Resource allocation: A conflict in the fig/fig wasp mutualism?

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 417-428

  Anstatt, M C ^a   Bronstein, J L ^b   Hossaert McKey, M ^c  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

^c Department of Biology   (United States)

Author keywords

coevolution; Ficus; mutualism; resource allocation; symbiosis

Indexed keywords

AGAONIDAE; FICUS (ANGIOSPERM); VESPIDAE; FICUS; HYMENOPTERA; MORACEAE;

FIG; FIG WASP; MUTUALISM; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SYCONIUM;

EID: 0029659463     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.1996.9040417.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anstett, M. C. 1994. Contraintes et libertés dans l'évolution des mutualismes figuiers/pollinisateurs. Dissertation thesis. University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
2. Anstett, M. C., G. Michaloud and F. Kjellberg. 1995. Critical population size for the fig/wasp mutualism in a seasonal environment: effect and evolution of the duration of female receptivity. Oecologia 103: 453-461.
3. Boucher, D. G. 1985. The idea of mutualism, past and future pp. 1-28. In D. H. Boucher (Ed.), The Biology of Mutualism; Ecology and Evolution. Oxford Universtiy Press, New York.
4. Boucher, D. H., S. James and K. H. Keeler. 1982. The ecology of mutualism. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13: 315-347.
5. Bronstein, J. L. 1988. Mutualism, antagonism, and the fig-pollinator interaction. Ecology 69: 1298-1302.
6. Bronstein, J. L. 1994. Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. TREE 9: 214-217.
7. Bronstein, J. L and A. Patel. 1992. Causes and consequences of a within-tree phenological patterns in the Florida strangling fig, Ficus aiirca (Moraceae). Am. J. Bot. 79: 41-48.
8. Bronstein, J. L. and M. Hossaert-McKey. 1996. Variation in reproductive success within a subtropical fig/pollinator mutualism. J. Biogeography. In press.
9. Charlesworth, D. 1989. Evolution of low female fertility in plants: pollen limitation, resource allocation and genetic load. TREE 4: 289-292.
10. Compton, S. G. 1993. One way to be a fig. African Entomology 1: 151-152.
11. Compton, S. G. and R. J. C. Nefdt. 1990. The fig and fig wasps of Finis Burtt-davyi, pp. 441-450. In Proceedings of the twelfth plenary meeting of AETFAT. Mitt. Inst. Allg. Bot. Hamburg, Germany.
12. Corlett, E. J. H., V. Boudville and K Seet. 1990. Seed and wasp production in five fig species. Malayan Nature J. 44: 97-102.
13. Ehrlén, J. 1991. Why do plants produce surplus flowers? A reserve ovary model. Am. Nat. 138: 918-133.
14. Ehrlén, J. 1993. Ultimate functions of non fruiting flowers in Lathyrus icriiiis. Oikos 68: 45-52.
15. Frank, S. A. 1984. The behavior and morphology of the fig wasps Pegoscaptts assuetus and P.jimene:!: description and suggested behavioral characters for phylogenetic studies. Psyche 91: 289-308.
16. Frank, S. A. 1985. Hierarchical selection theory and sex ratio. II. On applying the theory, and a test with fig wasps. Evolution 39: 949-964.
17. GLIM. 1985. Royal Statistical Society, London.
18. Galil, J. 1973. Topcccntric and ethodynamic pollination, pp. 85-100. In N. M. M. Brantjes and H. F. Linskens (Eds.), Pollination and Dispersal. Department of Botany, Univ. Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
19. Galil, J. and D. Eisikowitch. 1969. Further studies on the pollination ecology of Ficus sycomorus L. Tijdschrift Voor Entomologie 112: 1-13.
20. Godfray, H. C. J. 1988. Virginity in haplodiploid population: a study on fig wasps. Ecological Entomology 13: 283-291.
21. Herre, E. A. 1985. Sex ratio adjustment in fig wasps. Science 228: 896-898.
22. Hcrre, E. A. 1989. Coevolution of reproductive characterists in 12 species of New World figs and their pollinator wasps. Experientia 45: 637-647.
23. Janzen, D. H. 1979a. How to be a fig? Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10: 13-51.
24. Janzen, D. H. 1979b. How many babies do figs pay for babies? Biotropica 11: 48-50.
25. Janzen, D. II. 1983. Dispersal of seeds by vertebrate guts, pp. 232-262. In D. J. Futuyama and M. Slatkin (Eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
26. Kathuria, P., K. N. Ganeshaiah, R. Uma Shaanker and R. Vasudeva. 1995. Is there dimorphism for style lengths in monoecious figs? Current Science 68: 1047-1049.
27. Khadari, B., M. Gibernau, M. C. Anstett, F. Kjellberg and M. Hossaert-McKey. 1995. When figs wait for pollinators: the length of fig receptivity. Am. J. Bot. 82: 992-999.
28. Kjellberg, F., G. Michaloud and G. Valdeyron. 1987. The Ficus fïciu-pollinator mutualism: how can it be evolutionary stable? pp. 335-340. In V. Labeyrie, G. Fabres and D. Lachaise (Eds.), Insect-Plants. Dr W. Junk publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
29. Kjellberg, F. and S. Maurice. 1989. Seasonality in the reproductive phenology of Ficus: its evolution and consequences. Experientia 45: 653-660.
30. Matsuda, II. and M. Shimada. 1993. Cost-benefit model for the evolution of symbiosis, pp. 228-238. In H. Kawanabc, J. E. Cohcn and K. Iwasaki (Eds.), Mutualism and Community Organization: Behavioural, Theoretical and Food-web Approaches. Oxford University Press, New York.
31. Ncfdt, R. J. C. and S. G. Compton. 1996. Regulation of seed and pollinator production in the fig-fig wasp mutualism. J. Anim. Ecol. In press.
32. Stephcnson, A. G. 1981. Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12: 253-279.
33. Stephenson, A. G. and R. I. Berlin. 1983. Male competition, female choice and sexual selection in plants, pp. 109-143. In L. Real (Ed.), Pollination Biology. Academic Press, New York.
34. Tayou, A. 1991. Etude du mutualismc F/Yra-pollinisatcur: sex ratio et transport du pollen. Dissertation thesis. Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon, Paris, France.
35. Thompson, J. N. 1982. Interaction and Coevolution. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
36. Thompson, J. N. 1994. The revolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
37. Verkerkc, W. 1989. Structure and function of the fig. Experientia 45: 612-622.
38. West, S. A. and E. A. Herre. 1994. The ecology of the New World fig-parasitizing wasps Iclarnes and implications for the evolution of the fig-pollinator mutualism. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 258: 67-72.