生物多样性 ›› 2012, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (3): 264-269.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.06089

所属专题: 传粉生物学:理论探讨与初步实践

• 综述 • 上一篇    下一篇

榕树–榕小蜂协同进化中的非对称性相互作用及其集合种群效应

路程1, 2, 耿宇鹏1*, 王瑞武2*   

  1. 1云南大学生态学与地植物学研究所, 昆明 650091
    2中国科学院昆明动物研究所遗传资源与进化国家重点实验室, 昆明 650223
  • 收稿日期:2011-06-01 修回日期:2011-10-31 出版日期:2012-05-20
  • 通讯作者: 王瑞武 E-mail:wangrw@mail.kiz.ac.cn

Asymmetric interaction and its effects on the meta-population dynamics in co-evolved fig–fig wasps systems

Cheng Lu1, 2, Yupeng Geng1*, Ruiwu Wang2*   

  1. 1Institute of Ecology and Geobotany, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091

    2Ecology, Conservation, and Environment Center, State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650223
  • Received:2011-06-01 Revised:2011-10-31 Online:2012-05-20
  • Contact: Ruiwu Wang E-mail:wangrw@mail.kiz.ac.cn

在协同进化研究中, 传统观点认为物种之间的相互作用是对称性的, 在进化过程中将形成一个稳定的均衡状态或进化稳定策略。然而, 近来的观测和实验数据表明, 物种间的协同进化可能存在非对称性相互作用, 而且这种非对称性可能造成集合种群效应(metapopulation effect)或形成非均衡状态(例如混沌, chaos)。本文利用“榕树–榕小蜂”这一经典的协同进化模式系统来介绍协同进化过程中的非对称性相互作用, 以及这种非对称性如何产生集合种群效应。在榕–蜂共生系统中, 栖身于榕果中的榕小蜂除了传粉小蜂之外, 还有一些“投机”的非传粉小蜂。非传粉小蜂比传粉小蜂具有更强的竞争力, 而榕树则可惩罚不合作的非传粉蜂, 同时奖励合作的传粉小蜂, 从而形成了复杂的非对称性种间相互作用。在某个斑块生境中, 非传粉小蜂通过竞争作用排斥传粉小蜂, 然而随着非传粉小蜂在蜂群中的比例不断升高, 榕树惩罚作用(如落果等)常常会导致整个非传粉蜂群的数量急剧下降, 甚至局域性灭绝。随后, 其他斑块的传粉小蜂则迁移过来填补空白。然而, 随着传粉小蜂种群的数量增长, 该斑块又会集聚更多的投机性非传粉小蜂, 进而诱发榕树再次进行惩罚。这样的非对称性相互作用导致了非传粉小蜂、传粉小蜂以及榕树种群的集合效应, 其种群大小呈现周期性的“此消彼长”式的循环。

Interactions among co-evolved species has been assumed to operate in a symmetrical manner, resulting in stable equilibrium or evolutionary stable strategies for the observed species. However, recent observational and experimental data highlight the existence of asymmetrical interactions, which may lead to meta-populations or non-equilibrium states (e.g. chaos) between co-evolved species. Here, we explore the asymmetrical interaction in the classic ‘fig–fig wasp’ co-evolution model system and show how such asymmetric interactions may produce meta-populations. It is well known that there are two different kinds of fig wasps inhabiting fig fruits (i.e. pollinator wasps and non-pollinating exploiter wasps). Exploiter wasps have a fitness advantage over pollinator wasps because they do not pay the cooperative cost. However, figs can effectively restrict exploiter wasps, and reward the pollinator wasps, resulting in complex asymmetric interactions among species. Specifically, the discriminative restriction of paretic wasps by fig trees will cause drastic population decreases or even local extinction of the exploiter species in some fig trees, syconia, or associated habitats. In patches where populations of exploiters are low or extinct, pollinator wasps will immigrate leading to concomitant population size increases due to the high reward of fig trees. The prosperity of pollinator wasps will then attract more exploiters, and population increases of exploiter wasps will lead to the sanction by fig trees again. Over the long term, populations of different wasps will chaotically oscillate either temporally or evolutionary through asymmetric interactions.

Anstett MC, Bronstein JL, and Hossaert-McKey M (1996) Resource allocation: a conflict in the fig-fig wasp mutualism. Journal of Evolutionary Biology,9, 417-428.
Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 211,
Berg CC (1989) Classification and distribution of Ficus. Experientia, 45, 605–611.
1390–96.
Bronstein JL (2001b) The costs of Mutualism. American Zoology, 41, 825-839.
Bronstein JL, McKey D (1989) The fig/pollinator mutualism: a model system for
comparative biology. Experientia, 45, 601–604.
Cook JM, Rasplus JY (2003) Mutualists with attitude: coevolving fig wasps and figs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 241–248.
Crabb BA, and Pellmyr O (2004) Defection by plants in the yucca-yucca moth association: a test of the cheater plant hypothesis for Yucca treculeana. Oikos, 107, 321-328.
Dafni A (1984) Mimicry and deception in pollination. Annual review of Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, 259-278.
Ehrlich P, and Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution ,18, 586-608.
Galil J, Neeman G (1977) Pollen transfer and pollination in the common fig. New Phytol, 79, 163-171.
Hamilton WD (1972) Altruism and related phenomena, mainly in social insects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 3, 193-232.
Herre EA, and West SA (1997) Conflict of interest in a mutualism: documenting the elusive fig wasp-seed trade-off. Proceeds of the Royal Society B, 264, 1501-1507.
Hossaert M, Gibernau M , and Frey JE (1994) Chemosensory attraction of fig wasps to substances produced by receptive figs. Entomol.exp.appl, 70(2) , 185-191.
Huth CJ, and Pellmyr O (2000) Pollen-mediated selective abortion in Yuccas and its consequences for the plant-pollinator mutualism. Ecology, 81, 1100–1107.
Jazen DH (1979) How to be a fig. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 10, 13–51.
Jousselin E, Hossaert-McKey M, Herre EA, and Kjellberg F (2003) Why do fig wasps actively pollinate monoecious figs? Oecologia, 134, 381-387.
Jousselin E, Hossaert-McKey M, Herre EA, and Kjellberg F (2003) Why do fig wasps actively pollinate monoecious figs? Oecologia, 134, 381-387.
Kerdelhue C. and Rasplus JY (1996a) Non-pollinating Afrotropical fig wasps affect the fig-pollinator mutualism in Ficus within the subgenus Sycomorus. Oikos, 75, 3-4.
Liu ZG , Li ZQ, Dong M (2005) Model analysis of plant community dynamics. Biodiversity Science, 13(3), 269-277.
Machado CA, Jousselin E, Kjellberg F, Compton SG, Herre EA (2001) Phylogenetic relationships, historical biogeography and character evolution of fig–pollinating wasps. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268, 685–694.
Maynard Smith J (1982) Do animals convey information about their intentions? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 97, 1-5.
Morris WF, Bronstein JL, and Wilson WG (2003) Three way coexistence in obligate mutualist-exploiter interactions: the potential role of competition. The American Naturalist, 161, 860–874.
Pellmyr O , and Huth CJ (1994) Evolutionary stability of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths. Nature, 372, 257–260.
Ramirez WB (1970) Host specificity of fig wasps (Agaonidae). Evolution, 24, 681–691.
Ronsted N, Weiblen GD, Cook JM, Salamin N, Machado CA, Savolainen V (2005) 60 million years of co-divergence in the fig–wasp symbiosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 2593–2599.
Sun BF, Wang RW, and Hu Z (2008) The diet separation of fig wasps and the stability of fig–fig wasp. Biodiversity Science, 16(6), 525-532.
Sun BF, Wang RW, Hu Z, and Li YT (2009) The relation between two non-pollinating wasps oviposition and the fruit abscission on Ficus racemosa. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29, 1–6.
Trivers R (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57.
Wang R.W, and Zheng Q ( 2008) Structure of a fig wasp community: Temporal segregation of oviposition and larval diets. Symbiosis, 45, 113-116.
Wang RW , He JZ, Wang YQ, Shi L, Li YT(2010) Asymmetric interaction will facilitate the evolution of cooperation. Science in China ,53(6),1-6.
Wang RW, and Sun BF (2009) The seasonal change in the structure of fig-wasp community of figs and its implication for conservation. Symbiosis, 47, 77-83.
Wang RW, Shi L (2010) The evolution of cooperation in asymmetric systems. Science in China C,53,139-149.
Wang RW, Shi L, Ai SM, and Zheng Q (2008) Trade-off between the reciprocal mutualists: local resource availability oriented interaction in fig/fig wasp mutualism. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77, 616–623.
Wang RW, Yang CY, Zhao GF, and Yang JX (2005a) Fragmentation effects diversity of wasp community and its impact on fig/fig wasp interaction in Ficus racemosa. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 47 (1),144–152.
Wang RW, Yang JX, Yang DR (2005b) Seasonal changes in the trade-off among the fig-supported wasps and viable seeds in figs and their evolutionary implications. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 47(2), 144-155.
Weiblen GD (2002) How to be a fig wasp. Annual Review of Entomology, 47, 299–330.
West SA, Pen I, Griffin A (2002) Cooperation and competition between relatives. Science, 296, 72-75.
Wiebes JT (1979) Co-evolution of ?gs and their insect pollinators. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 10, 1–12.
Wood DM, del Moral R (1987) Mechanisms of early pri-mary succession in subalpine habitats on Mount St. Helens. Ecology, 68, 780–790.
Yang CY, Wang RW, Zhao GF, and Yang DR (2005) Diet of non-pollinating wasps and their impact on the stability of fig-pollinator wasp mutualism. Zoological Research, 26, 379–385.
Yu DW (2001) Parasites of mutualism. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 72, 529–546.
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed