Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:26:35.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fossil Record of Predator-Prey Arms Races: Coevolution and Escalation Hypotheses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

Gregory P. Dietl  and
Patricia H. Kelley
Gregory P. Dietl
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7617 USA
Patricia H. Kelley
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, NC 28403-3297 USA
Get access

Abstract

Arms races between predators and prey may be driven by two related processes—escalation and coevolution. Escalation is enemy-driven evolution. In this top-down view of an arms race, the role of prey (with the exception of dangerous prey) is downplayed. In coevolution, two or more species change reciprocally in response to one another; prey are thought to drive the evolution of their predator, and vice versa. In the fossil record, the two processes are most reliably distinguished when the predator-prey system is viewed within the context of the other species that may influence the interaction, thus allowing for a relative ranking of the importance of selective agents. Detailed documentation of the natural history of living predator-prey systems is recommended in order to distinguish the processes in some fossil systems. A geographic view of species interactions and the processes driving their evolution may lead to a more diverse array of testable hypotheses on how predator-prey systems evolve and what constraints interactions impose on the evolution of organisms. Scale is important in evaluating the role of escalation and coevolution in the evolution of species interactions. If short-term reciprocal adaptation (via phenotypic plasticity or selection mosaics among populations) between predator and prey is a common process, then prey are likely to exert some selective pressure over their predators over the short term (on ecological time scales), but in the long run predators may still exert primary “top-down” control in directing evolution. On the scale of evolutionary time, predators of large effect likely control the overall directionality of evolution due to the inequalities of predator and prey in control of resources.

Type
Section III: Processes
Information
The Paleontological Society Papers , Volume 8: The Fossil Record of Predation , October 2002 , pp. 353 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

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

References

Abrams, P. A. 1986. Adaptive responses of predators to prey and prey to predators: the failure of the arms-race analogy. Evolution, 40:1229–1247.Google ScholarPubMed
Abrams, P. A. 1991. The effects of interacting species on predator-prey coevolution. Theoretical Population Biology, 39:241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, F. R., and Karban, R. 1994. Defended fortresses or moving targets? Another model of inducible defenses inspired by military metaphors. American Naturalist, 144:813–832.Google Scholar
Adler, F. R., and Grunbaum, D. 1999. Evolution of forager responses to inducible defenses, p. 259–285. In Tollrian, R. and Harvell, C. D. (eds.), The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, F. R., and Karban, R. 1999. Why induced defenses may be favored over constitutive strategies in plants, p. 45–61. In Tollrian, R. and Harvell, C. D. (eds.), The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science, 294:321–326.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. R., and Dietl, G. P. In press. The Phanerozic history of shell-breaking predation on marine bivalves and gastropods. In Kelley, P. H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T. A. (eds.), Predator-Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Barker, R. T. 1983. The deer flees, the wolf pursues: incongruities in predator-prey evolution, p. 350–382. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Berzins, I. K., and Caldwell, R. L. 1983. The effect of injury on the agonistic behavior of the stomatopod, Gonodactylus bredini (Manning). Marine Behaviour and Physiology, 10:83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkeland, C. 1996. Why some species are especially influential on coral-reef communities and others are not. Galaxea, 13:77–84.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1983. Does evolution take place in an ecological vacuum? Journal of Paleontology, 57:1–30.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1990. Evolutionary Paleobiology of Behavior and Coevolution. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Brodie, E. D. III, and Brodie, E. D. Jr. 1999. Predator-prey arms races: Asymmetrical selection on predators and prey may be reduced when prey are dangerous. Bioscience, 49:557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, D. R., and McLennan, D. A. 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology, and Behavior: A Research Program in Comparative Biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., Powell, M. G., Arnold, W. S., Bert, T. M., and Daley, G. M. 2002. Time-averaging, evolution, and morphologic variation. Paleobiology, 28:9–25.Google Scholar
Caldwell, R. L., and Dingle, H. 1976. Stomatopods. Scientific American, 234:80–89.Google Scholar
Chestnut, A. F. 1952. Growth rates and movements of hard clams, Venus mercenaria. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 4th Annual Session:49–59.Google Scholar
Cott, H. B. 1940. Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Facsimile of the 1st edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1982. The Extended Phenotype. W. H. Freeman and Company, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company, New York.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1995. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Basic, New York.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R., and Krebs, J. R. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 205:489–511.Google ScholarPubMed
DeAngelis, D. L., Kitchell, J. A., Post, W. M., and Travis, C. C. 1984. A model of naticid gastropod predator-prey coevolution, p. 120–136. In Levin, S. A. and Hallam, T. G. (eds.), Mathematical ecology. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, 54.Google Scholar
DeAngelis, D. L., Kitchell, J. A., and Post, W. M. 1985. The influence of naticid predation on evolutionary strategies of bivalve prey: conclusions from a model. American Naturalist, 126:817–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieckmann, U., Marrow, P., and Law, R. 1995. Evolutionary cycling in predator-prey interactions: population dynamics and the Red Queen. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 176:91–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietl, G. P. In review. Experimental tests of the strength of interaction between a predator and dangerous prey: Busycon predation on Mercenaria. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P., and Alexander, R. R. 2000. Post-Miocene shift in stereotypic naticid predation on confamilial prey from the mid-Atlantic shelf: coevolution with dangerous prey. Palaios, 15:414–429.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P., Alexander, R. R., and Bien, W. F. 2000. Escalation in Late Cretaceous—early Paleocene oysters (Gryphaeidae) from the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Paleobiology, 26:215–237.Google Scholar
Dingle, H., and Cadwell, R. L. 1978. Ecology and morphology of feeding and agonistic behavior in mudflat stomatopods (Squillidae). Biological Bulletin, 155:134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R., and Raven, P. H. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution, 18:586–608.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. 1985. Evolution and coevolution in communities, p. 369–381. In Raup, D. M. and Jablonski, D. (eds.), Patterns and Processes in the History of Life. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google ScholarPubMed
Futuyma, D. J., and Slatkin, M. 1983a. Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. J., and Slatkin, M. 1983b. Introduction, p. 1–13. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. J., and Slatkin, M. 1983c. The study of Coevolution, p. 459–464. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Geller, J. B. 1983. Shell repair frequencies of two intertidal gastropods of northern California: microhabitat differences. Veliger, 26:113–115.Google Scholar
Geller, J. B. 1990. Reproductive responses to shell damage by the gastropod Nucella emarginata (Deshayes). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 136:77–87.Google Scholar
Gomulkiewicz, R., Thompson, J. N., Holt, R. D., Nuismer, S. L., and Hochberg, M. E. 2000. Hot spots, cold spots, and the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution. American Naturalist, 156:156–174.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1990. Speciation and sorting as the source of evolutionary trends, or “things are seldom what they seem.” p. 3–27. In McNamara, K. J. (ed.), Evolutionary Trends. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 205:581–598.Google Scholar
Grosberg, R., and Cunningham, C. W. 2001. Genetic structure in the sea: from populations to communities, p. 61–84. In Bertness, M. D., Gaines, S. D., and Hay, M. E. (eds.), Marine Community Ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A., and Kelley, P. H. 1995. Spatial variation of naticid gastropod predation in the Eocene of North America. Palaios, 10:268–278.Google Scholar
Harvell, C. D. 1984. Predator-induced defenses in a marine bryozoan. Science, 224:1357–1359.Google Scholar
Harvell, C. D. 1990. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Quarterly Review of Biology, 65:323–340.Google Scholar
Harvell, C. D., and Tollrian, R. 1999. Why inducible defenses?, p. 3–9. In Tollrian, R. and Harvell, C. D. (eds.), The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Herre, E. A. 1999. Laws governing species interactions? Encouragement and caution from figs and their associates, p. 209–237. In Keller, L. (ed.), Levels of Selection in Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Hines, A. H., Haddon, A. M., and Weichert, L. A. 1990. Guild structure and foraging impact of blue crabs and epibenthic fish in a subestuary of Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 67:105–126.Google Scholar
Hoffmeister, A. P., and Kowalewski, M. 2001. Spatial and environmental variation in the fossil record of drilling predation: a case study from the Miocene of central Europe. Palaios, 16:566–579.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. N., and Elner, R. W. 1989. Foraging behavior of a tropical crab: Calappa ocellata Holthuis feeding upon the mussel Brachidontes domingensis (Lamarck). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 133:93–101.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. N., and Hughes, H. P. I. 1981. Morphological and behavioral aspects of feeding in the Cassidae (Tonnacea, Mesogastropoda). Malacologia, 20:385–402.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1980. When is it coevolution? Evolution, 34:611–612.Google Scholar
Juanes, F., and Hartwick, E. B. 1990. Prey size selection in Dungeness crabs: the effect of claw damage. Ecology, 71:744–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1989. Evolutionary trends within bivalve prey of Chesapeake Group naticid gastropods. Historical Biology, 2:139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1992. Evolutionary patterns of naticid gastropods of the Chesapeake Group: an example of coevolution? Journal of Paleontology, 66:794–800.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A. 1993. Evolution of the naticid gastropod predator-prey system: an evaluation of the hypothesis of escalation. Palaios, 8:358–375.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A. 1996. Naticid gastropod prey selectivity through time and the hypothesis of escalation. Palaios, 11:437–445.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A. 2001. The role of ecological interactions in the evolution of naticid gastropods and their molluscan prey, p. 149–170. In Allmon, W. D. and Bottjer, D. J. (eds.), Evolutionary Paleoecology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kent, B. W. 1983. Patterns of coexistence in busyconine whelks. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 66:257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchell, J. A. 1982. Coevolution in a predator-prey system. Third North American Paleontological Convention, Proceedings, 2:301–305.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A. 1986. The evolution of predator-prey behavior: naticid gastropods and their molluscan prey, p. 88–110. In Nitecki, M. and Kitchell, J. A. (eds.), Evolution of Animal Behavior: Paleontological and Field Approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A. 1990. The reciprocal interaction of organism and effective environment: learning more about “and,” p. 151–169. In Ross, R. M. and Allmon, W. B. (eds.), Causes of Evolution: A Paleontological Perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology, 7:533–552.Google Scholar
Knoll, A. H., and Bambach, R. K. 2000. Directionality in the history of life: diffusion from the left wall or repeated scaling of the right?, p. 1–14. In Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L. (eds.), Deep Time: Paleobiology's Perspective. Paleontological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
Kohn, A. J. 1989. Natural history and the necessity of the organism. American Zoologist, 29:1095–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraeuter, J. N. 2001. Predators and predation, p. 441–589. In Kraeuter, J. N. and Castagna, M. (eds.), Biology of the Hard Clam. Elsevier Science, New York.Google Scholar
Leonard, G. H., Bertness, M. D., and Yund, P. O. 1999. Crab predation, waterborne cues, and inducible defenses in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. Ecology, 80:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S. A., Segel, L. A., and Adler, F. R. 1990. Diffuse coevolution in plant-herbivore communities. Theoretical Population Biology, 37:171–191.Google Scholar
Levy, C. K. 1999. Evolutionary Wars: A Three-Billion-Year Arms Race. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
Lively, C. M. 1986. Predator-induced shell dimorphism in the acorn barnacle Chthamalus anisopoma. Evolution, 40:232–242.Google Scholar
Magalhaes, H. 1948. An ecological study of snails of the genus Busycon at Beaufort, North Carolina. Ecological Monographs, 18:377–409.Google Scholar
McNamara, K., and Long, J. 1998. The Evolution Revolution. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Murdoch, W. W., and Oaten, A. 1975. Predation and population stability, p. 1–131. In MacFadyen, A. (ed.), Advances in Ecological Research, Vol. 9. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nebelsick, J. H., and Kowalewski, M. 1999. Drilling predation on Recent Clypeasteroid echinoids from the Red Sea. Palaios, 14:127–144.Google Scholar
Paine, R. 1980. Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. Journal of Animal Ecology, 49:667–685.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. 1983. Arms races in evolution—an ESS to the opponent-independent costs game. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 101:619–648.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. H. 1979. The importance of predation and competition in organizing the intertidal epifaunal communities of Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey. Oecologia, 39:1–24.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1973. Evolution of the predator isocline. Evolution, 27:84–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenzweig, M. L., Brown, J. S., and Vincent, J. L. 1987. Red Queens and ESS: the coevolution of evolutionary rates. Evolutionary Ecology, 1:59–94.Google Scholar
Roughgarden, J. 1983. The theory of coevolution, p. 33–64. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Schaffer, W. M., and Rosenzweig, M. L. 1978. Homage to the Red Queen, I: Coevolution of predators and their victims. Theoretical Population Biology, 14:135–157.Google Scholar
Schmidt, N. 1989. Paleobiological implications of shell repair in Recent marine gastropods from the northern Gulf of California. Historical Biology, 3:127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoup, J. B. 1968. Shell opening by crabs of the genus Calappa. Science, 160:887–888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slatkin, M., and Maynard Smith, J. 1979. Models of Coevolution. Quarterly Review of Biology, 54:233–263.Google Scholar
Slobodkin, L. B. 1974. Prudent predation does not require group selection. American Naturalist, 108:665–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. D., and Palmer, A. R. 1994. Effects of manipulated diet on size and performance of brachyuran crab claws. Science, 264:710–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, L. D., and Jennings, J. A. 2000. Induced defensive responses by the bivalve Mytilus edulis to predators with different attack modes. Marine Biology, 136:461–469.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Van Valkenburgh, B., and Steneck, R. S. 1983. Coevolution and the fossil record, p. 328–349. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Stenseth, N. C., and Maynard Smith, J. 1984. Coevolution in ecosystems: Red Queen evolution or stasis? Evolution, 38:870–880.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N. 1986. Constraints on arms races in coevolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1:105–107.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N. 1988. Variation in interspecific interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19:65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N. 1994. The coevolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N. 1998. Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13:329–332.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N. 1999a. Specific hypotheses on the geographic mosaic of coevolution. American Naturalist, 153:S1–S14.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N. 1999b. Coevolution and escalation: are ongoing coevolutionary meanderings important? American Naturalist, 153:S92–S93.Google Scholar
Travis, J. 1994. Evaluating the adaptive role of morphological plasticity, p. 99–122. In Wainwright, P. C. and Reilly, S. M. (eds.), Ecological Morphology: Integrative Organismal Biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Trussell, G. C. 1996. Phenotypic plasticity in an intertidal snail: the role of a common crab predator. Evolution, 50:448–454.Google Scholar
Trussell, G. C. 2000. Phenotypic clines, plasticity, and morphological trade-offs in an intertidal snail. Evolution, 54:151–166.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. Anew evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1:1–18.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1976. Energy and evolution. Evolutionary Theory, 1:179–229.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1973. Adaptation, versatility, and evolution. Systematic Zoology, 22:466–477.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1978. Biogeography and Adaptation: Patterns of Marine Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 332p.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1980. Drilling predation of bivalves in Guam: some paleoecological implications. Malacologia, 19:329–334.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1982a. Gastropod shell form, breakage, and repair in relation to predation by the crab Calappa. Malacologia, 23:1–12.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1982b. Unsuccessful predation and evolution. American Naturalist, 120:701–720.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1983. Intimate associations and coevolution in the sea, p. 311–327. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and Escalation: An Ecological History of Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 527p.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1992. Time of origin and biogeographical history of specialized relationships between northern marine plants and herbivorous mollucs. Evolution, 46:657–664.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1994. The evolutionary interaction among species: selection, escalation, and coevolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 25:219–236.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1999. Inequality and the directionality of history. American Naturalist, 153:243–253.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 2002. Evolution in the consumer age: predators and the history of life. In Kowalewski, M. and Kelley, P. H. (eds), The Fossil Record of Predation. The Paleontological Society Papers, 8 (this volume).Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., and Covich, A. P. 1978. Coevolution of freshwater gastropods and their predators. American Naturalist, 112:833–843.Google Scholar
Virnstein, R. W. 1977. The importance of predation by crabs and fishes on benthic infauna in Chesapeake Bay. Ecology, 58:1199–1217.Google Scholar
West, K., Cohen, A., and Baron, M. 1991. Morphology and behavior of crabs and gastropods from Lake Tanganyika, Africa: implications for lacustrine predator-prey coevolution. Evolution, 45:589–607.Google Scholar