Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:40:32.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Sources and sinks in the evolution and persistence of mutualisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
Craig W. Benkman  and
Adam M. Siepielski
Edited by
Jianguo Liu ,
Vanessa Hull ,
Anita T. Morzillo  and
John A. Wiens
Craig W. Benkman
Affiliation:
University of Wyoming
Adam M. Siepielski
Affiliation:
Centerra Biolabs , Lebanon
Jianguo Liu
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Vanessa Hull
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Anita T. Morzillo
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
PRBO Conservation Science
Get access

Summary

Pulliam’s (1988) model of sources and sinks demonstrated the importance of considering spatial variation in demographic rates for understanding population persistence. One of the factors contributing to such spatial variation is variation in the occurrence of other species, including prey, predators and mutualists. Here we consider how such variation in community context affects what could be termed sources and sinks in the evolution of species interactions. We focus on the seed dispersal mutualism between Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis), and how the presence and absence of a seed predator, the red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), likely causes the mutualists to experience demographic sinks and sources, respectively. Although sink populations of limber pine mostly represent the later stages in forest succession, when limber pine trees are older, species interactions within the source and sink populations will affect the evolution and maintenance of the seed dispersal mutualism. In general, the persistence of mutualisms is probably dependent on the amount of habitat that lacks a competitively superior antagonist (i.e., a “source” habitat) and on whether selection exerted by antagonists conflicts with selection exerted by mutualists. Because most mutualisms are vulnerable to exploitation by antagonists, and the distributions of antagonists are unlikely to overlap completely with mutualists, we believe that such a source–sink perspective will be useful for examining the evolution and persistence of mutualisms.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sources, Sinks and Sustainability , pp. 82 - 98
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, L. S. and Bronstein, J. L. (2004). Attracting antagonists: does floral nectar increase leaf herbivory?Ecology 85: 1519–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balda, R. P. and Kamil, A. C. (1992). Long-term spatial memory in Clark’s nutcracker, Nucifraga columbiana. Animal Behaviour 44: 761–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkman, C. W. (1995a). The impact of tree squirrels (Tamiasciurus) on limber pine seed dispersal adaptations. Evolution 49: 585–592.Google ScholarPubMed
Benkman, C. W. (1995b). Wind dispersal capacity of pine seeds and the evolution of different seed dispersal modes in pines. Oikos 73: 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkman, C. W., Balda, R. P. and Smith, C. C. (1984). Adaptations for seed dispersal and the compromises due to seed predation in limber pine. Ecology 65: 632–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolmgren, K. and Eriksson, O. (2005). Fleshy fruits: origins, niche shifts, and diversification. Oikos 109: 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronstein, J. L. (2001). The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecology Letters 4: 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, F. L. (1979). Competition between hummingbirds and insects for nectar. American Zoologist 19: 1105–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazetta, E., Schaefer, H. M. and Galetti, M. (2008). Does attraction of frugivores or defense against pathogens shape fruit pulp composition?Oecologia 155: 277–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cipollini, M. L. and Levey, D. J. (1997). Secondary metabolites of fleshy vertebrate-dispersed fruits: adaptive hypotheses and implications for seed dispersal. American Naturalist 150: 346–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colwell, R. K. and Fuentes, E. R. (1975). Experimental studies of the niche. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 6: 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, R. C. (1995). The benefits of mutualism: a conceptual framework. Biological Reviews 70: 427–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, J. M., Rey, P. J., Garrido, J. L., Guitián, J., Herrera, C. M., Medrano, M., Sánchez-Lafuente, A. M. and Cerdá, X. (2004). Geographic variation in the potential of mice to constrain an ant–seed dispersal mutualism. Oikos 105: 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrière, R., Gauduchon, M. and Bronstein, J. L. (2007). Evolution and persistence of obligate mutualists and exploiters: competition for partners and evolutionary immunization. Ecology Letters 10: 115–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, K. R. and Wenseleers, T. (2006). A general model for the evolution of mutualisms. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19: 1283–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galen, C. and Cuba, J. (2001). Down the tube: pollinators, predators, and the evolution of flower shape in the alpine skypilot, Polemonium viscosum. Evolution 55: 1963–1971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrera, C. M. (1982). Defense of ripe fruit from pests: its significance in relation to plant–disperser interactions. American Naturalist 120: 218–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. D. (1996). Adaptive evolution in source–sink environments: direct and indirect effects of density-dependence on niche evolution. Oikos 75: 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, L. and Westoby, M. (1992). Effect of diaspore characteristics on removal by seeds adapted for dispersal by ants. Ecology 73: 1300–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, H. E. and Lanner, R. M. (1982). The central role of Clark’s nutcracker in the dispersal and establishment of whitebark pine. Oecologia 55: 192–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irwin, R. E. and Maloof, J. E. (2002). Variation in nectar robbing over time, space, and species. Oecologia 133: 525–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irwin, R. E., Adler, L. S. and Brody, A. K. (2004). The dual role of floral traits: pollinator attraction and plant defense. Ecology 85: 1503–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. (1977). Why fruits rot, seeds mold, and meat spoils. American Naturalist 111: 691–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawecki, T. J. (1995). Demography of source–sink populations and the evolution of ecological niches. Evolutionary Ecology 9: 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanner, R. M. (1996). Made for Each Other: A Symbiosis of Birds and Pines. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lanner, R. M. and Vander Wall, S. B. (1980). Dispersal of limber pine seed by Clark’s nutcrackers. Journal of Forestry 78: 637–639.Google Scholar
Levey, D. J., Tewksbury, J. J., Cipollini, M. L. and Carlo, T. A. (2006). A field test of the directed deterrence hypothesis in two species of wild chili. Oecologia 150: 61–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, P., Martin, T. E., Redmond, R. L., Langner, U. and Hart, M. M. (2005). Linking demographic effects of habitat fragmentation across landscapes to continental source–sink dynamics. Ecological Applications 15: 1504–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDade, L. A. and Kinsman, S. (1980). The impact of floral parasitism in two neotropical hummingbird-pollinated plant species. Evolution 34: 944–958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ness, J. H. and Bressmer, K. (2005). Abiotic influences on the behaviour of rodents, ants, and plants affect an ant–seed mutualism. Ecoscience 12: 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. L. and Simms, E. L. (2006). Pathways to mutualism breakdown. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 585–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siepielski, A. M. and Benkman, C. W. (2007a). Convergent patterns in the selection mosaic for two North American bird-dispersed pines. Ecological Monographs 77: 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siepielski, A. M. and Benkman, C. W. (2007b). Selection by a pre-dispersal seed predator constrains the evolution of avian seed dispersal in pines. Functional Ecology 21: 611–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siepielski, A. M. and Benkman, C. W. (2008a). A seed predator drives the evolution of a seed dispersal mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 275: 1917–1925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siepielski, A. M. and Benkman, C. W. (2008b). Seed predation and selection exerted by a seed predator influence tree densities in sub-alpine communities. Ecology 89: 2960–2966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siepielski, A. M. and Benkman, C. W. (2010). Conflicting selection from an antagonist and a mutualist enhances phenotypic variation in a plant. Evolution 64: 1120–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. C. (1968). The adaptive nature of social organization in the genus of tree squirrels Tamiasciurus. Ecological Monographs 38: 31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. C. and Balda, R. P. (1979). Competition among insects, birds and mammals for conifer seeds. American Zoologist 19: 1065–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N. (2005). The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Vander Wall, S. B. (1988). Foraging of Clark’s nutcrackers on rapidly changing pine seed resources. Condor 90: 621–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Wall, S. B. (1990). Food Hoarding in Animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Vander Wall, S. B. (2003). Effects of seed size of wind-dispersed pines (Pinus) on secondary seed dispersal and the caching behavior of rodents. Oikos 100: 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Wall, S. B. and Balda, R. P. (1981). Ecology and evolution of food-storage behavior in conifer-seed-caching corvids. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 56: 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W. G., Morris, W. F. and Bronstein, J. L. (2003). Coexistence of mutualists and exploiters on spatial landscapes. Ecological Monographs 73: 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, D. W. (2001). Parasites of mutualisms. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 72: 529–546.CrossRef
Yu, D. W., Wilson, H. B. and Pierce, N. E. (2001). An empirical model of species coexistence in a spatially structured environment. Ecology 82: 1761–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×