4.7 Article

Mutualism favours higher host specificity than does antagonism in plant-herbivore interaction

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 277, Issue 1695, Pages 2765-2774

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0355

Keywords

Caloptilia; Cuphodes; Diphtheroptila; Gracillariidae; Phyllanthaceae

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22770017] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coevolved mutualisms often exhibit high levels of partner specificity. Obligate pollination mutualisms, such as the fig-fig wasp and yucca-yucca moth systems, represent remarkable examples of such highly species-specific associations; however, the evolutionary processes underlying these patterns are poorly understood. The prevailing hypothesis suggests that the high degree of specificity in pollinating seed parasites is the fortuitous result of specialization in their ancestors because these insects are derived from endophytic herbivores that are themselves highly host-specific. Conversely, we show that in the Glochidion-Epicephala obligate pollination mutualism, pollinators are more host-specific than are closely related endophytic leaf-feeding taxa, which co-occur with Epicephala on the same Glochidion hosts. This difference is probably not because of shifts in larval diet (i.e. from leaf-to seed-feeding), because seed-eating lepidopterans other than Epicephala do not show the same degree of host specificity as Epicephala. Species of a tentative sister group of Epicephala each attack several distantly related plants, suggesting that the evolution of strict host specificity is tied to the evolution of pollinator habit. These results suggest that mutualists can attain higher host specificity than that of their parasitic ancestors and that coevolutionary selection can be a strong promoter of extreme reciprocal specialization in mutualisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available