A Model of Naticid Gastropod Predator-Prey Coevolution

Jiang, Jiang; Kitchell, Jennifer A.; Post, W. M.; Travis, C. C.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-87422-2_10

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Kitchell (1986Kitchell ( , 1990 and coworkers (DeAngelis et at., 1984(DeAngelis et at., , 1985 argued that coevolution has characterized the naticid gastropod predator-prey system and developed mathematical models of the coevolutionary response of predators and prey. Venneij (1987) used data on drilling through the Phanerozoic to support the hypothesis of escalation (see also studies of Venneij, 1978, andVenneij et a!., 1980).…”

Section: Testable Hypotheses In Evolutionary Paleoecologymentioning

confidence: 95%

The Fossil Record of Drilling Predation on Bivalves and Gastropods

Kelley

Hansen

2003

Predator—Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record

132

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Testable Hypotheses In Evolutionary Paleoecologymentioning

confidence: 95%

The Fossil Record of Drilling Predation on Bivalves and Gastropods

Kelley

Hansen

2003

Predator—Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record

132

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, Boucot (1990, p. 562) stated that, "after the geologically rapid, initial relation has been established [between interacting species] the fossil record suggests that there is no subsequent, coevolutionary change, i.e., stabilizing selection sets in." To address this type of skepticism, DeAngelis et al (1984) developed a coevolutionary model of the energetics of the predator-prey interaction between drilling naticid gastropods and their bivalve prey. In contrast to earlier models of coevolution, their model was developed with its empirical utility in mind.…”

Section: Models Of Coevolution and Escalationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fossil Record of Predator-Prey Arms Races: Coevolution and Escalation Hypotheses

Dietl

Kelley

2002

Paleontol. Soc. pap.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arms races between predators and prey may be driven by two related processes—escalation and coevolution. Escalation is enemy-driven evolution. In this top-down view of an arms race, the role of prey (with the exception of dangerous prey) is downplayed. In coevolution, two or more species change reciprocally in response to one another; prey are thought to drive the evolution of their predator, and vice versa. In the fossil record, the two processes are most reliably distinguished when the predator-prey system is viewed within the context of the other species that may influence the interaction, thus allowing for a relative ranking of the importance of selective agents. Detailed documentation of the natural history of living predator-prey systems is recommended in order to distinguish the processes in some fossil systems. A geographic view of species interactions and the processes driving their evolution may lead to a more diverse array of testable hypotheses on how predator-prey systems evolve and what constraints interactions impose on the evolution of organisms. Scale is important in evaluating the role of escalation and coevolution in the evolution of species interactions. If short-term reciprocal adaptation (via phenotypic plasticity or selection mosaics among populations) between predator and prey is a common process, then prey are likely to exert some selective pressure over their predators over the short term (on ecological time scales), but in the long run predators may still exert primary “top-down” control in directing evolution. On the scale of evolutionary time, predators of large effect likely control the overall directionality of evolution due to the inequalities of predator and prey in control of resources.

show abstract

“…(1) delayed reproduction with energy diverted into rapid growth in order to reach a size refuge; (2) early reproduction, possibly with some extra shell thickness; and (3) greatly increased shell thickness for deterring predator attacks. This model and an earlier one (DeAngelis et al 1984) are elaborations on a general qualitative model for bivalve prey (Seed and Brown 1978). DeAngelis et al (1985, p. 838) referred to my work (Commito 1982) on the response of the bivalves Mya arenaria and Macoma balthica to predation by the naticid Lunatia heros at Federal Harbor, Maine.…”

Section: Notes and Commentsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…However, the model of DeAngelis et al (1985) remains an interesting attempt to predict the evolutionary responses of bivalves to naticid predation. The model was improved over its earlier version (DeAngelis et al 1984) by allowing nonallometric shell thickening. It will gain further realism and utility when behavioral, chemical, and additional morphological adaptations are also included.…”

Section: Notes and Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using parameter values for Polinices duplicatus as the predator and Mercenaria mercenaria as the prey, the model predicted three optimal strategies for bivalves faced with naticid predation: (1) delayed reproduction with energy diverted into rapid growth in order to reach a size refuge; (2) early reproduction, possibly with some extra shell thickness; and (3) greatly increased shell thickness for deterring predator attacks. This model and an earlier one (DeAngelis et al 1984) are elaborations on a general qualitative model for bivalve prey (Seed and Brown 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Polinices Predation Patterns and Mercenaria Morphology Models

Commito¹

1987

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DeAngelis et al. (1985) have described a model of the evolutionary response of bivalve prey to size-selective naticid snail predation. The model analyzed "the allocation of bivalve energy among reproduction, overall growth in size, and supplementary growth in shell thickness" (p. 818). Using parameter values for Polinices duplicatus as the predator and Mercenaria mercenaria as the prey, the model predicted three optimal strategies for bivalves faced with naticid predation: (1) delayed reproduction with energy diverted into rapid growth in order to reach a size refuge; (2) early reproduction, possibly with some extra shell thickness; and (3) greatly increased shell thickness for deterring predator attacks. This model and an earlier one (DeAngelis et al. 1984) are elaborations on a general qualitative model for bivalve prey (Seed and Brown 1978). [excerpt]JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

show abstract

A Model of Naticid Gastropod Predator-Prey Coevolution

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

The Fossil Record of Drilling Predation on Bivalves and Gastropods

The Fossil Record of Drilling Predation on Bivalves and Gastropods

The Fossil Record of Predator-Prey Arms Races: Coevolution and Escalation Hypotheses

Polinices Predation Patterns and Mercenaria Morphology Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About