scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Choosing benefits or partners: a review of the evidence for the evolution of myrmecochory

01 Mar 2006-Oikos (Munksgaard International Publishers)-Vol. 112, Iss: 3, pp 481-492
TL;DR: It is argued that focusing future research on the evolution of partner choice by myrmecochores and its effects on the overall plant fitness will be more fruitful than putting an emphasis on classifying the selective advantage to plants into distinct categories and test for their existence separately.
Abstract: Myrmecochory, or seed dispersal by ants, is a dispersal syndrome found among several thousand plant species occupying different ecosystems and geographical regions. Typically, ants benefit from consuming a lipid-rich appendage on the seed and in return provide seed dispersal service to the plant. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the selective advantage for plants resulting from myrmecochory, including directed dispersal, dispersal for distance and escape from seed predators. I contrast the evidence available in the literature for these hypotheses and distinguish the studies on the basis of ecosystem and plant growth forms. The predator-avoidance and the distance dispersal hypotheses were supported in most studies that addressed them, and the directed dispersal hypothesis was supported in about half of the studies that tested it. Multiple hypotheses were supported in most studies that tested more than one hypothesis, suggesting that the various selective advantages conferred from myrmecochory are seldom exclusive. I also review evidence for the hypothesis that plants have evolved adaptations both for selecting seed dispersers and for manipulating the behavior of those dispersers. Based on this evidence, I argue that focusing future research on the evolution of partner choice by myrmecochores and its effects on the overall plant fitness will be more fruitful than putting an emphasis on classifying the selective advantage to plants into distinct categories and test for their existence separately.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is proposed that ecological opportunity could promote adaptive radiation by generating specific changes to the selective regimes acting on natural populations, both by relaxing effective stabilizing selection and by creating conditions that ultimately generate diversifying selection.
Abstract: Ecological opportunity – through entry into a new environment, the origin of a key innovation or extinction of antagonists – is widely thought to link ecological population dynamics to evolutionary diversification. The population-level processes arising from ecological opportunity are well documented under the concept of ecological release. However, there is little consensus as to how these processes promote phenotypic diversification, rapid speciation and adaptive radiation. We propose that ecological opportunity could promote adaptive radiation by generating specific changes to the selective regimes acting on natural populations, both by relaxing effective stabilizing selection and by creating conditions that ultimately generate diversifying selection. We assess theoretical and empirical evidence for these effects of ecological opportunity and review emerging phylogenetic approaches that attempt to detect the signature of ecological opportunity across geological time. Finally, we evaluate the evidence for the evolutionary effects of ecological opportunity in the diversification of Caribbean Anolis lizards. Some of the processes that could link ecological opportunity to adaptive radiation are well documented, but others remain unsupported. We suggest that more study is required to characterize the form of natural selection acting on natural populations and to better describe the relationship between ecological opportunity and speciation rates.

562 citations


Cites background from "Choosing benefits or partners: a re..."

  • ...…is associated with reduced seed predation and better seed placement, both of which allow plants employing this strategy to produce fewer seeds (Giladi, 2006); but because ants do not disperse seeds very far from the source plant, myrmecochorous species are more prone to allopatric speciation…...

    [...]

  • ...For instance, seed dispersal by ants (myrmecochory) is associated with reduced seed predation and better seed placement, both of which allow plants employing this strategy to produce fewer seeds (Giladi, 2006); but because ants do not disperse seeds very far from the source plant, myrmecochorous species are more prone to allopatric speciation (Lengyel et al....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Several features uniting very diverse insect-plant mutualisms are identified and their evolutionary implications are discussed: the involvement of one mobile and one sedentary partner; natural selection on plant rewards; the existence of a continuum from specialization to generalization; and the ubiquity of cheating.
Abstract: Mutualisms (cooperative interactions between species) have had a central role in the generation and maintenance of life on earth. Insects and plants are involved in diverse forms of mutualism. Here we review evolutionary features of three prominent insect-plant mutualisms: pollination, protection and seed dispersal. We focus on addressing five central phenomena: evolutionary origins and maintenance of mutualism; the evolution of mutualistic traits; the evolution of specialization and generalization; coevolutionary processes; and the existence of cheating. Several features uniting very diverse insect-plant mutualisms are identified and their evolutionary implications are discussed: the involvement of one mobile and one sedentary partner; natural selection on plant rewards; the existence of a continuum from specialization to generalization; and the ubiquity of cheating, particularly on the part of insects. Plant-insect mutualisms have apparently both arisen and been lost repeatedly. Many adaptive hypotheses have been proposed to explain these transitions, and it is unlikely that any one of them dominates across interactions differing so widely in natural history. Evolutionary theory has a potentially important, but as yet largely unfilled, role to play in explaining the origins, maintenance, breakdown and evolution of insect-plant mutualisms.

433 citations


Cites background from "Choosing benefits or partners: a re..."

  • ...They are not independent of each other, and their relative importance seems to vary across habitats (Giladi, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...However, efficient seed dispersal often involves very few of the ant species present in a given habitat, and the ants in that habitat clearly make choices among the available myrmecochorous seeds (reviewed by Giladi, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...Evolutionary aspects of seed dispersal by ants, in contrast, have been investigated only minimally (but cf. Giladi, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...Two guilds of ants have been recognized: one of poor-quality dispersers characterized by group-foraging granivores; the other of higher-quality dispersers characterized by solitary-foraging scavengers or omnivores attracted to the prey-like odors of the elaisome (Hughes & Westoby, 1992; Hughes et al., 1994; Giladi, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...Ant-mediated seed dispersal (myrmecochory) has been recorded in over 3000 plant species and more than 80 plant families (Giladi, 2006)....

    [...]

01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: In this article, a review summarizes information on ecosystem services provided by ants in a framework modeled after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and they show that ants provide services in each of these categories.
Abstract: Ants are important for the maintenance and functioning of many ecosystems and provide a variety of ecosystem services and disservices.This review summarizes information on ecosystem services provided by ants in a framework modeled after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In this framework, ecosystem services are divided into provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services, and we show that ants provide services in each of these categories. We also present a review of some of the major disservices mediated by ants (i.e., the roles of ants that have negative consequences on human and environmental health, and societal well-being). Our review does not exhaustively review any single ecosystem service or disservice, but rather pieces together the many ways in which ants are influential in our changing planet and society. We conclude by describing future areas of research that will help better understand the impact of ants on ecosystems and society.

289 citations


Cites background from "Choosing benefits or partners: a re..."

  • ...Myrmecochory is the result of a co-evolutionary, mutualistic relationship in which the seed provides ants with a lipidrich nutritional resource, called an elaiosome, in return for which the ant collects and disperses the seed (BEATTIE 1985, GILADI 2006)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The taxonomic, phylogenetic and biogeographic distribution of myrmecochory in flowering plants is reviewed and it is shown that myrmicochory has evolved in most of the major angiosperm lineages and that it is more frequent in younger families (crown group age) than in older families.
Abstract: Seed dispersal is a fundamental life history trait in plants. Although the recent surge of interest in seed dispersal by ants (myrmecochory) has added greatly to knowledge on the ecology of seed dispersal and ant–plant mutualisms, myrmecochory also represents a unique opportunity to examine the links between seed dispersal and evolution in flowering plants. Here we review the taxonomic, phylogenetic and biogeographic distribution of myrmecochory in flowering plants. Myrmecochory is mediated by elaiosomes, i.e., lipid-rich seed appendages that attract ants and serve as rewards for dispersal. We surveyed the literature for evidence of elaiosomes in angiosperm plants to estimate the global prevalence of myrmecochory. We then searched the literature for phylogenetic reconstructions to identify myrmecochorous lineages and to estimate the minimum number of independent evolutionary origins of myrmecochory. We found that myrmecochory is present in at least 11 000 species or 4.5% of all species, in 334 genera or 2.5% of all genera and in 77 families or 17% of all families of angiosperm plants. We identified at least 101, but possibly up to 147, independent origins of myrmecochory. We estimated three or more origins in 13 families and found that at least half the genera are myrmecochorous in 10 families. Most myrmecochorous lineages were Australian, South African or northern temperate (Holarctic). A mapping of families containing myrmecochorous genera on a dated angiosperm supertree showed that myrmecochory has evolved in most of the major angiosperm lineages and that it is more frequent in younger families (crown group age

229 citations


Cites background from "Choosing benefits or partners: a re..."

  • ...Grandicalyx (‘genome K’lineage) Berg (1975), Westoby et al. (1990) AU 12 Seelanan et al. (1999), Liu et al. (2001) 96 Malvaceae Lasiopetalum, Hannafordia, Maxwellia, Thomasia, Guichenotia, Commersonia, Rulingia, Keraudrenia, Seringia Berg (1975), Westoby et al. (1990) AU 167 Whitlock et al. (2001) 97 Malvaceae Sterculia Gorb and Gorb (2003) PnT 150 Wilkie et al. (2006) 98 Marantaceae Calathea Horvitz and Beattie (1980), Beattie (1983) NT 257 N/A 99 Melanthiaceae Trillium Beattie and Culver (1981), Beattie (1983), Dahlgren et al. (1985) HA 38 Farmer and Schilling (2002) 100 Menyanthaceae Villarsia Mabberley (2008) AU 14 N/A 101 Myrtaceae Myrtus Ciccarelli et al. (2005) PA 2 N/A 102 Papaveraceae Corydalis, Dicentra, Adlumia, Dactylocapnos, Rupicapnos, Pseudofumaria, Cysticapnos Beattie and Culver (1981), Bond and Slingsby (1983) HA 384 Liden et al. (1997) 103 Papaveraceae Dendromecon Beattie (1983) NA 2 N/A 104 Papaveraceae Sanguinaria, Chelidonium, Eomecon, Macleaya, Bocconia, Hylomecon, Stylophorum Beattie and Culver (1981), van der Pijl (1982), Beattie (1983), Gorb and Gorb (2003) HA 99 Blattner and Kadereit (1999) 105 Penaeaceae Penaea, Brachysiphon, Endonema, Saltera, Stylapterus Bond and Slingsby (1983) PT 23 Rutschmann et al. (2004), Sytsma et al. (2004), Rutschmann et al. (2007) 106 Phyllanthaceae Breynia Berg (1975), Westoby et al. (1990) IM 35 Kathriarachchi et al. (2006) 107 Picrodendraceae Picrodendron, Micrantheum, Oldfieldia, Stachystemon, Aristogeitonia, Scagea Berg (1975), Westoby et al. (1990), Webster (1994), Wurdack et al. (2005), Sutter et al. (2006) OW 82 Tokuoka and Tobe (2006), Wurdack unpubl. fromWurdack et al. (2005) 108 Piperaceae Peperomia Beattie (1983) PnT 1600 109 Poaceae Chionachne Mabberley (2008) IM 9 Mathews et al. (2002) 110 Poaceae Cryptochloa, Rottboelia, Sieglingia, Triodia Beattie (1983), Mabberley (2008) PnT 79 N/A 111 Poaceae Melica Stebbins (1971), van der Pijl (1982), Beattie (1983) HA 80 Barker et al. (2001) 112 Polygalaceae Polygala, Bredemeyera, Muraltia, Nylandtia, Heterosamara, Salomonia, Comesperma, Monnina, Securidaca Berg (1975), Beattie (1983), Westoby et al. (1990), Forest et al. (2007) WW 910 Forest et al. (2007) 113 Portulacaceae Claytonia, Montia Beattie and Culver (1981), Beattie (1983), Mabberley (2008) NA 41 Applequist and Wallace (2001), Nyffeler (2007) 114 Primulaceae Cyclamen Beattie (1983), Mabberley (2008) PA 20 Anderberg et al. (2000) Table 1 (continued ) No Family Genera with myrmecochory Myrmecochory reference Geographic distributiona No. speciesb Phylogeny reference 115 Primulaceae Primula Stebbins (1971), van der Pijl (1982), Beattie (1983) HA 430 N/A 116 Proteaceae Grevillea Berg (1975), Westoby et al. (1990), Auld and Denham (1999) AU 260 Hoot and Douglas (1998), Barker et al. (2007) 117 Proteaceae Mimetes, Orothamnus, Leucospermum, Diastella, Sorocephalus, Spatalla, Paranomus, Vexatorella, Serruria, Leucadendron, Adenanthos Berg (1975), Protea Atlas Project (2007) PT 308 Hoot and Douglas (1998), Barker et al. (2002), Barker et al. (2007) 118 Ranunculaceae Anemone Beattie and Culver (1981), van der Pijl (1982), Beattie (1983) HA 120 Johansson and Jansen (1993) 119 Ranunculaceae Delphinium Beattie (1983) HA 250 Johansson and Jansen (1993) 120 Ranunculaceae Ficaria Weiss (1908), Gorb and Gorb (2003) PA 5 Paun et al. (2005) 121 Ranunculaceae Helleborus van der Pijl (1982), Beattie (1983), Manzaneda et al. (2007), Mabberley (2008) HA 20 Johansson and Jansen (1993) 122 Ranunculaceae Hepatica Beattie and Culver (1981), van der Pijl (1982), Beattie (1983) HA 20 N/A 123 Ranunculaceae Trollius, Adonis Beattie (1983) HA 55 Johansson and Jansen (1993) 124 Resedaceae Reseda Berg (1975), Peters et al. (2003) OW 65 Martin-Bravo et al. (2007) 125 Restionaceae Restio Berg (1975), Westoby et al. (1990) PT 88 Bremer (2002), Moline and Linder (2005) 126 Rhamnaceae Phylica, Trichocephalus Bond and Slingsby (1983) PT 151 Richardson et al. (2004) 127 Rhamnaceae Pomaderris, Spyridium, Trymalium, Siegfriedia, Cryptandra, Stenanthemum Berg (1975), Milewski and Bond (1982), Westoby et al. (1990; Boesewinkel (1999) AU 172 Richardson et al. (2004) 128 Rosaceae Aremonia Mabberley (2008) PA 1 N/A 129 Rosaceae Potentilla Gorb and Gorb (2003), Guillen et al. (2005) HA 330 N/A 130 Rubiaceae Opercularia, Pomax Westoby et al. (1990) AU 19 Andersson and Rova (1999), Anderson et al. (2001) 131 Rubiaceae Theligonium Mabberley (2008) PA 4 N/A 132 Rutaceae Asterolasia Auld (2001) AU 21 Mole et al. (2004) 133 Rutaceae Brombya Mabberley (2008) AU 2 N/A 134 Rutaceae Medicosma Mabberley (2008) AU 25 N/A 135 Rutaceae Phebalium, Microcybe Berg (1975), Westoby et al. (1990), Auld (2001) AU 31 Mole et al. (2004) 136 Santalaceae Thesium, Osyridicarpos Sernander (1906), Pilger (1935) OW 177 Der and Nickrent (2008) 137 Sapindaceae Cardiospermum Reynolds (1981) NT 61 Harrington et al. (2005) 138 Sapindaceae Dodonaea Berg (1975), Hughes and Westoby (1990), Jurado et al. (1991) PnT 70 Harrington et al. (2005) 139 Scrophulariaceae Melampyrum Weiss (1908), Stebbins (1971), van der Pijl (1982), Beattie (1983), Fischer (2004) PA 35 Wolfe et al. (2005), Bennett and Mathews (2006) 140 Scrophulariaceae Pedicularis Stebbins (1971), van der Pijl (1982), Beattie (1983), Fischer (2004) HA 350 Wolfe et al. (2005), Bennett and Mathews (2006) 141 Solanaceae Datura Beattie (1983) NA 11 Olmstead et al. (2008) 142 Solanaceae Markea Beattie (1983) NT 42 Olmstead et al. (2008) 143 Stemonaceae Stemona, Pentastemona, Croomia, Stichoneuron Dahlgren et al. (1985), Gorb and Gorb (2003), Rudall and Bateman (2006) IM 27 Caddick et al. (2002) 144 Tecophilaeaceae Cyanastrum Beattie (1983) PT 7 Chase et al. (2000) 145 Turneraceae Turnera Schappert and Shore (2000), Cuautle et al. (2005) NT 100 Truyens et al. (2005) 146 Urticaceae Parietaria Gorb and Gorb (2003), Mabberley (2008) WW 10 Sytsma et al. (2002) 147 Valerianaceae Fedia Beattie (1983) PA 3 Hidalgo et al. (2004) 148 Violaceae Rinorea Gorb and Gorb (2003) PnT 165 N/A 149 Violaceae Viola, Hybanthus Berg (1975), Beattie and Culver (1981)), van der Pijl (1982) WW 400 Tokuoka (2008) 150 Zingiberaceae Globba sect....

    [...]

  • ...…provides the seed with protection from seed predators, a safe place for seed survival during unfavourable periods such as fires and/or a microsite rich in nutrients (see detailed reviews of these benefits in Beattie, 1983; Gorb and Gorb, 2003; Giladi, 2006; and Rico-Gray and Oliveira, 2007)....

    [...]

  • ...Although the most recent estimates suggest that myrmecochory is present in more than 80 families (Giladi, 2006), there has been no systematic evaluation of the taxonomic, biogeographic and phylogenetic distribution of myrmecochory in angiosperm plants....

    [...]

  • ...148 Violaceae Rinorea Gorb and Gorb (2003) PnT 165 N/A 149 Violaceae Viola, Hybanthus Berg (1975), Beattie and Culver...

    [...]

  • ...Myrmecochory provides the seed with protection from seed predators, a safe place for seed survival during unfavourable periods such as fires and/or a microsite rich in nutrients (see detailed reviews of these benefits in Beattie, 1983; Gorb and Gorb, 2003; Giladi, 2006; and Rico-Gray and Oliveira, 2007)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There is a basic lack of understanding of the direct and indirect paths by which invertebrates influence ecosystem services, as well as how climate change will affect those ecosystem services by altering invertebrate populations.
Abstract: The sustainability of ecosystem services depends on a firm understanding of both how organisms provide these services to humans and how these organisms will be altered with a changing climate. Unquestionably a dominant feature of most ecosystems, invertebrates affect many ecosystem services and are also highly responsive to climate change. However, there is still a basic lack of understanding of the direct and indirect paths by which invertebrates influence ecosystem services, as well as how climate change will affect those ecosystem services by altering invertebrate populations. This indicates a lack of communication and collaboration among scientists researching ecosystem services and climate change effects on invertebrates, and land managers and researchers from other disciplines, which becomes obvious when systematically reviewing the literature relevant to invertebrates, ecosystem services, and climate change. To address this issue, we review how invertebrates respond to climate change. We then review how invertebrates both positively and negatively influence ecosystem services. Lastly, we provide some critical future directions for research needs, and suggest ways in which managers, scientists and other researchers may collaborate to tackle the complex issue of sustaining invertebrate-mediated services under a changing climate.

215 citations


Cites background from "Choosing benefits or partners: a re..."

  • ..., 2009), plants that attract ants with a lipid-rich food body and rely on ants as their primary dispersal agent (Giladi, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...…ants are common (Willems & Huijsmans, 1994; Eisenhauer et al., 2008; Regnier et al., 2008), in tropical forests and savannahs where dung beetle diversity is greatest (Nichols et al., 2008), and regions where myrmecochores are concentrated (e.g., temperate deciduous forests: Giladi, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...The latter include an estimated 11000 species of myrmecochores (Lengyel et al., 2009), plants that attract ants with a lipid-rich food body and rely on ants as their primary dispersal agent (Giladi, 2006)....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Together with the development and refinement of mathematical models, this promises a deeper, more mechanistic understanding of dispersal processes and their consequences.
Abstract: Growing interest in spatial ecology is promoting new approaches to the study of seed dispersal, one of the key processes determining the spatial structure of plant populations. Seed-dispersion patterns vary among plant species, populations and individuals, at different distances from parents, different microsites and different times. Recent field studies have made progress in elucidating the mechanisms behind these patterns and the implications of these patterns for recruitment success. Together with the development and refinement of mathematical models, this promises a deeper, more mechanistic understanding of dispersal processes and their consequences.

1,884 citations


"Choosing benefits or partners: a re..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Seed dispersal is an extremely important life transition (Schupp and Fuentes 1995, Nathan and Muller-Landau 2000), and plant traits that affect seed dispersal are likely to be under strong selection pressure....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Interspecific interactions are traditionally displayed in a grid in which each interaction is placed according to its outcome, but the full range of natural outcomes may reveal far more about its ecological and evolutionary dynamics than does the average outcome at a given place and time.
Abstract: Interspecific interactions are traditionally displayed in a grid in which each interaction is placed according to its outcome (positive, negative or neutral) for each partner. However, recent field studies consistently find the costs and benefits that determine net effects to vary greatly in both space and time, inevitably causing outcomes within most interactions to vary as well. Interactions show ‘conditionality' when costs and benefits, and thus outcomes, are affected in predictable ways by current ecological conditions. The full range of natural outcomes of a given association may reveal far more about its ecological and evolutionary dynamics than does the average outcome at a given place and time.

861 citations


"Choosing benefits or partners: a re..." refers background or result in this paper

  • ...This apparent asymmetry in that interaction may be biologically meaningful or reflect an asymmetry in research effort as in the investigation of other plant /animal mutualisms (Cushman and Beattie 1991, Bronstein 1994b)....

    [...]

  • ...The selection for or against mutualism may vary greatly across space and time if the context within which the interaction occurs vary as well (Bronstein 1994a, Thompson 1999)....

    [...]

  • ...…choice and its effect on plant fitness The outcomes of interspecific interactions are often conditioned on the abiotic and biotic contexts of the interaction and on the identities and behaviors of the participating species (Cushman and Whitham 1989, Cushman and Beattie 1991, Bronstein 1994a)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Beattie as discussed by the authors reviewed the natural history of ant-plant interactions, discussed the scientific evidence for the mutualistic nature of these relationships, and reached some conclusions about the ecological and evolutionary processes that mold them.
Abstract: Mutualistic interactions between ants and plants involve rewards offered by plants and services performed by ants in a mutually advantageous relationship. The rewards are principally food and/or nest sites, and ants in turn perform a number of services for plants: they disperse and plant seeds; they protect foliage, buds, and reproductive structures from enemies such as herbivores and seed predators; they fertilize plants with essential nutrients; and they may sometimes function as pollinators. In this book, initially published in 1985, Professor Beattie reviews the fascinating natural history of ant–plant interactions, discusses the scientific evidence for the mutualistic nature of these relationships, and reaches some conclusions about the ecological and evolutionary processes that mold them. This important work explores the natural history, experimental approach, and integration with contemporary evolutionary and ecological literature of the time will appeal to a wide variety of biologists.

749 citations

Book
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: Professor Beattie reviews the fascinating natural history of ant–plant interactions, discusses the scientific evidence for the mutualistic nature of these relationships, and reaches some conclusions about the ecological and evolutionary processes that mold them.
Abstract: Mutualistic interactions between ants and plants involve rewards offered by plants and services performed by ants in a mutually advantageous relationship. The rewards are principally food and/or nest sites, and ants in turn perform a number of services for plants: they disperse and plant seeds; they protect foliage, buds, and reproductive structures from enemies such as herbivores and seed predators; they fertilize plants with essential nutrients; and they may sometimes function as pollinators. In this book, initially published in 1985, Professor Beattie reviews the fascinating natural history of ant–plant interactions, discusses the scientific evidence for the mutualistic nature of these relationships, and reaches some conclusions about the ecological and evolutionary processes that mold them. This important work explores the natural history, experimental approach, and integration with contemporary evolutionary and ecological literature of the time will appeal to a wide variety of biologists.

674 citations


"Choosing benefits or partners: a re..." refers background or result in this paper

  • ...Based on the evidence available at the time, Beattie (1985) argued that the directed dispersal hypothesis was the best supported hypothesis, and it is still perceived as the leading hypothesis on the evolution of myrmecochory (Wenny 2001) even though it has been frequently challenged (Bond et al.…...

    [...]

  • ...In this paper, I summarize the evidence in the literature for three major hypotheses (Beattie 1985) on the evolution of myrmecochory....

    [...]

  • ...Beattie (1985) has also argued that evidence supporting the predator-avoidance hypothesis will be found mainly where seed predation by small mammals, which are assumed to be the main competitors of seed-dispersing ants, is dominant....

    [...]

  • ...The apparent weaker support for the directed dispersal hypothesis in the current review compared to that in Beattie (1985) may be a consequence of the inclusion of new information in the current review 488 OIKOS 112:3 (2006) (44 out of 62 studies included here were published later than 1985), but…...

    [...]

  • ...the nest or in a refuse pile outside (Beattie 1985)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Long‐term field studies of the same interaction across multiple communities and spatially structured mathematical models are together beginning to show that coevolution may be a more important ongoing process than had been indicated by earlier empirical and theoretical studies lacking a geographic perspective.
Abstract: Coevolution is one of the major processes organizing the earth's biodiversity. The need to understand coevolution as an ongoing process has grown as ecological concerns have risen over the dynamics of rapidly changing biological communities, the conservation of genetic diversity, and the population biology of diseases. The biggest current challenge is to understand how coevolution operates across broad geographic landscapes, linking local ecological processes with phylogeographic patterns. The geographic mosaic theory of coevolution provides a framework for asking how coevolution continually reshapes interactions across different spatial and temporal scales. It produces specific hypotheses on how geographically structured coevolution differs from coevolution at the local scale. It also provides a framework for understanding how local maladaptation can result from coevolution and why coevolved interactions may rarely produce long lists of coevolved traits that become fixed within species. Long‐te...

648 citations


"Choosing benefits or partners: a re..." refers background in this paper

  • ...The selection for or against mutualism may vary greatly across space and time if the context within which the interaction occurs vary as well (Bronstein 1994a, Thompson 1999)....

    [...]