Evolutionary Ecology of Figs and Their Associates: Recent Progress and Outstanding Puzzles

Herre, Edward Allen; Jandér, K. Charlotte; Machado, Carlos A.

doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110232

Cited by 318 publications

(365 citation statements)

References 108 publications

(215 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

354

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, there now are over one thousand identified plant species from highly divergent families that are known to have coevolved pollination interactions with floral parasites (e.g., Herre et al 2008;Ibanez et al 2009;Kawakita 2010;Pellmyr et al 2007; . The majority of these plant species are pollinated exclusively by their coevolved partners (Dufaÿ and Anstett 2003), but some are visited also by generalist pollinators in some populations (e.g., Reynolds et al 2012;Thompson and Cunningham 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Floral Scent Contributes to Interaction Specificity in Coevolving Plants and Their Insect Pollinators

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical defenses, repellents, and attractants are important shapers of species interactions. Chemical attractants could contribute to the divergence of coevolving plant-insect interactions, if pollinators are especially responsive to signals from the local plant species. We experimentally investigated patterns of daily floral scent production in three Lithophragma species (Saxifragaceae) that are geographically isolated and tested how scent divergence affects attraction of their major pollinator-the floral parasitic moth Greya politella (Prodoxidae). These moths oviposit through the corolla while simultaneously pollinating the flower with pollen adhering to the abdomen. The complex and species-specific floral scent profiles were emitted in higher amounts during the day, when these day-flying moths are active. There was minimal divergence found in petal color, which is another potential floral attractant. Female moths responded most strongly to scent from their local host species in olfactometer bioassays, and were more likely to oviposit in, and thereby pollinate, their local host species in no-choice trials. The results suggest that floral scent is an important attractant in this interaction. Local specialization in the pollinator response to a highly specific plant chemistry, thus, has the potential to contribute importantly to patterns of interaction specificity among coevolving plants and highly specialized pollinators.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Floral Scent Contributes to Interaction Specificity in Coevolving Plants and Their Insect Pollinators

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps not surprisingly, given this degree of ecological integration, such systems often exhibit phylogenetic congruence, suggesting codivergence between symbionts (Becerra 2003;Page 2003;Schardl et al 2008). However, most mutualistic symbioses involve complex patterns of interactions among multiple species pools rather than pairwise specialization (Borowicz and Juliano 1991;Bruns et al 2002;Clay and Schardl 2002;Thompson 2005;Ollerton 2006;Herre et al 2008). Less intimate symbioses characterized by host sharing or symbiont switching frequently produce intricate patterns of complete or partial discord between symbiont phylogenies (e.g., termites and their fungal cultivars [Aanen et al 2002], figs and fig wasps [Machado et al 2005;Herre et al 2008;Jackson et al 2008], yucca moths and yucca [Smith et al 2008], squid and their bioluminescent symbionts [Dunlap et al 2007], lichen symbioses [Piercey-Normore and DePriest 2001;Rikkinen et al 2002], and mycorrhizal symbioses [Bidartondo 2005;Shefferson et al 2007]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Dating of Attine Ant and Lepiotaceous Cultivar Phylogenies Reveals Coevolutionary Synchrony and Discord

Mikheyev

Mueller

Abbot

2010

The American Naturalist

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.. abstract: The mutualistic symbiosis between fungus-gardening ants and their cultivars has made fundamental contributions to our understanding of the coevolution of complex species interactions. Reciprocal specialization and vertical symbiont cotransmission are thought to promote a pattern of largely synchronous coevolutionary diversification in attines. Here we test this hypothesis by inferring the first time-calibrated multigene phylogeny of the lepiotaceous attine cultivars and comparing it with the recently published fossilanchored phylogeny of the attine ants. While this comparison reveals some possible cases of synchronous origins of ant and fungal clades, there were a number of surprising asynchronies. For example, leafcutter cultivars appear to be significantly younger than the corresponding ant genera. Similarly, a clade of fungi interacting with primitive fungus-gardening ants-thought to be ancestral to the more derived leaf-cutter symbionts-appears instead to be a more recent acquisition from free-living stock. These macroevolutionary patterns are consistent with recent population-level studies suggesting occasional acquisition of novel cultivar types from environmental sources and horizontal transmission of cultivars between different ant species. Horizontal transmission events, even if rare, appear to form loose ecological connections between diffusely coevolving ant and fungus lineages that permit punctuated changes in the topology of the mutualistic ant-fungus interaction network.

show abstract

“…Perhaps, the most remarkable cases of reciprocal specialization between mutualists are found in obligate pollination mutualisms (Janzen 1979;Pellmyr 2003;Herre et al 2008). The fig -fig wasp and yucca -yucca moth mutualisms are well-known examples of such highly species-specific associations, in which the plants are pollinated by one or, rarely, two insect species, which in turn are highly host-specific seed parasites of the plants they pollinate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fig -fig wasp and yucca -yucca moth mutualisms are well-known examples of such highly species-specific associations, in which the plants are pollinated by one or, rarely, two insect species, which in turn are highly host-specific seed parasites of the plants they pollinate. Figs and yuccas have diversified into more than 700 and 40 species, respectively, and a corresponding high diversity of pollinator species have evolved, each of which is obligately mutualistic with one or few fig/yucca hosts (Weiblen 2002;Pellmyr 2003;Herre et al 2008). This level of specificity is unusual among pollination mutualisms because, although selection may favour plants depending on specialized visitors for effective conspecific pollination, pollinators are generally expected to maximize the range of plants they visit to optimize resource use (Pellmyr 2002;Gó mez & Zamora 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Evolutionary Ecology of Figs and Their Associates: Recent Progress and Outstanding Puzzles

Cited by 318 publications

References 108 publications

Floral Scent Contributes to Interaction Specificity in Coevolving Plants and Their Insect Pollinators

Floral Scent Contributes to Interaction Specificity in Coevolving Plants and Their Insect Pollinators

Comparative Dating of Attine Ant and Lepiotaceous Cultivar Phylogenies Reveals Coevolutionary Synchrony and Discord

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About