Last updated

The pollinating wasp Dasyscolia ciliata in pseudocopulation with a flower of Ophrys speculum Dasyscolia ciliata.jpg
The pollinating wasp Dasyscolia ciliata in pseudocopulation with a flower of Ophrys speculum

In biology, coevolution occurs when two or more species reciprocally affect each other's evolution through the process of natural selection. The term sometimes is used for two traits in the same species affecting each other's evolution, as well as gene-culture coevolution.


Charles Darwin mentioned evolutionary interactions between flowering plants and insects in On the Origin of Species (1859). Although he did not use the word coevolution, he suggested how plants and insects could evolve through reciprocal evolutionary changes. Naturalists in the late 1800s studied other examples of how interactions among species could result in reciprocal evolutionary change. Beginning in the 1940s, plant pathologists developed breeding programs that were examples of human-induced coevolution. Development of new crop plant varieties that were resistant to some diseases favored rapid evolution in pathogen populations to overcome those plant defenses. That, in turn, required the development of yet new resistant crop plant varieties, producing an ongoing cycle of reciprocal evolution in crop plants and diseases that continues to this day.

Coevolution as a major topic for study in nature expanded rapidly from the 1960s, when Daniel H. Janzen showed coevolution between acacias and ants (see below) and Paul R. Ehrlich and Peter H. Raven suggested how coevolution between plants and butterflies may have contributed to the diversification of species in both groups. The theoretical underpinnings of coevolution are now well-developed (e.g., the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution), and demonstrate that coevolution can play an important role in driving major evolutionary transitions such as the evolution of sexual reproduction or shifts in ploidy. [2] [3] More recently, it has also been demonstrated that coevolution can influence the structure and function of ecological communities, the evolution of groups of mutualists such as plants and their pollinators, and the dynamics of infectious disease. [2] [4]

Each party in a coevolutionary relationship exerts selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each other's evolution. Coevolution includes many forms of mutualism, host-parasite, and predator-prey relationships between species, as well as competition within or between species. In many cases, the selective pressures drive an evolutionary arms race between the species involved. Pairwise or specific coevolution, between exactly two species, is not the only possibility; in multi-species coevolution, which is sometimes called guild or diffuse coevolution, several to many species may evolve a trait or a group of traits in reciprocity with a set of traits in another species, as has happened between the flowering plants and pollinating insects such as bees, flies, and beetles. There are a suite of specific hypotheses on the mechanisms by which groups of species coevolve with each other. [5]

Coevolution is primarily a biological concept, but researchers have applied it by analogy to fields such as computer science, sociology, and astronomy.


Coevolution is the evolution of two or more species which reciprocally affect each other, sometimes creating a mutualistic relationship between the species. Such relationships can be of many different types. [6] [7]

Flowering plants

Flowers appeared and diversified relatively suddenly in the fossil record, creating what Charles Darwin described as the "abominable mystery" of how they had evolved so quickly; he considered whether coevolution could be the explanation. [8] [9] He first mentioned coevolution as a possibility in On the Origin of Species , and developed the concept further in Fertilisation of Orchids (1862). [7] [10] [11]

Insects and insect-pollinated flowers

Honey bee taking a reward of nectar and collecting pollen in its pollen baskets from white melilot flowers Apis mellifera - Melilotus albus - Keila.jpg
Honey bee taking a reward of nectar and collecting pollen in its pollen baskets from white melilot flowers

Modern insect-pollinated (entomophilous) flowers are conspicuously coadapted with insects to ensure pollination and in return to reward the pollinators with nectar and pollen. The two groups have coevolved for over 100 million years, creating a complex network of interactions. Either they evolved together, or at some later stages they came together, likely with pre-adaptations, and became mutually adapted. [12] [13]

Several highly successful insect groups—especially the Hymenoptera (wasps, bees and ants) and Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) as well as many types of Diptera (flies) and Coleoptera (beetles)—evolved in conjunction with flowering plants during the Cretaceous (145 to 66 million years ago). The earliest bees, important pollinators today, appeared in the early Cretaceous. [14] A group of wasps sister to the bees evolved at the same time as flowering plants, as did the Lepidoptera. [14] Further, all the major clades of bees first appeared between the middle and late Cretaceous, simultaneously with the adaptive radiation of the eudicots (three quarters of all angiosperms), and at the time when the angiosperms became the world's dominant plants on land. [8]

At least three aspects of flowers appear to have coevolved between flowering plants and insects, because they involve communication between these organisms. Firstly, flowers communicate with their pollinators by scent; insects use this scent to determine how far away a flower is, to approach it, and to identify where to land and finally to feed. Secondly, flowers attract insects with patterns of stripes leading to the rewards of nectar and pollen, and colours such as blue and ultraviolet, to which their eyes are sensitive; in contrast, bird-pollinated flowers tend to be red or orange. Thirdly, flowers such as some orchids mimic females of particular insects, deceiving males into pseudocopulation. [14] [1]

The yucca, Yucca whipplei, is pollinated exclusively by Tegeticula maculata, a yucca moth that depends on the yucca for survival. [15] The moth eats the seeds of the plant, while gathering pollen. The pollen has evolved to become very sticky, and remains on the mouth parts when the moth moves to the next flower. The yucca provides a place for the moth to lay its eggs, deep within the flower away from potential predators. [16]

Birds and bird-pollinated flowers

Purple-throated carib feeding from and pollinating a flower Purple-throated carib hummingbird feeding.jpg
Purple-throated carib feeding from and pollinating a flower

Hummingbirds and ornithophilous (bird-pollinated) flowers have evolved a mutualistic relationship. The flowers have nectar suited to the birds' diet, their color suits the birds' vision and their shape fits that of the birds' bills. The blooming times of the flowers have also been found to coincide with hummingbirds' breeding seasons. The floral characteristics of ornithophilous plants vary greatly among each other compared to closely related insect-pollinated species. These flowers also tend to be more ornate, complex, and showy than their insect pollinated counterparts. It is generally agreed that plants formed coevolutionary relationships with insects first, and ornithophilous species diverged at a later time. There is not much scientific support for instances of the reverse of this divergence: from ornithophily to insect pollination. The diversity in floral phenotype in ornithophilous species, and the relative consistency observed in bee-pollinated species can be attributed to the direction of the shift in pollinator preference. [17]

Flowers have converged to take advantage of similar birds. [18] Flowers compete for pollinators, and adaptations reduce unfavourable effects of this competition. The fact that birds can fly during inclement weather makes them more efficient pollinators where bees and other insects would be inactive. Ornithophily may have arisen for this reason in isolated environments with poor insect colonization or areas with plants which flower in the winter. [18] [19] Bird-pollinated flowers usually have higher volumes of nectar and higher sugar production than those pollinated by insects. [20] This meets the birds' high energy requirements, the most important determinants of flower choice. [20] In Mimulus , an increase in red pigment in petals and flower nectar volume noticeably reduces the proportion of pollination by bees as opposed to hummingbirds; while greater flower surface area increases bee pollination. Therefore, red pigments in the flowers of Mimulus cardinalis may function primarily to discourage bee visitation. [21] In Penstemon , flower traits that discourage bee pollination may be more influential on the flowers' evolutionary change than 'pro-bird' adaptations, but adaptation 'towards' birds and 'away' from bees can happen simultaneously. [22] However, some flowers such as Heliconia angusta appear not to be as specifically ornithophilous as had been supposed: the species is occasionally (151 visits in 120 hours of observation) visited by Trigona stingless bees. These bees are largely pollen robbers in this case, but may also serve as pollinators. [23]

Following their respective breeding seasons, several species of hummingbirds occur at the same locations in North America, and several hummingbird flowers bloom simultaneously in these habitats. These flowers have converged to a common morphology and color because these are effective at attracting the birds. Different lengths and curvatures of the corolla tubes can affect the efficiency of extraction in hummingbird species in relation to differences in bill morphology. Tubular flowers force a bird to orient its bill in a particular way when probing the flower, especially when the bill and corolla are both curved. This allows the plant to place pollen on a certain part of the bird's body, permitting a variety of morphological co-adaptations. [20]

Ornithophilous flowers need to be conspicuous to birds. [20] Birds have their greatest spectral sensitivity and finest hue discrimination at the red end of the visual spectrum, [20] so red is particularly conspicuous to them. Hummingbirds may also be able to see ultraviolet "colors". The prevalence of ultraviolet patterns and nectar guides in nectar-poor entomophilous (insect-pollinated) flowers warns the bird to avoid these flowers. [20] Each of the two subfamilies of hummingbirds, the Phaethornithinae (hermits) and the Trochilinae, has evolved in conjunction with a particular set of flowers. Most Phaethornithinae species are associated with large monocotyledonous herbs, while the Trochilinae prefer dicotyledonous plant species. [20]

Fig reproduction and fig wasps

A fig exposing its many tiny matured, seed-bearing gynoecia. These are pollinated by the fig wasp, Blastophaga psenes. In the cultivated fig, there are also asexual varieties. Ficus plant.jpg
A fig exposing its many tiny matured, seed-bearing gynoecia. These are pollinated by the fig wasp, Blastophaga psenes . In the cultivated fig, there are also asexual varieties.

The genus Ficus is composed of 800 species of vines, shrubs, and trees, including the cultivated fig, defined by their syconia, the fruit-like vessels that either hold female flowers or pollen on the inside. Each fig species has its own fig wasp which (in most cases) pollinates the fig, so a tight mutual dependence has evolved and persisted throughout the genus. [24]

Pseudomyrmex ant on bull thorn acacia (Vachellia cornigera) with Beltian bodies that provide the ants with protein Ant - Pseudomyrmex species, on Bull Thorn Acacia (Acacia cornigera) with Beltian bodies, Caves Branch Jungle Lodge, Belmopan, Belize - 8505045055.jpg
Pseudomyrmex ant on bull thorn acacia ( Vachellia cornigera ) with Beltian bodies that provide the ants with protein

Acacia ants and acacias

The acacia ant (Pseudomyrmex ferruginea) is an obligate plant ant that protects at least five species of "Acacia" ( Vachellia ) [lower-alpha 1] from preying insects and from other plants competing for sunlight, and the tree provides nourishment and shelter for the ant and its larvae. [25] [26] Such mutualism is not automatic: other ant species exploit trees without reciprocating, following different evolutionary strategies. These cheater ants impose important host costs via damage to tree reproductive organs, though their net effect on host fitness is not necessarily negative and, thus, becomes difficult to forecast. [27] [28]

Hosts and parasites

Parasites and sexually reproducing hosts

Host–parasite coevolution is the coevolution of a host and a parasite. [29] A general characteristic of many viruses, as obligate parasites, is that they coevolved alongside their respective hosts. Correlated mutations between the two species enter them into an evolution arms race. Whichever organism, host or parasite, that cannot keep up with the other will be eliminated from their habitat, as the species with the higher average population fitness survives. This race is known as the Red Queen hypothesis. [30] The Red Queen hypothesis predicts that sexual reproduction allows a host to stay just ahead of its parasite, similar to the Red Queen's race in Through the Looking-Glass : "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place". [31] The host reproduces sexually, producing some offspring with immunity over its parasite, which then evolves in response. [32]

The parasite–host relationship probably drove the prevalence of sexual reproduction over the more efficient asexual reproduction. It seems that when a parasite infects a host, sexual reproduction affords a better chance of developing resistance (through variation in the next generation), giving sexual reproduction variability for fitness not seen in the asexual reproduction, which produces another generation of the organism susceptible to infection by the same parasite. [33] [34] [35] Coevolution between host and parasite may accordingly be responsible for much of the genetic diversity seen in normal populations, including blood-plasma polymorphism, protein polymorphism, and histocompatibility systems. [36]

Brood parasite: Eurasian reed warbler raising a common cuckoo Reed warbler cuckoo.jpg
Brood parasite: Eurasian reed warbler raising a common cuckoo

Brood parasites

Brood parasitism demonstrates close coevolution of host and parasite, for example in some cuckoos. These birds do not make their own nests, but lay their eggs in nests of other species, ejecting or killing the eggs and young of the host and thus having a strong negative impact on the host's reproductive fitness. Their eggs are camouflaged as eggs of their hosts, implying that hosts can distinguish their own eggs from those of intruders and are in an evolutionary arms race with the cuckoo between camouflage and recognition. Cuckoos are counter-adapted to host defences with features such as thickened eggshells, shorter incubation (so their young hatch first), and flat backs adapted to lift eggs out of the nest. [37] [38] [39]

Antagonistic coevolution

Antagonistic coevolution is seen in the harvester ant species Pogonomyrmex barbatus and Pogonomyrmex rugosus , in a relationship both parasitic and mutualistic. The queens are unable to produce worker ants by mating with their own species. Only by crossbreeding can they produce workers. The winged females act as parasites for the males of the other species as their sperm will only produce sterile hybrids. But because the colonies are fully dependent on these hybrids to survive, it is also mutualistic. While there is no genetic exchange between the species, they are unable to evolve in a direction where they become too genetically different as this would make crossbreeding impossible. [40]

Predators and prey

Predator and prey: a leopard killing a bushbuck Leopard kill - KNP - 001.jpg
Predator and prey: a leopard killing a bushbuck

Predators and prey interact and coevolve: the predator to catch the prey more effectively, the prey to escape. The coevolution of the two mutually imposes selective pressures. These often lead to an evolutionary arms race between prey and predator, resulting in anti-predator adaptations. [41]

The same applies to herbivores, animals that eat plants, and the plants that they eat. Paul R. Ehrlich and Peter H. Raven in 1964 proposed the theory of escape and radiate coevolution to describe the evolutionary diversification of plants and butterflies. [42] In the Rocky Mountains, red squirrels and crossbills (seed-eating birds) compete for seeds of the lodgepole pine. The squirrels get at pine seeds by gnawing through the cone scales, whereas the crossbills get at the seeds by extracting them with their unusual crossed mandibles. In areas where there are squirrels, the lodgepole's cones are heavier, and have fewer seeds and thinner scales, making it more difficult for squirrels to get at the seeds. Conversely, where there are crossbills but no squirrels, the cones are lighter in construction, but have thicker scales, making it more difficult for crossbills to get at the seeds. The lodgepole's cones are in an evolutionary arms race with the two kinds of herbivore. [43]

Sexual conflict has been studied in Drosophila melanogaster (shown mating, male on right). Drosophila.melanogaster.couple.2.jpg
Sexual conflict has been studied in Drosophila melanogaster (shown mating, male on right).


Both intraspecific competition, with features such as sexual conflict [44] and sexual selection, [45] and interspecific competition, such as between predators, may be able to drive coevolution. [46]

Intraspecific competition can result in sexual antagonistic coevolution, an evolutionary relationship analogous to an arms race, where the evolutionary fitness of the sexes is counteracted to achieve maximum reproductive success. For example, some insects reproduce using traumatic insemination, which is disadvantageous to the female's health. During mating, males try to maximise their fitness by inseminating as many females as possible, but the more times a female's abdomen is punctured, the less likely she is to survive, reducing her fitness. [47]


Long-tongued bees and long-tubed flowers coevolved, whether pairwise or "diffusely" in groups known as guilds. Amegilla on long tube of Acanthus ilicifolius flower.jpg
Long-tongued bees and long-tubed flowers coevolved, whether pairwise or "diffusely" in groups known as guilds.

The types of coevolution listed so far have been described as if they operated pairwise (also called specific coevolution), in which traits of one species have evolved in direct response to traits of a second species, and vice versa. This is not always the case. Another evolutionary mode arises where evolution is reciprocal, but is among a group of species rather than exactly two. This is variously called guild or diffuse coevolution. For instance, a trait in several species of flowering plant, such as offering its nectar at the end of a long tube, can coevolve with a trait in one or several species of pollinating insects, such as a long proboscis. More generally, flowering plants are pollinated by insects from different families including bees, flies, and beetles, all of which form a broad guild of pollinators which respond to the nectar or pollen produced by flowers. [48] [49] [50]

Geographic mosaic theory

Mosaic coevolution is a theory in which geographic location and community ecology shape differing coevolution between strongly interacting species in multiple populations. These populations may be separated by space and/or time. Depending on the ecological conditions, the interspecific interactions may be mutualistic or antagonistic. [51] In mutualisms, both partners benefit from the interaction, whereas one partner generally experiences decreased fitness in antagonistic interactions. Arms races consist of two species adapting ways to "one up" the other. Several factors affect these relationships, including hot spots, cold spots, and trait mixing. [52] Reciprocal selection occurs when a change in one partner puts pressure on the other partner to change in response. Hot spots are areas of strong reciprocal selection, while cold spots are areas with no reciprocal selection or where only one partner is present. [52] The three constituents of geographic structure that contribute to this particular type of coevolution are: natural selection in the form of a geographic mosaic, hot spots often surrounded by cold spots, and trait remixing by means of genetic drift and gene flow. [52] Mosaic, along with general coevolution, most commonly occurs at the population level and is driven by both the biotic and the abiotic environment. These environmental factors can constrain coevolution and affect how far it can escalate. [53]

Outside biology

Coevolution is primarily a biological concept, but has been applied to other fields by analogy.

In algorithms

Coevolutionary algorithms are used for generating artificial life as well as for optimization, game learning and machine learning. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] Daniel Hillis added "co-evolving parasites" to prevent an optimization procedure from becoming stuck at local maxima. [59] Karl Sims coevolved virtual creatures. [60]

In architecture

The concept of coevolution was introduced in architecture by the Danish architect-urbanist Henrik Valeur as an antithesis to "star-architecture". [61] As the curator of the Danish Pavilion at the 2006 Venice Biennale of Architecture, he created an exhibition-project on coevolution in urban development in China; it won the Golden Lion for Best National Pavilion. [62] [63] [64] [65]

At the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, a coevolutionary approach to architecture has been defined as a design practice that engages students, volunteers and members of the local community in practical, experimental work aimed at "establishing dynamic processes of learning between users and designers." [66]

In cosmology and astronomy

In his book The Self-organizing Universe, Erich Jantsch attributed the entire evolution of the cosmos to coevolution.

In astronomy, an emerging theory proposes that black holes and galaxies develop in an interdependent way analogous to biological coevolution. [67]

In management and organization studies

Since year 2000, a growing number of management and organization studies discuss coevolution and coevolutionary processes. Even so, Abatecola el al. (2020) reveals a prevailing scarcity in explaining what processes substantially characterize coevolution in these fields, meaning that specific analyses about where this perspective on socio-economic change is, and where it could move toward in the future, are still missing. [68]

In sociology

In Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and A Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future (1994) [69] Richard Norgaard proposes a coevolutionary cosmology to explain how social and environmental systems influence and reshape each other. [70] In Coevolutionary Economics: The Economy, Society and the Environment (1994) John Gowdy suggests that: "The economy, society, and the environment are linked together in a coevolutionary relationship". [71]

In technology

Computer software and hardware can be considered as two separate components but tied intrinsically by coevolution. Similarly, operating systems and computer applications, web browsers, and web applications. All these systems depend upon each other and advance through a kind of evolutionary process. Changes in hardware, an operating system or web browser may introduce new features that are then incorporated into the corresponding applications running alongside. [72] The idea is closely related to the concept of "joint optimization" in sociotechnical systems analysis and design, where a system is understood to consist of both a "technical system" encompassing the tools and hardware used for production and maintenance, and a "social system" of relationships and procedures through which the technology is tied into the goals of the system and all the other human and organizational relationships within and outside the system. Such systems work best when the technical and social systems are deliberately developed together. [73]

See also


  1. The acacia ant protects at least 5 species of "Acacia", now all renamed to Vachellia: V. chiapensis , V. collinsii , V. cornigera , V. hindsii , and V. sphaerocephala .

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hummingbird</span> Family of birds

Hummingbirds are birds native to the Americas and comprise the biological family Trochilidae. With approximately 366 species and 113 genera, they occur from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, but most species are found in Central and South America. As of 2024, 21 hummingbird species are listed as endangered or critically endangered, with numerous species declining in population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mimicry</span> Imitation of another species for selective advantage

In evolutionary biology, mimicry is an evolved resemblance between an organism and another object, often an organism of another species. Mimicry may evolve between different species, or between individuals of the same species. Often, mimicry functions to protect a species from predators, making it an anti-predator adaptation. Mimicry evolves if a receiver perceives the similarity between a mimic and a model and as a result changes its behaviour in a way that provides a selective advantage to the mimic. The resemblances that evolve in mimicry can be visual, acoustic, chemical, tactile, or electric, or combinations of these sensory modalities. Mimicry may be to the advantage of both organisms that share a resemblance, in which case it is a form of mutualism; or mimicry can be to the detriment of one, making it parasitic or competitive. The evolutionary convergence between groups is driven by the selective action of a signal-receiver or dupe. Birds, for example, use sight to identify palatable insects and butterflies, whilst avoiding the noxious ones. Over time, palatable insects may evolve to resemble noxious ones, making them mimics and the noxious ones models. In the case of mutualism, sometimes both groups are referred to as "co-mimics". It is often thought that models must be more abundant than mimics, but this is not so. Mimicry may involve numerous species; many harmless species such as hoverflies are Batesian mimics of strongly defended species such as wasps, while many such well-defended species form Müllerian mimicry rings, all resembling each other. Mimicry between prey species and their predators often involves three or more species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bee hummingbird</span> Smallest species of bird

The bee hummingbird, zunzuncito or Helena hummingbird is a species of hummingbird, native to the island of Cuba in the Caribbean. It is the smallest known bird. The bee hummingbird feeds on nectar of flowers and bugs found in Cuba.

Parallel evolution is the similar development of a trait in distinct species that are not closely related, but share a similar original trait in response to similar evolutionary pressure.

The Prodoxidae are a family of moths, generally small in size and nondescript in appearance. They include species of moderate pest status, such as the currant shoot borer, and others of considerable ecological and evolutionary interest, such as various species of "yucca moths".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Entomophily</span> Form of pollination by insects

Entomophily or insect pollination is a form of pollination whereby pollen of plants, especially but not only of flowering plants, is distributed by insects. Flowers pollinated by insects typically advertise themselves with bright colours, sometimes with conspicuous patterns leading to rewards of pollen and nectar; they may also have an attractive scent which in some cases mimics insect pheromones. Insect pollinators such as bees have adaptations for their role, such as lapping or sucking mouthparts to take in nectar, and in some species also pollen baskets on their hind legs. This required the coevolution of insects and flowering plants in the development of pollination behaviour by the insects and pollination mechanisms by the flowers, benefiting both groups. Both the size and the density of a population are known to affect pollination and subsequent reproductive performance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zoophily</span> Pollination by animals

Zoophily, or zoogamy, is a form of pollination whereby pollen is transferred by animals, usually by invertebrates but in some cases vertebrates, particularly birds and bats, but also by other animals. Zoophilous species frequently have evolved mechanisms to make themselves more appealing to the particular type of pollinator, e.g. brightly colored or scented flowers, nectar, and appealing shapes and patterns. These plant-animal relationships are often mutually beneficial because of the food source provided in exchange for pollination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sword-billed hummingbird</span> Species of bird from South America

The sword-billed hummingbird, also known as the swordbill, is a neotropical species of hummingbird from the Andean regions of South America. It is the only member in the genus Ensifera. Among the largest species of hummingbird, it is characterized by its unusually long bill, being the only bird to have a beak longer than the rest of its body, excluding the tail. It uses its bill to drink nectar from flowers with long corollas and has coevolved with the species Passiflora mixta. While most hummingbirds preen using their bills, the sword-billed hummingbird uses its feet to scratch and preen due to its bill being so long.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nectar</span> Sugar-rich liquid produced by many flowering plants, that attracts pollinators and insects

Nectar is a sugar-rich liquid produced by plants in glands called nectaries or nectarines, either within the flowers with which it attracts pollinating animals, or by extrafloral nectaries, which provide a nutrient source to animal mutualists, which in turn provide herbivore protection. Common nectar-consuming pollinators include mosquitoes, hoverflies, wasps, bees, butterflies and moths, hummingbirds, honeyeaters and bats. Nectar plays a crucial role in the foraging economics and evolution of nectar-eating species; for example, nectar foraging behavior is largely responsible for the divergent evolution of the African honey bee, A. m. scutellata and the western honey bee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nectarivore</span> Animal in which nectar is a main source of nutrition in their diet

In zoology, a nectarivore is an animal which derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of the sugar-rich nectar produced by flowering plants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ornithophily</span> Pollination by birds

Ornithophily or bird pollination is the pollination of flowering plants by birds. This sometimes coevolutionary association is derived from insect pollination (entomophily) and is particularly well developed in some parts of the world, especially in the tropics, Southern Africa, and on some island chains. The association involves several distinctive plant adaptations forming a "pollination syndrome". The plants typically have colourful, often red, flowers with long tubular structures holding ample nectar and orientations of the stamen and stigma that ensure contact with the pollinator. Birds involved in ornithophily tend to be specialist nectarivores with brushy tongues and long bills, that are either capable of hovering flight or light enough to perch on the flower structures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Palynivore</span> Group of herbivorous animals

In zoology, a palynivore /pəˈlɪnəvɔːɹ/, meaning "pollen eater" is an herbivorous animal which selectively eats the nutrient-rich pollen produced by angiosperms and gymnosperms. Most true palynivores are insects or mites. The category in its strictest application includes most bees, and a few kinds of wasps, as pollen is often the only solid food consumed by all life stages in these insects. However, the category can be extended to include more diverse species. For example, palynivorous mites and thrips typically feed on the liquid content of the pollen grains without actually consuming the exine, or the solid portion of the grain. Additionally, the list is expanded greatly if one takes into consideration species where either the larval or adult stage feeds on pollen, but not both. There are other wasps which are in this category, as well as many beetles, flies, butterflies, and moths. One such example of a bee species that only consumes pollen in its larval stage is the Apis mellifera carnica. There is a vast array of insects that will feed opportunistically on pollen, as will various birds, orb-weaving spiders and other nectarivores.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pollination syndrome</span> Flower traits that attract pollinators

Pollination syndromes are suites of flower traits that have evolved in response to natural selection imposed by different pollen vectors, which can be abiotic or biotic, such as birds, bees, flies, and so forth through a process called pollinator-mediated selection. These traits include flower shape, size, colour, odour, reward type and amount, nectar composition, timing of flowering, etc. For example, tubular red flowers with copious nectar often attract birds; foul smelling flowers attract carrion flies or beetles, etc.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nectar robbing</span> Foraging behavior

Nectar robbing is a foraging behavior used by some organisms that feed on floral nectar, carried out by feeding from holes bitten in flowers, rather than by entering through the flowers' natural openings. Nectar robbers usually feed in this way, avoiding contact with the floral reproductive structures, and therefore do not facilitate plant reproduction via pollination. Because many species that act as pollinators also act as nectar robbers, nectar robbing is considered to be a form of exploitation of plant-pollinator mutualism. While there is variation in the dependency on nectar for robber species, most species rob facultatively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insect ecology</span> The study of how insects interact with the surrounding environment

Insect ecology is the interaction of insects, individually or as a community, with the surrounding environment or ecosystem.

Host–parasite coevolution is a special case of coevolution, where a host and a parasite continually adapt to each other. This can create an evolutionary arms race between them. A more benign possibility is of an evolutionary trade-off between transmission and virulence in the parasite, as if it kills its host too quickly, the parasite will not be able to reproduce either. Another theory, the Red Queen hypothesis, proposes that since both host and parasite have to keep on evolving to keep up with each other, and since sexual reproduction continually creates new combinations of genes, parasitism favours sexual reproduction in the host.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological fitting</span> Biological process

Ecological fitting is "the process whereby organisms colonize and persist in novel environments, use novel resources or form novel associations with other species as a result of the suites of traits that they carry at the time they encounter the novel condition". It can be understood as a situation in which a species' interactions with its biotic and abiotic environment seem to indicate a history of coevolution, when in actuality the relevant traits evolved in response to a different set of biotic and abiotic conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolving digital ecological network</span>

Evolving digital ecological networks are webs of interacting, self-replicating, and evolving computer programs that experience the same major ecological interactions as biological organisms. Despite being computational, these programs evolve quickly in an open-ended way, and starting from only one or two ancestral organisms, the formation of ecological networks can be observed in real-time by tracking interactions between the constantly evolving organism phenotypes. These phenotypes may be defined by combinations of logical computations that digital organisms perform and by expressed behaviors that have evolved. The types and outcomes of interactions between phenotypes are determined by task overlap for logic-defined phenotypes and by responses to encounters in the case of behavioral phenotypes. Biologists use these evolving networks to study active and fundamental topics within evolutionary ecology.

Mosaic coevolution is a theory in which geographic location and community ecology shape differing coevolution between strongly interacting species in multiple populations. These populations may be separated by space and/or time. Depending on the ecological conditions, the interspecific interactions may be mutualistic or antagonistic. In mutualisms, both partners benefit from the interaction, whereas one partner generally experiences decreased fitness in antagonistic interactions. Arms races consist of two species adapting ways to "one up" the other. Several factors affect these relationships, including hot spots, cold spots, and trait mixing. Reciprocal selection occurs when a change in one partner puts pressure on the other partner to change in response. Hot spots are areas of strong reciprocal selection, while cold spots are areas with no reciprocal selection or where only one partner is present. The three constituents of geographic structure that contribute to this particular type of coevolution are: natural selection in the form of a geographic mosaic, hot spots often surrounded by cold spots, and trait remixing by means of genetic drift and gene flow. Mosaic, along with general coevolution, most commonly occurs at the population level and is driven by both the biotic and the abiotic environment. These environmental factors can constrain coevolution and affect how far it can escalate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plant–animal interaction</span> Relationships between plants and animals

Plant-animal interactions are important pathways for the transfer of energy within ecosystems, where both advantageous and unfavorable interactions support ecosystem health. Plant-animal interactions can take on important ecological functions and manifest in a variety of combinations of favorable and unfavorable associations, for example predation, frugivory and herbivory, parasitism, and mutualism. Without mutualistic relationships, some plants may not be able to complete their life cycles, and the animals may starve due to resource deficiency.


  1. 1 2 van der Pijl, Leendert; Dodson, Calaway H. (1966). "Chapter 11: Mimicry and Deception" . Orchid Flowers: Their Pollination and Evolution. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press. pp.  129–141. ISBN   978-0-87024-069-0.
  2. 1 2 Nuismer, Scott (2017). Introduction to Coevolutionary Theory. New York: W.F. Freeman. p. 395. ISBN   978-1-319-10619-5. Archived from the original on 2019-05-02. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
  3. Thompson, John N. (2013-04-15). Relentless evolution. Chicago. ISBN   978-0-226-01861-4. OCLC   808684836.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. Guimarães, Paulo R.; Pires, Mathias M.; Jordano, Pedro; Bascompte, Jordi; Thompson, John N. (October 2017). "Indirect effects drive coevolution in mutualistic networks". Nature. 550 (7677): 511–514. Bibcode:2017Natur.550..511G. doi:10.1038/nature24273. PMID   29045396. S2CID   205261069.
  5. Thompson, John N. (2005). The geographic mosaic of coevolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN   978-0-226-11869-7. OCLC   646854337.
  6. Futuyma, D. J.; Slatkin, M., eds. (1983). Coevolution. Sinauer Associates. ISBN   978-0-87893-228-3.
  7. 1 2 Thompson, John N. (1994). The coevolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN   978-0-226-79760-1 . Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  8. 1 2 Cardinal, Sophie; Danforth, Bryan N. (2013). "Bees diversified in the age of eudicots". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 280 (1755): 20122686. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2686. PMC   3574388 . PMID   23363629.
  9. Friedman, W. E. (January 2009). "The meaning of Darwin's 'abominable mystery'". American Journal of Botany. 96 (1): 5–21. doi:10.3732/ajb.0800150. PMID   21628174.
  10. Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species (1st ed.). London: John Murray. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
  11. Darwin, Charles (1877). On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing (2nd ed.). London: John Murray. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  12. Lunau, Klaus (2004). "Adaptive radiation and coevolution — pollination biology case studies". Organisms Diversity & Evolution. 4 (3): 207–224. doi:10.1016/j.ode.2004.02.002.
  13. Pollan, Michael (2003). The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-eye View of the World. Bloomsbury. ISBN   978-0-7475-6300-6.
  14. 1 2 3 "Coevolution of angiosperms and insects". University of Bristol Palaeobiology Research Group. Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
  15. Hemingway, Claire (2004). "Pollination Partnerships Fact Sheet" (PDF). Flora of North America. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 August 2011. Yucca and Yucca Moth
  16. Pellmyr, Olle; Leebens-Mack, James (August 1999). "Forty million years of mutualism: Evidence for Eocene origin of the yucca-yucca moth association". PNAS. 96 (16): 9178–9183. Bibcode:1999PNAS...96.9178P. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.16.9178 . PMC   17753 . PMID   10430916.
  17. Kay, Kathleen M.; Reeves, Patrick A.; Olmstead, Richard G.; Schemske, Douglas W. (2005). "Rapid speciation and the evolution of hummingbird pollination in neotropical Costus subgenus Costus (Costaceae): evidence from nrDNA ITS and ETS sequences". American Journal of Botany. 92 (11): 1899–1910. doi:10.3732/ajb.92.11.1899. PMID   21646107. S2CID   2991957.
  18. 1 2 Brown, James H.; Kodric-Brown, Astrid (1979). "Convergence, Competition, and Mimicry in a Temperate Community of Hummingbird-Pollinated Flowers". Ecology. 60 (5): 1022–1035. doi:10.2307/1936870. JSTOR   1936870. S2CID   53604204.
  19. Cronk, Quentin; Ojeda, Isidro (2008). "Bird-pollinated flowers in an evolutionary and molecular context". Journal of Experimental Botany. 59 (4): 715–727. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ern009 . PMID   18326865.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stiles, F. Gary (1981). "Geographical Aspects of Bird Flower Coevolution, with Particular Reference to Central America". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 68 (2): 323–351. doi:10.2307/2398801. JSTOR   2398801. S2CID   87692272.
  21. Schemske, Douglas W.; Bradshaw, H.D. (1999). "Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkeyflowers (Mimulus)". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (21): 11910–11915. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9611910S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.21.11910 . PMC   18386 . PMID   10518550.
  22. Castellanos, M. C.; Wilson, P.; Thomson, J.D. (2005). "'Anti-bee' and 'pro-bird' changes during the evolution of hummingbird pollination in Penstemon flowers". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 17 (4): 876–885. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00729.x . PMID   15271088.
  23. Stein, Katharina; Hensen, Isabell (2011). "Potential Pollinators and Robbers: A Study of the Floral Visitors of Heliconia Angusta (Heliconiaceae) And Their Behaviour". Journal of Pollination Ecology. 4 (6): 39–47. doi: 10.26786/1920-7603(2011)7 .
  24. 1 2 Suleman, Nazia; Sait, Steve; Compton, Stephen G. (2015). "Female figs as traps: Their impact on the dynamics of an experimental fig tree-pollinator-parasitoid community" (PDF). Acta Oecologica. 62: 1–9. Bibcode:2015AcO....62....1S. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2014.11.001.
  25. 1 2 Hölldobler, Bert; Wilson, Edward O. (1990). The ants . Harvard University Press. pp.  532–533. ISBN   978-0-674-04075-5.
  26. "Acacia Ant Video". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 2007-11-07.
  27. Palmer, Todd M.; Doak, Daniel F.; Stanton, Maureen L.; et al. (2010-09-20). "Synergy of multiple partners, including freeloaders, increases host fitness in a multispecies mutualism". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (40): 17234–17239. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10717234P. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006872107 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   2951420 . PMID   20855614.
  28. Mintzer, Alex; Vinson, S. B. (1985). "Kinship and incompatibility between colonies of the acacia ant Pseudomyrex ferruginea". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 17 (1): 75–78. doi:10.1007/bf00299432. JSTOR   4599807. S2CID   9538185.
  29. Woolhouse, M. E. J.; Webster, J. P.; Domingo, E.; Charlesworth, B.; Levin, B. R. (December 2002). "Biological and biomedical implications of the coevolution of pathogens and their hosts" (PDF). Nature Genetics . 32 (4): 569–77. doi:10.1038/ng1202-569. hdl: 1842/689 . PMID   12457190. S2CID   33145462.
  30. Van Valen, L. (1973). "A New Evolutionary Law". Evolutionary Theory. 1: 1–30. cited in: The Red Queen Principle
  31. Carroll, Lewis (1875) [1871]. Through the Looking-glass: And what Alice Found There. Macmillan. p. 42. it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.
  32. Rabajante, J.; et al. (2015). "Red Queen dynamics in multi-host and multi-parasite interaction system". Scientific Reports . 5: 10004. Bibcode:2015NatSR...510004R. doi:10.1038/srep10004. PMC   4405699 . PMID   25899168.
  33. "Sexual reproduction works thanks to ever-evolving host, parasite relationships". PhysOrg. 7 July 2011.
  34. Morran, L.T.; Schmidt, O.G.; Gelarden, I.A.; Parrish, R.C. II; Lively, C.M. (8 July 2011). "Running with the Red Queen: Host-Parasite Coevolution Selects for Biparental Sex". Science. 333 (6039): 216–8. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..216M. doi:10.1126/science.1206360. PMC   3402160 . PMID   21737739. Science.1206360.
  35. Hogan, C. Michael (2010). "Virus". In Cutler Cleveland; Sidney Draggan (eds.). Encyclopedia of Earth.
  36. Anderson, R.; May, R. (October 1982). "Coevolution of hosts and parasites". Parasitology. 85 (2): 411–426. doi:10.1017/S0031182000055360. PMID   6755367. S2CID   26794986.
  37. 1 2 Weiblen, George D. (May 2003). "Interspecific Coevolution" (PDF). Macmillan.
  38. Rothstein, S.I (1990). "A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 21: 481–508. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.21.1.481.
  39. Davies, Nicholas B. (7 April 2015). Cuckoo : cheating by nature. McCallum, James (Wildlife artist) (First U.S. ed.). New York, NY. ISBN   978-1-62040-952-7. OCLC   881092849.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  40. Herrmann, M.; Cahan, S. H. (29 October 2014). "Inter-genomic sexual conflict drives antagonistic coevolution in harvester ants". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281 (1797): 20141771. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1771. PMC   4240986 . PMID   25355474.
  41. "Predator-Prey Relationships". New England Complex Systems Institute. Retrieved 17 January 2017.
  42. Ehrlich, Paul R.; Raven, Peter H. (1964). "Butterflies and Plants: A Study in Coevolution". Evolution. 18 (4): 586–608. doi:10.2307/2406212. JSTOR   2406212.
  43. "Coevolution". University of California Berkeley. Retrieved 17 January 2017. and the two following pages of the web article.
  44. Parker, G. A. (2006). "Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: An overview". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 361 (1466): 235–59. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1785. PMC   1569603 . PMID   16612884.
  45. "Biol 2007 - Coevolution". University College, London . Retrieved 19 January 2017.
  46. Connell, Joseph H. (October 1980). "Diversity and the Coevolution of Competitors, or the Ghost of Competition Past". Oikos. 35 (2): 131–138. doi:10.2307/3544421. JSTOR   3544421. S2CID   5576868.
  47. Siva-Jothy, M. T.; Stutt, A. D. (2003). "A matter of taste: Direct detection of female mating status in the bedbug". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 270 (1515): 649–652. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2260. PMC   1691276 . PMID   12769466.
  48. 1 2 Juenger, Thomas, and Joy Bergelson. "Pairwise versus diffuse natural selection and the multiple herbivores of scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata." Evolution (1998): 1583–1592.
  49. Gullan, P. J.; Cranston, P. S. (2010). The Insects: An Outline of Entomology (4th ed.). Wiley. pp.  291–293. ISBN   978-1-118-84615-5.
  50. Rader, Romina; Bartomeus, Ignasi; et al. (2016). "Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination". PNAS. 113 (1): 146–151. Bibcode:2016PNAS..113..146R. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517092112 . PMC   4711867 . PMID   26621730.
  51. Thompson, John N. (24 December 2005). "Coevolution: The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolutionary Arms Races". Current Biology. 15 (24): R992–R994. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.11.046 . PMID   16360677. S2CID   16874487.
  52. 1 2 3 Gomulkiewicz, Richard; Thompson, John N.; Holt, Robert D.; Nuismer, Scott L.; Hochberg, Michael E. (1 August 2000). "Hot Spots, Cold Spots, and the Geographic Mosaic Theory of Coevolution". The American Naturalist. 156 (2): 156–174. doi:10.1086/303382. PMID   10856199. S2CID   4442185.
  53. Anderson, Bruce; Johnson, Steven D. (2008). "The Geographical Mosaic of Coevolution in a Plant–Pollinator Mutualism". Evolution. 62 (1): 220–225. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00275.x . PMID   18067570. S2CID   8643749.
  54. Potter M.; De Jong, K. (1995) Evolving Complex Structures via Cooperative Coevolution, Fourth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, San Diego, California.
  55. Potter M. (1997) The Design and Computational Model of Cooperative Coevolution, PhD thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
  56. Potter, Mitchell A.; De Jong, Kenneth A. (2000). "Cooperative Coevolution: An Architecture for Evolving Coadapted Subcomponents". Evolutionary Computation. 8 (1): 1–29. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1162/106365600568086. PMID   10753229. S2CID   10265380.
  57. Weigand, P.; Liles, W.; De Jong, K. (2001) An empirical analysis of collaboration methods in cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference.
  58. Weigand, P. (2003) An Analysis of Cooperative Coevolutionary Algorithms, PhD thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 2003.
  59. Hillis, W. D. (1990). "Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure". Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 42 (1–3): 228–234. Bibcode:1990PhyD...42..228H. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90076-2.
  60. Sims, Karl (1994). "Evolved Virtual Creatures". Karl Sims. Retrieved 17 January 2017.
  61. "Henrik Valeur's biography" . Retrieved 2015-08-29.
  62. "About Co-evolution". Danish Architecture Centre. Archived from the original on 2015-11-20. Retrieved 2015-08-29.
  63. "An interview with Henrik Valeur". Movingcities. 2007-12-17. Retrieved 2015-10-17.
  64. Valeur, Henrik (2006). Co-evolution: Danish/Chinese Collaboration on Sustainable Urban Development in China. Copenhagen: Danish Architecture Centre. p. 12. ISBN   978-87-90668-61-7.
  65. Valeur, Henrik (2014). India: the Urban Transition - a Case Study of Development Urbanism. Architectural Publisher B. p. 22. ISBN   978-87-92700-09-4.
  66. Farmer, Graham (2017). "From Differentiation to Concretisation: Integrative Experiments in Sustainable Architecture". Societies. 3 (35): 18. doi: 10.3390/soc7040035 .
  67. Gnedin, Oleg Y.; et al. (2014). "Co-Evolution of Galactic Nuclei and Globular Cluster Systems". The Astrophysical Journal. 785 (1): 71. arXiv: 1308.0021 . Bibcode:2014ApJ...785...71G. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/71. S2CID   118660328.
  68. Abatecola, Gianpaolo; Breslin, Dermot; Kask, Johan (2020). "Do organizations really co-evolve? Problematizing co-evolutionary change in management and organization studies". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 155: 119964. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119964 . ISSN   0040-1625.
  69. Norgaard, Richard B. (1994). Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. Routledge.
  70. Glasser, Harold (1996). "Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and A Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future by Richard B. Norgaard". Environmental Values. 5 (3): 267–270. doi:10.1177/096327199600500308. JSTOR   30301478. S2CID   259156528.
  71. Gowdy, John (1994). Coevolutionary Economics: The Economy, Society and the Environment. Springer. pp. 1–2.
  72. D’Hondt, Theo; Volder, Kris; Mens, Kim; Wuyts, Roel (2002). "Co-Evolution of Object-Oriented Software Design and Implementation". Software Architectures and Component Technology. Boston, MA: Springer US. pp. 207–224. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0883-0_7. ISBN   978-1-4613-5286-0.
  73. Cherns, A. (1976). "The principles of sociotechnical design". Human Relations. 29 (8): 8. doi:10.1177/001872677602900806.