Skip to main content
PMC home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Apr 22;269(1493):773–780. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1900

Cheating and the evolutionary stability of mutualisms.

Régis Ferriere 1, Judith L Bronstein 1, Sergio Rinaldi 1, Richard Law 1, Mathias Gauduchon 1
PMCID: PMC1690960  PMID: 11958708

Abstract

Interspecific mutualisms have been playing a central role in the functioning of all ecosystems since the early history of life. Yet the theory of coevolution of mutualists is virtually nonexistent, by contrast with well-developed coevolutionary theories of competition, predator-prey and host-parasite interactions. This has prevented resolution of a basic puzzle posed by mutualisms: their persistence in spite of apparent evolutionary instability. The selective advantage of 'cheating', that is, reaping mutualistic benefits while providing fewer commodities to the partner species, is commonly believed to erode a mutualistic interaction, leading to its dissolution or reciprocal extinction. However, recent empirical findings indicate that stable associations of mutualists and cheaters have existed over long evolutionary periods. Here, we show that asymmetrical competition within species for the commodities offered by mutualistic partners provides a simple and testable ecological mechanism that can account for the long-term persistence of mutualisms. Cheating, in effect, establishes a background against which better mutualists can display any competitive superiority. This can lead to the coexistence and divergence of mutualist and cheater phenotypes, as well as to the coexistence of ecologically similar, but unrelated mutualists and cheaters.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (262.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Axelrod R., Hamilton W. D. The evolution of cooperation. Science. 1981 Mar 27;211(4489):1390–1396. doi: 10.1126/science.7466396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brooks J. L., Dodson S. I. Predation, Body Size, and Composition of Plankton. Science. 1965 Oct 1;150(3692):28–35. doi: 10.1126/science.150.3692.28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bull J. J., Rice W. R. Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of co-operation. J Theor Biol. 1991 Mar 7;149(1):63–74. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80072-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dieckmann U., Doebeli M. On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature. 1999 Jul 22;400(6742):354–357. doi: 10.1038/22521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dieckmann U., Law R. The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. J Math Biol. 1996;34(5-6):579–612. doi: 10.1007/BF02409751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Doebeli M., Knowlton N. The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jul 21;95(15):8676–8680. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.15.8676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Frank S. A. Models of parasite virulence. Q Rev Biol. 1996 Mar;71(1):37–78. doi: 10.1086/419267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Frank S. A. The origin of synergistic symbiosis. J Theor Biol. 1995 Oct 7;176(3):403–410. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1995.0208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Herre EA, Knowlton N, Mueller UG, Rehner SA. The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Feb;14(2):49–53. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01529-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kisdi E. Evolutionary branching under asymmetric competition. J Theor Biol. 1999 Mar 21;197(2):149–162. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1998.0864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Law R., Bronstein J. L., Ferrière R. On mutualists and exploiters: plant-insect coevolution in pollinating seed-parasite systems. J Theor Biol. 2001 Oct 7;212(3):373–389. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.2001.2383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  13. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  14. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pellmyr O., Leebens-Mack J. Forty million years of mutualism: evidence for eocene origin of the yucca-yucca moth association. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Aug 3;96(16):9178–9183. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.16.9178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Pellmyr O., Leebens-Mack J., Huth C. J. Non-mutualistic yucca moths and their evolutionary consequences. Nature. 1996 Mar 14;380(6570):155–156. doi: 10.1038/380155a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Roberts G., Sherratt T. N. Development of cooperative relationships through increasing investment. Nature. 1998 Jul 9;394(6689):175–179. doi: 10.1038/28160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES