Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Advances in source–sink theory
- 2 Evolution in source–sink environments: implications for niche conservatism
- 3 Source–sink dynamics emerging from unstable ideal free habitat selection
- 4 Sources and sinks in the evolution and persistence of mutualisms
- 5 Effects of climate change on dynamics and stability of multiregional populations
- 6 Habitat quality, niche breadth, temporal stochasticity, and the persistence of populations in heterogeneous landscapes
- 7 When sinks rescue sources in dynamic environments
- 8 Sinks, sustainability, and conservation incentives
- Part III Progress in source–sink methodology
- Part IV Improvement of source–sink management
- Part V Synthesis
- Index
- References
4 - Sources and sinks in the evolution and persistence of mutualisms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Advances in source–sink theory
- 2 Evolution in source–sink environments: implications for niche conservatism
- 3 Source–sink dynamics emerging from unstable ideal free habitat selection
- 4 Sources and sinks in the evolution and persistence of mutualisms
- 5 Effects of climate change on dynamics and stability of multiregional populations
- 6 Habitat quality, niche breadth, temporal stochasticity, and the persistence of populations in heterogeneous landscapes
- 7 When sinks rescue sources in dynamic environments
- 8 Sinks, sustainability, and conservation incentives
- Part III Progress in source–sink methodology
- Part IV Improvement of source–sink management
- Part V Synthesis
- Index
- References
Summary
Pulliam’s (1988) model of sources and sinks demonstrated the importance of considering spatial variation in demographic rates for understanding population persistence. One of the factors contributing to such spatial variation is variation in the occurrence of other species, including prey, predators and mutualists. Here we consider how such variation in community context affects what could be termed sources and sinks in the evolution of species interactions. We focus on the seed dispersal mutualism between Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis), and how the presence and absence of a seed predator, the red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), likely causes the mutualists to experience demographic sinks and sources, respectively. Although sink populations of limber pine mostly represent the later stages in forest succession, when limber pine trees are older, species interactions within the source and sink populations will affect the evolution and maintenance of the seed dispersal mutualism. In general, the persistence of mutualisms is probably dependent on the amount of habitat that lacks a competitively superior antagonist (i.e., a “source” habitat) and on whether selection exerted by antagonists conflicts with selection exerted by mutualists. Because most mutualisms are vulnerable to exploitation by antagonists, and the distributions of antagonists are unlikely to overlap completely with mutualists, we believe that such a source–sink perspective will be useful for examining the evolution and persistence of mutualisms.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sources, Sinks and Sustainability , pp. 82 - 98Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
and (2004). Attracting antagonists: does floral nectar increase leaf herbivory?Ecology 85: 1519–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1992). Long-term spatial memory in Clark’s nutcracker, Nucifraga columbiana. Animal Behaviour 44: 761–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995a). The impact of tree squirrels (Tamiasciurus) on limber pine seed dispersal adaptations. Evolution 49: 585–592.Google ScholarPubMed
(1995b). Wind dispersal capacity of pine seeds and the evolution of different seed dispersal modes in pines. Oikos 73: 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1984). Adaptations for seed dispersal and the compromises due to seed predation in limber pine. Ecology 65: 632–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). Fleshy fruits: origins, niche shifts, and diversification. Oikos 109: 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1979). Competition between hummingbirds and insects for nectar. American Zoologist 19: 1105–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2008). Does attraction of frugivores or defense against pathogens shape fruit pulp composition?Oecologia 155: 277–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1997). Secondary metabolites of fleshy vertebrate-dispersed fruits: adaptive hypotheses and implications for seed dispersal. American Naturalist 150: 346–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1975). Experimental studies of the niche. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 6: 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995). The benefits of mutualism: a conceptual framework. Biological Reviews 70: 427–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , , and (2004). Geographic variation in the potential of mice to constrain an ant–seed dispersal mutualism. Oikos 105: 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2007). Evolution and persistence of obligate mutualists and exploiters: competition for partners and evolutionary immunization. Ecology Letters 10: 115–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2006). A general model for the evolution of mutualisms. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19: 1283–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2001). Down the tube: pollinators, predators, and the evolution of flower shape in the alpine skypilot, Polemonium viscosum. Evolution 55: 1963–1971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1982). Defense of ripe fruit from pests: its significance in relation to plant–disperser interactions. American Naturalist 120: 218–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Adaptive evolution in source–sink environments: direct and indirect effects of density-dependence on niche evolution. Oikos 75: 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1992). Effect of diaspore characteristics on removal by seeds adapted for dispersal by ants. Ecology 73: 1300–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1982). The central role of Clark’s nutcracker in the dispersal and establishment of whitebark pine. Oecologia 55: 192–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2002). Variation in nectar robbing over time, space, and species. Oecologia 133: 525–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2004). The dual role of floral traits: pollinator attraction and plant defense. Ecology 85: 1503–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1977). Why fruits rot, seeds mold, and meat spoils. American Naturalist 111: 691–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995). Demography of source–sink populations and the evolution of ecological niches. Evolutionary Ecology 9: 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Made for Each Other: A Symbiosis of Birds and Pines. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
and (1980). Dispersal of limber pine seed by Clark’s nutcrackers. Journal of Forestry 78: 637–639.Google Scholar
, , and (2006). A field test of the directed deterrence hypothesis in two species of wild chili. Oecologia 150: 61–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2005). Linking demographic effects of habitat fragmentation across landscapes to continental source–sink dynamics. Ecological Applications 15: 1504–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1980). The impact of floral parasitism in two neotropical hummingbird-pollinated plant species. Evolution 34: 944–958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2005). Abiotic influences on the behaviour of rodents, ants, and plants affect an ant–seed mutualism. Ecoscience 12: 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Pathways to mutualism breakdown. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 585–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2007a). Convergent patterns in the selection mosaic for two North American bird-dispersed pines. Ecological Monographs 77: 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007b). Selection by a pre-dispersal seed predator constrains the evolution of avian seed dispersal in pines. Functional Ecology 21: 611–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2008a). A seed predator drives the evolution of a seed dispersal mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 275: 1917–1925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2008b). Seed predation and selection exerted by a seed predator influence tree densities in sub-alpine communities. Ecology 89: 2960–2966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2010). Conflicting selection from an antagonist and a mutualist enhances phenotypic variation in a plant. Evolution 64: 1120–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1968). The adaptive nature of social organization in the genus of tree squirrels Tamiasciurus. Ecological Monographs 38: 31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1979). Competition among insects, birds and mammals for conifer seeds. American Zoologist 19: 1065–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
(1988). Foraging of Clark’s nutcrackers on rapidly changing pine seed resources. Condor 90: 621–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Effects of seed size of wind-dispersed pines (Pinus) on secondary seed dispersal and the caching behavior of rodents. Oikos 100: 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1981). Ecology and evolution of food-storage behavior in conifer-seed-caching corvids. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 56: 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2003). Coexistence of mutualists and exploiters on spatial landscapes. Ecological Monographs 73: 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2001). An empirical model of species coexistence in a spatially structured environment. Ecology 82: 1761–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by