Ecological fitting

Last updated
The Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata readily devours Solanum tuberosum, an introduced relative of its original Solanum hosts, as a result of ecological fitting. Colorado potato beetle.jpg
The Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata readily devours Solanum tuberosum , an introduced relative of its original Solanum hosts, as a result of ecological fitting.

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". [2] 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. [2]

Contents

The simplest form of ecological fitting is resource tracking, in which an organism continues to exploit the same resources, but in a new host or environment. In this framework, the organism occupies a multidimensional operative environment defined by the conditions in which it can persist, similar to the idea of the Hutchinsonian niche. [3] In this case, a species can colonize new environments (e.g. an area with the same temperature and water regime), form new species interactions (e.g. a parasite infecting a new host), or both, which can lead to the misinterpretation of the relationship as coevolution, although the organism has not evolved and is continuing to exploit the same resources it always has. [2] [4] The more strict definition of ecological fitting requires that a species encounter an environment or host outside of its original operative environment and obtain realized fitness based on traits developed in previous environments that are now co-opted for a new purpose. This strict form of ecological fitting can also be expressed either as colonization of new habitat or the formation of new species interactions. [2] [5]

Origin

The evolutionary ecologist Daniel H. Janzen began to explicate the idea of ecological fitting with a 1980 paper [6] that observed that many instances of ecological interactions were inferred to be the result of coevolution when this was not necessarily the case, and encouraged ecologists to use the term coevolution more strictly. He observed that the existing defense traits of plants were likely produced by co-evolution with herbivores or parasites that no longer co-occurred with the plants, but that these traits were continuing to protect the plants against new attacks.

He expanded this idea in a 1985 paper [7] written while visiting Santa Rosa National Park in Costa Rica. While there, he observed that almost all of the species in the park occupied large geographic ranges, and despite the heterogeneity of habitats across these ranges, individuals were mostly identical across locations, indicating that little local adaptation had taken place. He described the cyclical life history pattern he believed responsible for this pattern: a species begins as a small population occupying a small area with little genetic variation, but then over the course of a few generations grows to occupy a large area, either because of the emergence of a genotype successful over a wider range, or because of the removal of a geographic barrier. This large interconnected population is now subject to many contradictory selection pressures and thus remains evolutionarily static until a disturbance separates populations, restarting the cycle. [7]

This cyclic life history pattern is dependent on three premises: that the ancestral range of most species is smaller than the ones now occupied, that biological communities have porous borders and are thus subject to invasion, and that species possess robust genotypes that allow them to colonize new habitats without evolution. [7] Thus, many biological communities may be made up of organisms that despite their complex biological interactions have very little evolutionary history with each other.

Contrasting views

Ecological fitting represents a contrasting view to, and null hypothesis for, the hypothesis that current species interactions are evidence of coevolution. [2] Coevolution occurs when each species in a relationship imposes evolutionary selection on the other(s). Examples could include mutualisms or predator-prey systems. The traditional view of plant–insect, host–parasite, and other tightly associated species, explained by Ehrlich and Raven (1964), defines coevolution as the primary mechanism for these associations. [8] In his 1980 paper, Janzen gives a response to these adaptationist explanations of why a phenotype or species might exist in a particular environment, and expressed his concern with what he perceived as an overuse of coevolutionary explanations for current species associations. He stated that it would be difficult to distinguish between coevolution and ecological fitting, leading ecologists to potentially spurious explanations of current species associations. [2] [6] It is difficult to determine whether a close relationship is the result of coevolution or of ecological fitting because ecological fitting is a sorting process in which only associations that 'fit', or increase fitness (biology), will be maintained. [9] When trying to determine which process is at work in a particular interaction, species can only come into contact through biotic expansion and ecological fitting, followed by adaptation or coevolution. Thus, both processes are important in shaping interactions and communities. [10] [11]

Mechanisms

Ecological fitting can occur by a variety of mechanisms, and can help to explain some ecological phenomena. Resource tracking can help to explain the parasite paradox: that parasites are specialists with narrow environmental ranges, which would encourage host fidelity, yet scientists commonly observe parasite shifts onto novel hosts, both in the phylogenetic record and in ecological time. [12] [13] Ecological fitting can explain the frequency of this phenomenon: similar to the expansion phase of the cyclic life cycle described by Janzen, [7] a species undergoes taxon pulses, [14] usually in a time of ecological disturbance, and expands its range, disperses, and colonizes new areas. [10] [11] [15] For parasite–host, insect–plant, or plant–pollinator associations, this colonization is facilitated by the organism tracking an ancestral resource, and not tracking a particular species. [13] [16] The probability of this is increased when the tracked resource is widespread, or when specialization on a certain resource is a shared trait among distantly related species. [13] [17] This resource tracking has been demonstrated for both insect–plant and parasite–host systems in which sister species are capable of surviving on each other's hosts, even if they were never associated in nature. [16]

When operating under the more strict definition of ecological fitting, in which traits must be exapted for a new purpose, several mechanisms could be operating. Phenotypic plasticity, in which an organism changes phenotype in response to environmental variables, allows for individuals with existing genotypes to obtain fitness in novel conditions without adaptation occurring. [2] [17] [18] Correlated trait evolution can encourage ecological fitting when direct selection on one trait causes a correlated change in another, potentially creating a phenotype that is pre-adapted to possible future conditions. [2] [19] [20] Phylogenetic conservatism is the latent retention of genetic changes from past conditions: for instance, historical exposure to a certain host may predispose it to colonization in the future. [2] [9] [15] [17] Finally, fixed traits such as body size may lead to entirely different biotic interactions in different environments; for example, pollinators visiting different sets of flowers. [17] [21]

Examples

Studies of introduced species can provide some of the best evidence for ecological fitting, [9] because species invasions represent natural experiments testing how a new species fits into a community. [22] Invasion ecology teaches us that changes in geographic range can occur quickly, [22] as is required by the Janzen model for ecological fitting, [7] and ecological fitting provides an important mechanism whereby new species can fit into an existing community without adaptation. [11] These natural experiments have often shown that communities dominated by invasive species, such as those on Ascension Island, can be as diverse and complex as native communities. [22] Additionally, phylogenetic studies show evidence for ecological fitting when lineages of the associated species do not correlate over evolutionary time; that is, if host–parasite or other interactions are as tightly coevolved as was previously believed, parasites should not be switching to unrelated hosts. [9] This kind of host switching has been shown many times: in insect–plant relationships where oligophagy in locusts manifests itself on distantly related plants, [23] plant–disperser relationships among Mediterranean birds, [24] plant–pollinator relationships between hummingbirds and Heliconia flowers, [5] and for parasite–host associations ranging from flatworms in frogs [13] to parasitic worms in primates [25] or in trout. [26] Another study examined the time required for sugarcane, Saccharum officinarum , to accumulate diverse arthropod pest communities. It determined that time did not influence pest species richness, indicating that host–parasite associations were forming in ecological, not evolutionary, time. [27]

The human-made cloud forest on Green Mountain, Ascension Island, represents an example of how unrelated and unassociated plant species can form a functioning ecosystem without a shared evolutionary history. [28] 19th-century accounts of the island, including that of Charles Darwin on his expedition aboard the Beagle , described the rocky island as destitute and bare. [28] Plants were brought to the island by colonists, but the most important change occurred in 1843 with the terraforming of Green Mountain by botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, who recommended planting trees on Green Mountain and vegetation on the slopes to encourage deeper soils. [28] Plants were regularly sent from England until, in the 1920s, the mountain was green and verdant, and could be described as a functioning cloud forest. [28] Although some of the species likely were introduced together because of their coevolutionary relationships, [29] the overwhelming mechanism governing relationships is clearly ecological fitting. [30] The system has changed dramatically and even provides ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, all as a result of ecological fitting. [28] [30] This is important with regard to climate change for two reasons: species ranges may be shifting dramatically, and ecological fitting is an important mechanism for the construction of communities over ecological time, [12] [22] and it shows that human-made systems could be integral in the mitigation of climate change. [28]

Theoretical applications

Explaining diversity patterns

Ecological fitting can influence species diversity either by promoting diversification through genetic drift, or by maintaining evolutionary stasis through gene flow. [2] Research has shown that ecological fitting can result in parasite assemblages that are just as diverse as those produced over evolutionary time, indicating the importance of ecological factors for biodiversity. [26] Ecological fitting can contribute to three types of evolutionary transition. [31] The first is simple ecological fitting, in which organisms track resources to form novel species interactions and increase individual fitness. [12] The second is a shift from an organism's ancestral ecology to a derived ecology, or a more true form of ecological fitting: traits are exapted from their original purpose to increase fitness. [31] Finally, a more dramatic form involves the creation of new evolutionary arenas, requiring morphological or ecological changes to gain fitness under new conditions. [31] Any of these processes can promote speciation or diversification under the right circumstances. Each form of ecological fitting can encourage speciation only if the population is sufficiently isolated from other populations to prevent gene flow from swamping local adaptation to newly formed species associations. [12] Host-plant or other specialized relationships have been previously regarded as an evolutionary 'dead-end' because they seem to limit diversity, but they can actually promote it according to coevolutionary theory. [23] Insects that feed on plants induce them to develop new defense mechanisms, which frees them from herbivory. In this new adaptive zone, or ecospace, plant clades can undergo evolutionary radiation, in which diversification of the clade occurs quickly due to adaptive change. [8] The herbivorous insects may eventually succeed in adapting to the plants' defenses, and would also be capable of diversifying, in the absence of competition by other herbivorous insects. [10] Thus, species associations can lead to rapid diversification of both lineages and contribute to overall community diversity. [23]

Ecological fitting can also maintain populations in stasis, influencing diversity by limiting it. If populations are well-connected through gene flow, local adaptation may not be able to occur (known as antagonistic gene flow), or the well-connected population could evolve as a whole without speciation occurring. The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution theory can help to explain this: it suggests that coevolution or speciation of a species occurs across a wide geographic scale, rather than at the level of populations, so that populations experiencing selection for a particular trait affect gene frequencies across the geographic region due to gene flow. Populations of a species interact with different species in different parts of its range, so populations may be experiencing a small sub-set of the interactions to which the species as a whole is adapted. [12] [32] [33] This is based on three premises: there is an environmental and biotic interaction mosaic affecting fitness in different areas, there are certain areas where species are more coevolved than others, and that there is mixing of allele frequencies and traits between the regions to produce more homogeneous populations. [32] [33] Thus, depending on connectivity of populations and strength of selection pressure in different arenas, a widespread population can coevolve with another species, or individual populations can specialize, potentially resulting in diversification. [17]

Community assembly

Ecological fitting can explain aspects of species associations and community assembly, as well as invasion ecology. [13] It is another mechanism, in addition to coevolution and in-situ evolution (in which new phenotypes evolve and travel sympatrically), that can explain the creation and maintenance of species associations within a community. [9] The phenomenon of ecological fitting helps to weigh in on some of the great debates in community ecology. [28] The Clementisian school of community ecology, based on the work of Frederic Clements, a plant ecologist who studied ecological succession, holds that communities are constructed by deterministic processes that assemble a 'superorganism' from the individual species present. [34] With the removal or exchange of a species, the community would be unstable. By contrast, the Gleasonian view, promoted by Henry Gleason, who was also a plant ecologist studying successional communities, is more individualistic and emphasizes the role of random processes such as dispersal in community assembly. [35] The Clementsian view would emphasize coevolution and strict niche fidelity as a major factor structuring communities, also known as the niche-assembly perspective, whereas the Gleasonian, or dispersal assembly view emphasizes neutral and historical processes, including ecological fitting. [28] [36] These views of community assembly prompt questions, such as whether species continue stable relationships over time, or if all individuals represent "asymmetrical pegs in square holes". [7] [36] Some of these questions can be answered through phylogenetic studies, which can determine when certain traits arose, and thus whether species interactions and community assembly occurs primarily through coevolution or through dispersal and ecological fitting. Support exists for each, indicating that each has a varied role to play, depending on the community and on historical factors. [36]

Emerging infectious diseases

A field of recent[ when? ] importance for the application of ecological fitting is that of emerging infectious disease: infectious diseases that have emerged or increased incidence in the last 20 years, as a result of evolution, range expansion, or ecological changes. Climate change represents an ecological perturbation that induces range and phenological shifts in many species, which can encourage parasite transmission and host switching without any evolutionary change occurring. [37] When species begin to infect host species with which they were not previously associated, it may be the result of ecological fitting. [12] Even organisms with complex life histories can switch hosts as long as the resource required by each life stage is phylogenetically conserved and geographically widespread, meaning that it is difficult to predict based on life history complexity or other external factors. [38] This has been used to explain the mysterious appearance of the bullfrog lung trematode Haematoloechus floedae in Costa Rican leopard frogs, even though bullfrogs do not and have never occurred in this area. [38] When an emerging infectious disease is the result of ecological fitting and host specificity is loose, then recurrent host shifts are likely to occur and the difficult task of building a predictive framework for management is necessary. [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecology</span> Study of organisms and their environment

Ecology is the study of the relationships among living organisms, including humans, and their physical environment. Ecology considers organisms at the individual, population, community, ecosystem, and biosphere level. Ecology overlaps with the closely related sciences of biogeography, evolutionary biology, genetics, ethology, and natural history. Ecology is a branch of biology, and it is not synonymous with environmentalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Herbivore</span> Organism that eats mostly or exclusively plant material

A herbivore is an animal anatomically and physiologically adapted to eating plant material, for example foliage or marine algae, for the main component of its diet. As a result of their plant diet, herbivorous animals typically have mouthparts adapted to rasping or grinding. Horses and other herbivores have wide flat teeth that are adapted to grinding grass, tree bark, and other tough plant material.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coevolution</span> Two or more species influencing each others evolution

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biological interaction</span> Effect that organisms have on other organisms

In ecology, a biological interaction is the effect that a pair of organisms living together in a community have on each other. They can be either of the same species, or of different species. These effects may be short-term, or long-term, both often strongly influence the adaptation and evolution of the species involved. Biological interactions range from mutualism, beneficial to both partners, to competition, harmful to both partners. Interactions can be direct when physical contact is established or indirect, through intermediaries such as shared resources, territories, ecological services, metabolic waste, toxins or growth inhibitors. This type of relationship can be shown by net effect based on individual effects on both organisms arising out of relationship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolutionary ecology</span> Interaction of biology and evolution

Evolutionary ecology lies at the intersection of ecology and evolutionary biology. It approaches the study of ecology in a way that explicitly considers the evolutionary histories of species and the interactions between them. Conversely, it can be seen as an approach to the study of evolution that incorporates an understanding of the interactions between the species under consideration. The main subfields of evolutionary ecology are life history evolution, sociobiology, the evolution of interspecific interactions and the evolution of biodiversity and of ecological communities.

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">Functional ecology</span>

Functional ecology is a branch of ecology that focuses on the roles, or functions, that species play in the community or ecosystem in which they occur. In this approach, physiological, anatomical, and life history characteristics of the species are emphasized. The term "function" is used to emphasize certain physiological processes rather than discrete properties, describe an organism's role in a trophic system, or illustrate the effects of natural selective processes on an organism. This sub-discipline of ecology represents the crossroads between ecological patterns and the processes and mechanisms that underlie them. It focuses on traits represented in large number of species and can be measured in two ways – the first being screening, which involves measuring a trait across a number of species, and the second being empiricism, which provides quantitative relationships for the traits measured in screening. Functional ecology often emphasizes an integrative approach, using organism traits and activities to understand community dynamics and ecosystem processes, particularly in response to the rapid global changes occurring in earth's environment.

Herbivores are dependent on plants for food, and have coevolved mechanisms to obtain this food despite the evolution of a diverse arsenal of plant defenses against herbivory. Herbivore adaptations to plant defense have been likened to "offensive traits" and consist of those traits that allow for increased feeding and use of a host. Plants, on the other hand, protect their resources for use in growth and reproduction, by limiting the ability of herbivores to eat them. Relationships between herbivores and their host plants often results in reciprocal evolutionary change. When a herbivore eats a plant it selects for plants that can mount a defensive response, whether the response is incorporated biochemically or physically, or induced as a counterattack. In cases where this relationship demonstrates "specificity", and "reciprocity", the species are thought to have coevolved. The escape and radiation mechanisms for coevolution, presents the idea that adaptations in herbivores and their host plants, has been the driving force behind speciation. The coevolution that occurs between plants and herbivores that ultimately results in the speciation of both can be further explained by the Red Queen hypothesis. This hypothesis states that competitive success and failure evolve back and forth through organizational learning. The act of an organism facing competition with another organism ultimately leads to an increase in the organism's performance due to selection. This increase in competitive success then forces the competing organism to increase its performance through selection as well, thus creating an "arms race" between the two species. Herbivores evolve due to plant defenses because plants must increase their competitive performance first due to herbivore competitive success.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Competition (biology)</span> Interaction where the fitness of one organism is lowered by the presence of another organism

Competition is an interaction between organisms or species in which both require a resource that is in limited supply. Competition lowers the fitness of both organisms involved since the presence of one of the organisms always reduces the amount of the resource available to the other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Myrmecophily</span> Positive interspecies associations between ants and other organisms

Myrmecophily is the term applied to positive interspecies associations between ants and a variety of other organisms, such as plants, other arthropods, and fungi. Myrmecophily refers to mutualistic associations with ants, though in its more general use, the term may also refer to commensal or even parasitic interactions.

The Red Queen hypothesis is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology proposed in 1973, that species must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing species. The hypothesis was intended to explain the constant (age-independent) extinction probability as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species; however, it has also been suggested that the Red Queen hypothesis explains the advantage of sexual reproduction at the level of individuals, and the positive correlation between speciation and extinction rates in most higher taxa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Community (ecology)</span> Associated populations of species in a given area

In ecology, a community is a group or association of populations of two or more different species occupying the same geographical area at the same time, also known as a biocoenosis, biotic community, biological community, ecological community, or life assemblage. The term community has a variety of uses. In its simplest form it refers to groups of organisms in a specific place or time, for example, "the fish community of Lake Ontario before industrialization".

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

Insect ecology is the scientific study of how insects, individually or as a community, interact with the surrounding environment or ecosystem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plant ecology</span> The study of effect of the environment on the abundance and distribution of plants

Plant ecology is a subdiscipline of ecology that studies the distribution and abundance of plants, the effects of environmental factors upon the abundance of plants, and the interactions among plants and between plants and other organisms. Examples of these are the distribution of temperate deciduous forests in North America, the effects of drought or flooding upon plant survival, and competition among desert plants for water, or effects of herds of grazing animals upon the composition of grasslands.

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">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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Escape and radiate coevolution</span>

Escape and radiate coevolution is a hypothesis proposing that a coevolutionary 'arms-race' between primary producers and their consumers contributes to the diversification of species by accelerating speciation rates. The hypothesized process involves the evolution of novel defenses in the host, allowing it to "escape" and then "radiate" into differing species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cospeciation</span> A form of coevolution in which the speciation of one species dictates speciation of another species

Cospeciation is a form of coevolution in which the speciation of one species dictates speciation of another species and is most commonly studied in host-parasite relationships. In the case of a host-parasite relationship, if two hosts of the same species get within close proximity of each other, parasites of the same species from each host are able to move between individuals and mate with the parasites on the other host. However, if a speciation event occurs in the host species, the parasites will no longer be able to "cross over" because the two new host species no longer mate and, if the speciation event is due to a geographic separation, it is very unlikely the two hosts will interact at all with each other. The lack of proximity between the hosts ultimately prevents the populations of parasites from interacting and mating. This can ultimately lead to speciation within the parasite.

Eco-evolutionary dynamics refers to the reciprocal effects that ecology and evolution have on each other. The effects of ecology on evolutionary processes are commonly observed in studies, but the realization that evolutionary changes can be rapid led to the emergence of eco-evolutionary dynamics. The idea that evolutionary processes can occur quickly and on one timescale with ecological processes led scientists to begin studying the influence evolution has on ecology along with the affects ecology has on evolution. Recent studies have documented eco-evolutionary dynamics and feedback, which is the cyclic interaction between evolution and ecology, in natural and laboratory systems at different levels of biological organization, such as populations, communities, and ecosystems.

<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.

References

  1. ↑ Hsiao, T. H. (1978). "Host plant adaptations among geographic populations of the Colorado potato beetle". Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 24 (3): 437–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1978.tb02804.x . S2CID   84910076.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Agosta, Salvatore J.; Jeffrey A. Klemens (2008). "Ecological fitting by phenotypically flexible genotypes: implications for species associations, community assembly and evolution". Ecology Letters. 11 (11): 1123–1134. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01237.x. PMID   18778274.
  3. ↑ Hutchinson, G.E. (1957). "Concluding remarks" (PDF). Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology. 22 (2): 415–427. doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-26. Retrieved 2011-01-30.
  4. ↑ Agosta, Salvatore J.; J. A. Klemens (2009). "Resource specialization in a phytophagous insect: no evidence for genetically based performance trade-offs across hosts in the field or laboratory". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 22 (4): 907–912. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01694.x . PMID   19220649. S2CID   205432131.
  5. 1 2 Gill, Frank B. (1987). "Ecological Fitting: Use of Floral Nectar in Heliconia stilesii Daniels by Three Species of Hermit Hummingbirds". The Condor. 89 (4): 779–787. doi:10.2307/1368525. JSTOR   1368525.
  6. 1 2 Janzen, Daniel H. (1980). "When is it Coevolution?". Evolution. 34 (3): 611–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1980.tb04849.x . JSTOR   2408229. PMID   28568694. S2CID   14608571.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Janzen, Daniel H. (1985). "On Ecological Fitting". Oikos. 45 (3): 308–310. doi:10.2307/3565565. JSTOR   3565565.
  8. 1 2 Ehrlich, P. R.; Raven, P.H. (1964). "Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution" (PDF). Evolution. 18 (4): 586–608. doi:10.2307/2406212. JSTOR   2406212.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Agosta, Salvatore J. (2006). "On ecological fitting, plant-insect associations, herbivore host shifts, and host plant selection". Oikos. 114 (3): 556–565. doi:10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15025.x. ISSN   0030-1299.
  10. 1 2 3 Janz, N.; Nylin, S. & Tilmon, K. J. (ed.) (2008). "Chapter 15: The oscillation hypothesis of host plant-range and speciation". Specialization, Speciation, and Radiation: the Evolutionary Biology of Herbivorous Insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. pp. 203–215.{{cite book}}: |first3= has generic name (help)
  11. 1 2 3 Stachowicz, John J.; Jarrett E. Byrnes (2006). "Species diversity, invasion success, and ecosystem functioning: disentangling the influence of resource competition, facilitation, and extrinsic factors". Marine Ecology Progress Series. 311: 251–262. Bibcode:2006MEPS..311..251S. doi: 10.3354/meps311251 .
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agosta, Salvatore J.; Niklas Janz & Daniel R. Brooks (2010). "How Specialists Can Be Generalists: Resolving the Parasite Paradox and Implications for Emerging Infectious Disease". Zoologia. 27 (2): 151–162. doi: 10.1590/s1984-46702010000200001 .
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 Brooks, Daniel R., Virginia León-Règagnon, Deborah A. McLennan, and Derek Zelmer (2006). "Ecological Fitting as a Determinant of the Community Structure of Platyhelminth Parasites of Anurans". Ecology. 87 (7): S76–S85. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[76:efaado]2.0.co;2 . PMID   16922304.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ↑ Erwin, T.L.; Nelson, G. (ed.) & Rosen, D.E. (ed.) (1981). "Taxon pulses, vicariance, and dispersal: an evolutionary synthesis illustrated by carabid beetles". Vicariance biogeography: a critique. Columbia University Press, New York. pp. 159–196.{{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help)
  15. 1 2 Hoberg, Eric P.; Brooks, Daniel R.; Morand, Serge (ed.) & Krasnov, Boris R. (ed.) (2010). "Chapter 1: Beyond vicariance: integrating taxon pulses, ecological fitting, and oscillation in evolution and historicalbiogeography". The Biogeography of Host-Parasite Interactions . Oxford University Press. pp.  7–20. ISBN   978-0-19-956135-3.{{cite book}}: |first3= has generic name (help)
  16. 1 2 Radtke, Alison; Deborah A. McLennan & Daniel R. Brooks (2002). "Resource Tracking in North American Telorchis spp. (Digenea: Plagiorchiformes: Telorchidae)". The Journal of Parasitology. 88 (5): 874–879. doi:10.1645/0022-3395(2002)088[0874:rtinat]2.0.co;2. JSTOR   3285524. PMID   12435123. S2CID   28565232.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 Zamora, Regino (2000). "Functional Equivalence in Plant-Animal Interactions: Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences". Oikos. 88 (2): 442–447. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880222.x.
  18. ↑ West-Eberhard, M.J. (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-512235-0.
  19. ↑ Lande, R.; Arnold, S.J. (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37 (6): 1210–1226. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x . JSTOR   2408842. PMID   28556011. S2CID   36544045.
  20. ↑ Herrera, C.M., M. Medrano, P.J. Rey, A.M. Sanchez-Lafuente, M.B. Garcia, J. Guitian; et al. (2002). "Interaction of pollinators and herbivores on plant fitness suggests a pathway for correlated evolution of mutualism- and antagonism-related traits". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 99 (26): 16823–16828. Bibcode:2002PNAS...9916823H. doi: 10.1073/pnas.252362799 . PMC   139228 . PMID   12482948.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ↑ Herrera, C.M. (1997). "Thermal biology and foraging responses of insect pollinators to the forest floor irradiance mosaic". Oikos. 78 (3): 601–611. doi:10.2307/3545623. hdl: 10261/42296 . JSTOR   3545623.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Sax, Dov F.; John J. Stachowicz; James H. Brown; John F. Bruno; Michael N Dawson; Steven D. Gaines; Richard K. Grosberg; Alan Hastings; Robert D. Holt; Margaret M. Mayfield; Mary I. O’Connor & William R. Rice (2007). "Ecological and evolutionary insights from species invasions". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 22 (9): 465–471. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.009. PMID   17640765.
  23. 1 2 3 Jermy, Tibor (2006). "Evolution of Insect/Host Plant Relationships". The American Naturalist. 124 (5): 609–630. doi:10.1086/284302. JSTOR   2461372. S2CID   84647531.
  24. ↑ Herrera, Carlos M. (1995). "Plant-Vertebrate Seed Dispersal Systems in the Mediterranean: Ecological, Evolutionary, and Historical Determinants". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 26: 705–727. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.26.1.705. JSTOR   2097225.
  25. ↑ Brooks, Daniel R.; Amanda L. Ferrao (2005). "The historical biogeography of co-evolution: emerging infectious diseases are evolutionary accidents waiting to happen". Journal of Biogeography. 32 (8): 1291–1299. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01315.x. S2CID   82689429.
  26. 1 2 Poulin, Robert; David Mouillot (2003). "Host introductions and the geography of parasite taxonomic diversity". Journal of Biogeography. 30 (6): 837–845. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00868.x. S2CID   32761353.
  27. ↑ Strong, Donald R. Jr.; Earl D. McCoy & Jorge R. Rey (1977). "Time and the Number of Herbivore Species: The Pests of Sugarcane". Ecological Society of America. 58 (1): 167–175. doi:10.2307/1935118. JSTOR   1935118.
  28. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wilkinson, David M. (2004). "The parable of Green Mountain: Ascension Island, ecosystem construction and ecological fitting". Journal of Biogeography. 31: 1–4. doi:10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.01010.x. S2CID   59332510.
  29. ↑ Gray, Alan (2004). "The parable of Green Mountain: massaging the message". Journal of Biogeography . 31 (9): 1549–1550. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01118.x .
  30. 1 2 Wilkinson, David M. (2004). "Do we need a process-based approach to nature conservation? Continuing the parable of Green Mountain, Ascension Island". Journal of Biogeography. 31 (12): 2041–2042. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01216.x .
  31. 1 2 3 Brooks, Daniel R. (2002). "Taking Evolutionary Transitions Seriously". Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development. 2 (1): 6–24.
  32. 1 2 Thompson, John N (2005). The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution (Interspecific Interactions). University of Chicago Press. ISBN   978-0-226-79762-5.
  33. 1 2 Thompson, John N (1999). "Specific Hypotheses on the Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution". The American Naturalist . 153: S1–S14. doi:10.1086/303208. ISSN   1537-5323. S2CID   11656923.
  34. ↑ Clements, Frederic E. (1916). Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. ISBN   978-1-162-21647-8.
  35. ↑ Gleason, Henry A. (1917). "The Structure and Development of the Plant Association". Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 44 (10): 463–481. doi:10.2307/2479596. JSTOR   2479596.
  36. 1 2 3 Cavender-Bares, Jeannine; Kenneth H. Kozak; Paul V. A. Fine; Steven W. Kembel (2006). "The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology". Ecology Letters. 12 (7): 693–715. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01314.x . PMID   19473217.
  37. ↑ Brooks, Daniel R.; Eric P. Hoberg (2007). "How will global climate change affect parasite–host assemblages?". Trends in Parasitology. 23 (12): 571–574. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2007.08.016. PMID   17962073. S2CID   26853701.
  38. 1 2 Brooks, Daniel R., Deborah A. McLennan, Virginia León-Règagnon, and Eric Hoberg (2006). "Phylogeny, ecological fitting and lung flukes: helping solve the problem of emerging infectious diseases". Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad. 77: 225–233.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.