4.2 Review

On the role of enemies in divergence and diversification of prey: a review and synthesis

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 83, 期 7, 页码 894-910

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/Z05-063

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the contribution of ecological interactions to the origin and maintenance of diversity is a fundamental challenge for ecologists and evolutionary biologists, and one that is currently receiving a great deal of attention. Natural enemies (e.g., predators, parasites, and herbivores) are ubiquitous in food webs and are predicted to have significant impacts on phenotypic diversity and on speciation, and extinction rates of their prey. Spurred by the development of a theoretical framework beginning in the late 1970s, there is now a growing body of literature that addresses the effects of enemy-prey interactions on the evolution of prey. A number of theoretical models predict that enemies can produce phenotypic divergence between closely related species, even in the absence of interspecific competition for resources. Effects on diversification of prey are more variable, and enemies may either enhance or depress speciation and extinction rates of their prey. Empirical evidences from a number of study systems, notably those involving predators and prey in aquatic environments and interactions between insects and flowering plants, confirm both predictions. There is now considerable evidence for the role of enemies, especially those that are size-selective or use visual cues when identifying suitable prey, on phenotypic divergence of sympatric and allopatric taxa. Enemies may spur diversification rates in certain groups under some circumstances, and hinder diversification rates in other cases. I suggest that further research should focus on the role of enemies in diversification of prey, with significant insights likely to be the product of applying traditional experimental approaches and emerging comparative phylogenetic methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据