Emergence of structured communities through evolutionary dynamics

Shtilerman, Elad; Kessler, David A.; Shnerb, Nadav M.

doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.07.020

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, even in higher-dimensional spaces, the arguments for evolutionary slowdown presented in (Johansson, 2008, de Mazancourt et al, 2008 essentially correspond to our observation of a slow-down when diversity reaches saturation, at which point evolutionary change in each species is indeed constrained due to competing species occupying all available niches. Our approach also needs to be distinguished from approaches based primarily on ecological dynamics, as in Shtilerman et al (2015). In these approaches, emerging ecological communities are also modelled by periodically adding new species, but there is no underlying phenotype space that would determine competitive interactions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity and Coevolutionary Dynamics in High-Dimensional Phenotype Spaces

Doebeli

Ispolatov

2017

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study macroevolutionary dynamics by extending microevolutionary competition models to long time scales. It has been shown that for a general class of competition models, gradual evolutionary change in continuous phenotypes (evolutionary dynamics) can be non-stationary and even chaotic when the dimension of the phenotype space in which the evolutionary dynamics unfold is high. It has also been shown that evolutionary diversification can occur along non-equilibrium trajectories in phenotype space. We combine these lines of thinking by studying long-term coevolutionary dynamics of emerging lineages in multi-dimensional phenotype spaces. We use a statistical approach to investigate the evolutionary dynamics of many different systems. We find: 1) for a given dimension of phenotype space, the coevolutionary dynamics tends to be fast and non-stationary for an intermediate number of coexisting lineages, but tends to stabilize as the evolving communities reach a saturation level of diversity; and 2) the amount of diversity at the saturation level increases rapidly (exponentially) with the dimension of phenotype space. These results have implications for theoretical perspectives on major macroevolutionary patterns such as adaptive radiation, long-term temporal patterns of phenotypic changes, and the evolution of diversity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity and Coevolutionary Dynamics in High-Dimensional Phenotype Spaces

Doebeli

Ispolatov

2017

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interaction based eco-evolutionary models have received some attention in the past [59][60][61][62] but then were almost forgotten, despite remarkable results. We think that these works have pointed to a possible solution of a hard problem: The complexity of evolving ecosystems is immense, and it is therefore difficult to find a representation suitable for the development of a statistical mechanics that enables qualitative and quantitative analysis [52].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evolutionary changes at the ge-netic level influence ecology if they cause phenotypic variations that affect biotic or abiotic interactions of species which in turn changes the species composition and occasionally forces species to evolve their strategies [52][53][54][55][56][57][58]. This suggests that we do not need to follow all evolutionary changes at the genetic or phenotypic level, but only those that affect interactions [59][60][61][62]. Consequently, we have chosen a model in which interactions themselves are evolving.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade-off shapes diversity in eco-evolutionary dynamics

Farahpour

Saeedghalati

Brauer

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We introduce an Interaction and Trade-off based Eco-Evolutionary Model (ITEEM), in which species are competing for resources in a well-mixed system, and their evolution in interaction trait space is subject to a life-history trade-off between replication rate and competitive ability.We demonstrate that the strength of the trade-off has a fundamental impact on eco-evolutionary dynamics, as it imposes four phases of diversity, including a sharp phase transition. Despite its minimalism, ITEEM produces without further ad hoc features a remarkable range of observed patterns of eco-evolutionary dynamics. Most notably we find self-organization towards structured communities with high and sustainable diversity, in which competing species form interaction cycles similar to rock-paper-scissors games.

show abstract

“…A traditional model for describing an interacting population is the generalized Lotka-Volterra equation [5,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. In particular, some studies [5,[39][40][41]44] assumed that the interaction determines the likelihood of death from a pairwise competition, parameterizing the interaction into the competition death rate. These interaction parameters can be written as a form of a matrix including selfinteraction.…”

Section: Model and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These interaction parameters can be written as a form of a matrix including selfinteraction. However, only a few studies considered novel mutations [5,41,48]. Drawing new interaction parameters for a new type and extending the interaction matrix, we considered a novel mutation process.…”

Section: Model and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is cyclic dominance so rare?

Park

Pichugin

Traulsen

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural populations can contain multiple types of coexisting individuals. How does natural selection maintain such diversity within and across populations? A popular theoretical basis for the maintenance of diversity is cyclic dominance, illustrated by the rock-paper-scissor game. However, it appears difficult to find cyclic dominance in nature. Why is this case? Focusing on continuously produced novel mutations, we theoretically addressed the rareness of cyclic dominance. We developed a model of an evolving population and studied the formation of cyclic dominance. Our results showed that the chance for cyclic dominance to emerge is lower when the newly introduced type is similar to existing types, whereas the introduction of an unrelated type improves these chances.This suggests that cyclic dominance is more likely to evolve through the assembly of unrelated types whereas it rarely evolves within a community of similar types. * traulsen@evolbio.mpg.de U. stansburiana and D. melanogaster, whereas common resource competition induces cyclic dominance between species.However, traditional theoretical work assumes a set of predefined cyclic dominance types without asking how they developed or came together. In ecosystems, the introduction of a new species through migration can lead to such cyclic dominance. However, immigrating species can also disturb and destroy cyclic dominance. In evolving populations, new types can arise through mutation and recombination. In the same manner, mutation and recombination can lead to the formation of cyclic dominance but can also lead to types that do not fit into such types of dominance and break the cycle. A recent experimental study [27] indicated that in the assembly of microbial ecosystems found in one grain, only 3 of almost 1000 triplets exhibited cyclic dominance, whereas more than 500 exhibited non-cyclic dominance triplets. Other soil bacterial species [28,29] also displayed a lack of cyclic dominance.This rareness is present in both soil bacteria and plant systems [24]. Why is it so difficult for cyclic dominance to assemble or evolve? In this study, we ask the following question theoretically: How frequent is cyclic dominance in situations in which new types constantly arise, providing an opportunity for new cycles but also breaking old cycles at the same time?Forming a cyclic dominance from a single type is challenging because any pair has a dominance relationship. Once a new mutant emerges in a homogeneous population, one of the types quickly vanishes because of the dominance. Therefore, a third type must arise before the population loses either of the two previous types. Such a precise timing of the arrival of a new type is critical for developing cyclic dominance and it can occur when new types arise at a high frequency, either through high mutation rates, recombination, or immigration [30,31]. This rapid evolution can be achieved through both high mutation rates per capita and large population sizes [30][31][32][33][34]. Thus, we considered a model in which the popu...

show abstract

Emergence of structured communities through evolutionary dynamics

Cited by 13 publications

References 28 publications

Diversity and Coevolutionary Dynamics in High-Dimensional Phenotype Spaces

Diversity and Coevolutionary Dynamics in High-Dimensional Phenotype Spaces

Trade-off shapes diversity in eco-evolutionary dynamics

Why is cyclic dominance so rare?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About