of symbiont signals and host recognition is altered by the coevolution of sanctions and cooperation, and vice versa. Individual-based simulations incorporating population structure strongly corroborate these results. The dual systems of sanctions and partner recognition converge toward conditions similar to some economic models of mutualistic symbiosis, in which hosts offering the right incentives to potential symbionts can initiate symbiosis without screening for partner quality. These results predict that mutualists can maintain variation in recognition of partner signals or in the ability to sanction noncooperators without destabilizing mutualism, and they reinforce the notion that studies of mutualism should consider communication between partners as well as the exchange of benefits.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-0147</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-5323</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/693472</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28937817</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: The University of Chicago Press</publisher><subject>Animals ; Coevolution ; Computer simulation ; Cooperation ; Economic analysis ; Economic models ; Evolutionary biology ; Genetic diversity ; Genetic Variation ; Incentives ; Models, Theoretical ; Mutualism ; Natural populations ; Population genetics ; Population structure ; Recognition ; Symbionts ; Symbiosis</subject><ispartof>The American naturalist, 2017-10, Vol.190 (4), p.491-505</ispartof><rights>2017 by The University of Chicago</rights><rights>2017 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright University of Chicago, acting through its Press Oct 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-d2fa477819e9593b9eeea3e6bcd5472d653f95db094468f4dd9e62b5423359fc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-d2fa477819e9593b9eeea3e6bcd5472d653f95db094468f4dd9e62b5423359fc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26519623$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26519623$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28937817$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yoder, Jeremy B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tiffin, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>Sanctions, Partner Recognition, and Variation in Mutualism</title><title>The American naturalist</title><addtitle>Am Nat</addtitle><description>Mutualistic interactions can be stabilized against invasion by noncooperative individuals by putting such “cheaters” at a selective disadvantage. Selection against cheaters should eliminate genetic variation in partner quality—yet such variation is often found in natural populations. One explanation for this paradox is that mutualism outcomes are determined not only by responses to partner performance but also by partner signals. Here, we build a model of coevolution in a symbiotic mutualism, in which hosts’ ability to sanction noncooperative symbionts and recognition of symbiont signals are determined by separate loci, as are symbionts’ cooperation and expression of signals. In the model, variation persists without destabilizing the interaction, in part because coevolution of symbiont signals and host recognition is altered by the coevolution of sanctions and cooperation, and vice versa. Individual-based simulations incorporating population structure strongly corroborate these results. The dual systems of sanctions and partner recognition converge toward conditions similar to some economic models of mutualistic symbiosis, in which hosts offering the right incentives to potential symbionts can initiate symbiosis without screening for partner quality. These results predict that mutualists can maintain variation in recognition of partner signals or in the ability to sanction noncooperators without destabilizing mutualism, and they reinforce the notion that studies of mutualism should consider communication between partners as well as the exchange of benefits.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Coevolution</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Evolutionary biology</subject><subject>Genetic diversity</subject><subject>Genetic Variation</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Mutualism</subject><subject>Natural populations</subject><subject>Population genetics</subject><subject>Population structure</subject><subject>Recognition</subject><subject>Symbionts</subject><subject>Symbiosis</subject><issn>0003-0147</issn><issn>1537-5323</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0FtLwzAUB_AgiptTv4FSUGQPVtOeXBrfZHiDieLttaRJOjvWi0n74Lc3o3MDn3wKJ_z4n8MfocMIX0Q4YZdMAOHxFhpGFHhIIYZtNMQYQ4gjwgdoz7m5HwURdBcN4kQATyI-RFevslJtUVfuPHiWtq2MDV6MqmdVsfw9D2Slgw9pC7kcg6IKHru2k4vClftoJ5cLZw5W7wi93968Te7D6dPdw-R6GiqSiDbUcS4J99uEEVRAJowxEgzLlKb-ZM0o5ILqzN9GWJITrYVhcUZJDEBFrmCExn1uY-uvzrg2LQunzGIhK1N3Lo0EiTmQBBNPT_7Qed3Zyl_nFWUYADh4ddYrZWvnrMnTxhaltN9phNNlm2nfpofHq7guK41es9_6PDjtQac-CyVndWONc5ul65zxP1ja6NzTo57OXVvbzUZGI8F8Iz-sl5Ex</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>Yoder, Jeremy B.</creator><creator>Tiffin, Peter</creator><general>The University of Chicago Press</general><general>University of Chicago Press</general><general>University of Chicago, acting through its Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>Sanctions, Partner Recognition, and Variation in Mutualism</title><author>Yoder, Jeremy B. ; Tiffin, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-d2fa477819e9593b9eeea3e6bcd5472d653f95db094468f4dd9e62b5423359fc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Coevolution</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Evolutionary biology</topic><topic>Genetic diversity</topic><topic>Genetic Variation</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Mutualism</topic><topic>Natural populations</topic><topic>Population genetics</topic><topic>Population structure</topic><topic>Recognition</topic><topic>Symbionts</topic><topic>Symbiosis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yoder, Jeremy B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tiffin, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American naturalist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yoder, Jeremy B.</au><au>Tiffin, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sanctions, Partner Recognition, and Variation in Mutualism</atitle><jtitle>The American naturalist</jtitle><addtitle>Am Nat</addtitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>190</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>491</spage><epage>505</epage><pages>491-505</pages><issn>0003-0147</issn><eissn>1537-5323</eissn><abstract>Mutualistic interactions can be stabilized against invasion by noncooperative individuals by putting such “cheaters” at a selective disadvantage. Selection against cheaters should eliminate genetic variation in partner quality—yet such variation is often found in natural populations. One explanation for this paradox is that mutualism outcomes are determined not only by responses to partner performance but also by partner signals. Here, we build a model of coevolution in a symbiotic mutualism, in which hosts’ ability to sanction noncooperative symbionts and recognition of symbiont signals are determined by separate loci, as are symbionts’ cooperation and expression of signals. In the model, variation persists without destabilizing the interaction, in part because coevolution of symbiont signals and host recognition is altered by the coevolution of sanctions and cooperation, and vice versa. Individual-based simulations incorporating population structure strongly corroborate these results. The dual systems of sanctions and partner recognition converge toward conditions similar to some economic models of mutualistic symbiosis, in which hosts offering the right incentives to potential symbionts can initiate symbiosis without screening for partner quality. These results predict that mutualists can maintain variation in recognition of partner signals or in the ability to sanction noncooperators without destabilizing mutualism, and they reinforce the notion that studies of mutualism should consider communication between partners as well as the exchange of benefits.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>The University of Chicago Press</pub><pmid>28937817</pmid><doi>10.1086/693472</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-0147 |
ispartof | The American naturalist, 2017-10, Vol.190 (4), p.491-505 |
issn | 0003-0147 1537-5323 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmed_primary_28937817 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Animals Coevolution Computer simulation Cooperation Economic analysis Economic models Evolutionary biology Genetic diversity Genetic Variation Incentives Models, Theoretical Mutualism Natural populations Population genetics Population structure Recognition Symbionts Symbiosis |
title | Sanctions, Partner Recognition, and Variation in Mutualism |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T03%3A42%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sanctions,%20Partner%20Recognition,%20and%20Variation%20in%20Mutualism&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20naturalist&rft.au=Yoder,%20Jeremy%20B.&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=190&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=491&rft.epage=505&rft.pages=491-505&rft.issn=0003-0147&rft.eissn=1537-5323&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/693472&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E26519623%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1956033373&rft_id=info:pmid/28937817&rft_jstor_id=26519623&rfr_iscdi=true |