* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Lecture 22: Coevolution
Biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Great American Interchange wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Overexploitation wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Decline in amphibian populations wikipedia , lookup
Mascarene Islands wikipedia , lookup
Extinction debt wikipedia , lookup
Coevolution wikipedia , lookup
Lecture 22: Coevolution • reciprocally induced evolutionary Δ’s in 2 + spp. or pop’ns • Mutualistic vs. Antagonistic type commensalism competition predation parasitism mutualism species 1 + + + + species 2 0 + Mutualism e.g. C. Am. Acacias & Ants: Herbivory: growth; permits competition from fast growing spp. • 90% acacia spp: bitter alkaloids → prevent insect/mammal browsing • 10% spp: lack alkaloids; have symbiotic ants Acacias • swollen thorns (nest sites) • petioles (nectaries) • Beltian bodies (protein) Ants • attack herbivores • remove fungal spores • attack shading plants Competition frequency Anolis spp. • spp. turnover (Caribbean islands) due to coevol’n • carrying capacity of island is a function of body size: best body size for invading spp body size frequency After Invasion: - invader selected for smaller body size - competition displaces residents : body size ↓ frequency body size X body size Later: -invader evolves to optimum body size - eventually, resident driven to extinction Sequential Evolution “tit for tat” e.g. plants & herbivorous insects (predation): plants : 2° metabolites to repel insects insects: detoxification (mixed function oxidases) e.g. nicotine: from a.a. or sugar pathway Erlich & Raven (1964): 2° metabolites → new adaptive zones MFOs → new adaptive zones • leads to cycle of adaptive radiations & ↑ diversity speciation of plant → speciation of insect OR speciation of insect → speciation of plant Phylogenetic analysis of sequential evolution: e.g. pinworm parasites of primates: congruent phylogenies divergence in host → divergence of parasite not the other way around • parasite/host interactions:host evolves defenses should parasite ↑ or ↓ virulence? depends! Virulence 1) Transmission: • Correlated w repro rate: NS ↑ virulence • Requires live host: NS ↓ virulence (trade-off) e.g. Myxoma virus of rabbits 2) Coinfection • 1 parasite : all offspring related kin selection: → ↓ virulence • multiple infection : competition selection for ↑ repro rate → ↑ virulence 3) Type of Transmission: • Horizontal: ↑ virulence • Vertical: ↓ virulence “Arms Race” : adaptive advances must be countered or face extinction! e.g. “Brain Size Race” b/w Ungulates & Carnivores: archaic a) Ungulate b) Carnivore paleogene neogene Brain:Body size ratio recent Conclusions • Relative brain size ↑ through time • Carnivores are “smarter” than ungulates • Evidence for coevolution? • Less evidence for coevol’n of running speed Why? costs of adaptation • resistance to 1 pred. may ↑ vulnerability to others e.g. Cucurbitacins:protect from mites; attract beetles Generally: Specialist predator; Single prey → coevol’n probable Multiple Interactions → coevol’n slow; sporadic How important is coevolution to pattern of diversity? • taxonomic survival curves: used to determine if survival of taxon is age-independent Taxonomic Survival Curves • Does mortality (extinction) depend on age ? age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 species 1 1000 900 810 729 656 590 531 478 430 species 2 1000 Sp. 1: 10% die yearly, 740 regardless of age 600 580 570 Sp. 2: mortality high for young & old; mortality low 560 in middle age 550 540 460 log (number of survivors) Log - linear analysis : Age - independent mortality is linear 3.0 species 1 2.9 2.8 species 2 2.7 2.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 age 7 8 9 10 Taxonomic Survival Curves • log (# of taxa surviving) vs. age of taxon • for most taxa: linear → age - independent • 2 interpretations: time a) constant rate of extinction time b) variable rate of extinction independent of age Extinction Probability of Extinction: New Taxa = Old Taxa • What causes extinctions? • Biotic factors: antagonistic interactions (pred’n, parasitism, compet’n) lag load: L = opt - opt Diff’n b/w mean & optimum genotype L ↑ : rate of evolution ↑ Why? selection coefficient ↑ L ↑ : probability of extinction ↑ Why? falling behind in the “arms race” Lag-Load Models 1. Contractionary • sp. w ↑ L : falls behind, goes extinct 2. Expansionary • sp. w ↓ L : outcompetes; increases these 2 models are unstable may fluctuate between 1 & 2 3. Stationary: • all spp. L = 0 • no change; no extinction • perturbations; back to equilibrium • extinctions not due to biotic factors • 4. Dynamic Equilibrium: “Red Queen” hypothesis • all spp. have ↑ L • Env’t constantly deteriorating due to arms race • “running as fast as they can to stay in the same place!” Implications of Red Queen to TSCs • older taxa same prob. of extinction as newer taxa • log - linear survival curves are evidence for RQ Why?: “zero - sum game” : means L stays constant 2 versions of RQ: 1. Strong 2. Weak •Abiotic factors negligible •Abiotic & Biotic factors imp. •Extinctions due to spp. inter’ns •likely true, but untestable •improbable, but testable Testing RQ using TSCs: Evidence for Strong RQ: •constant chance of going extinct b/c of spp. interactions - extinctions even in constant physical env’t ! Evidence for weak RQ?: -other mechanisms b/c extinction rates fluctuate over time Lecture 23: Mass Extinctions • Biodiversity: balance b/w spec’n & extinction • > 99% of all species are extinct • Because of: 1) Background extinctions: • gen’lly due to biotic factors • e.g. competition, predation etc. Background Rate • marine families: → relatively constant • ~ 5 - 10 families / my mass extinctions e.g. Sepkoski & Raup (1982) Ecological Significance of Mass Extinctions 1. Open up vast niche spaces 2. Lead to adaptive radiations e.g. mammals diversify after extinction of dinosaurs 3. Taxa can recover: e.g. ammonites decimated in Permian extinction; came back & diversified in Triassic Mass Extinctions of the Phanerozoic: “The Big 5” 1.) Cambrian (540 - 510 mya): • Explosion of diversification • Marine; soft-bodied (few fossils) • Evidence for ~ 4 separate events • Trilobites, conodonts, brachiopods hit hard Cause: Glaciation: - sea level ↓ (locked in ice) - cold H2O upwelling & spread - ↓ O2 levels? 2.) Ordovician (510 - 438 mya) • 2nd most devastating to marine organisms • Echinoderms, nautiloids, trilobites, reef - building corals Causes: Glaciation of Gondwanaland • evidence in Saharan deposits • drifted over N. pole (cooling) • sea level ↓ • losses correspond to start & retreat of glaciers 3.) Devonian (408 - 360 mya) • Terrestrial life starts & diversifies • Extinctions over 0.5 - 15 my (peak ~ 365 mya) • Marine more than terrestrial • Brachiopods, ammonites, placoderms Causes: Glaciation of Gondwanaland • evidence in Brazil • Meteor impact? 4.) Permian (286 - 245 mya) • formation of Pangea: continental area > oceanic • Devastation (~245 mya): ~96% marine spp; 75% terrestrial spp Causes: a) formation of Pangea? b) vulcanism? - basaltic flows in Siberia - sulphates in atmosphere → ash clouds c) glaciation at both poles: major climatic flux d) ↓ salinity of oceans?