Control in mutualisms: Combined implications of partner choice and bargaining roles

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 267, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 535-545

  Golubski, Antonio J ^a   Klausmeier, Christopher A ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bargaining games; Cheater; Competition colonization tradeoff; Mutualism; Partner choice

Indexed keywords

COLONIZATION; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); MUTUALISM; NUMERICAL MODEL;

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR CONTROL; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; POPULATION MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIOECONOMICS; STRATEGIC PLANNING; SYMBIOSIS; TRADE UNION;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SYMBIOSIS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77957309771     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.09.023     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Abrams P.A. The importance of intraspecific frequency-dependent selection in modelling competitive coevolution. Evol. Ecol. 1989, 3:215-220.
2. Abrams P.A. Ecological versus evolutionary consequences of competition. Oikos 1990, 57:147-151.
3. Akçay E., Roughgarden J. Negotiation of mutualism: rhizobia and legumes. Proc. R. Soc. London B 2007, 274:25-32.
4. Bergstrom C.T., Lachmann M. The red king effect: evolutionary rates and the division of surpluses in mutualisms. Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation 2002, 223-238. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. P. Hammerstein (Ed.).
5. Bergstrom C.T., Lachmann M. The red king effect: when the slowest runner wins the coevolutionary race. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100:593-598.
6. Bever J.D., Richardson S.C., Lawrence B.M., Holmes J., Watson M. Preferential allocation to beneficial symbiont with spatial structure maintains mycorrhizal mutualism. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:13-21.
7. Brown J.S., Vincent T.L. Coevolution as an evolutionary game. Evolution 1987, 41:66-79.
8. Bshary R. The cleaner fish market. Economics in Nature: Social Dilemmas, Mate Choice and Biological Markets 2001, 146-172. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. R. Noë, J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff, P. Hammerstein (Eds.).
9. Bshary R., Grutter A.S. Experimental evidence that partner choice is a driving force in the payoff distribution among cooperators or mutualists: the cleaner fish case. Ecol. Lett. 2002, 5:130-136.
10. Bshary R., Schäffer D. Choosy reef fish select cleaner fish that provide high-quality service. Animal Behav. 2002, 63:557-564.
11. Bull J.J., Rice W.R. Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation. J. Theor. Biol. 1991, 149:63-74.
12. Denison R.F. Legume sanctions and the evolution of symbiotic cooperation by rhizobia. Am. Nat. 2000, 156:567-576.
13. Doebeli M., Knowlton N. The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95:8676-8680.
14. Edwards D.P., Hassall M., Sutherland W.J., Yu D.W. Selection for protection in ant-plant mutualism: host sanctions, host modularity, and the principal-agent game. Proc. R. Soc. B 2006, 273:595-602.
15. Ferriere R., Bronstein J.L., Rinaldi S., Law R., Gauduchon M. Cheating and the evolutionary stability of mutualisms. Proc. R. Soc. London B 2002, 269:773-780.
16. Ferriere R., Gauduchon M., Bronstein J.L. Evolution and persistence of obligate mutualists and exploiters: competition for partners and evolutionary immunization. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10:115-126.
17. Fischer S., Güth W., Müller W., Stiehler A. From ultimatum to Nash bargaining: theory and experimental evidence. Exp. Econ. 2006, 9:17-33.
18. Foster K.R., Wenseleers T. A general model for the evolution of mutualisms. J. Evol. Biol. 2006, 19:1283-1293.
19. Friesen M.L., Mathias A. Mixed infections may promote diversification of mutualistic symbiotes: why are there ineffective rhizobia?. J. Evol. Biol. 2010, 23:323-334.
20. Gale K., Binmore K.G., Samuelson L. Learning to be imperfect: the ultimatum game. Game Econ. Behav. 1995, 8:56-90.
21. Güth W., Schmittberger R., Schwarze B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1982, 3:367-388.
22. Herre E.A., Knowlton N., Mueller U.G., Rehner S.A. The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999, 14:49-53.
23. Hoeksema J.D., Kummel M. Ecological persistence of the plant-mycorrhizal mutualism: a hypothesis from species coexistence theory. Am. Nat. 2003, 162:S40-S50.
24. Hoeksema J.D., Schwartz M.W. Expanding comparative-advantage biological market models: contingency of mutualism on partners' resource requirements and acquisition trade-offs. Proc. R. Soc. London B 2003, 270:913-919.
25. Johnstone R.A., Bshary R. From parasitism to mutualism: partner control in asymmetric interactions. Ecol. Lett. 2002, 5:634-639.
26. Johnstone R.A., Bshary R. Indirect reciprocity in asymmetric interactions: when apparent altruism facilitates profitable exploitation. Proc. R. Soc. London B 2007, 274:3175-3181.
27. Johnstone R.A., Bshary R. Mutualism, market effects, and partner control. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21:879-888.
28. Kiers E.T., Rosseau R.A., West S.A., Denison R.F. Host sanctions and the legume-rhizobium mutualism. Nature 2003, 425:78-81.
29. Lehman C.L., Tilman D. Competition in spatial habitats. Spatial Ecology: the Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interaction 1997, 185-203. Princeton University Press, Princeton. D. Tilman, P. Kareiva (Eds.).
30. Lion S., van Baalen M. Self-structuring in spatial evolutionary ecology. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11:277-295.
31. Matsuda H., Abrams P.A. Runaway evolution to self-extinction under asymmetrical competition. Evolution 1994, 48:1764-1772.
32. de Mazancourt C., Schwartz M.W. A resource ratio theory of cooperation. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13:349-359.
33. Nash J.F. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 1950, 18:155-162.
34. Noë R. Biological markets: partner choice as the driving force behind the evolution of mutualisms. Economics in Nature: Social Dilemmas, Mate Choice and Biological Markets 2001, 93-118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. R. Noe, J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff, P. Hammerstein (Eds.).
35. Noë R., Hammerstein P. Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism, and mating. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1994, 35:1-11.
36. Noë R., Hammerstein P. Biological markets. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10:336-339.
37. Noë R., van Schaik C.P., van Hooff J.A.R.A.M. The market effect: an explanation for pay-off asymmetries among collaborating animals. Ethology 1991, 87:97-118.
38. Poulsen A.U. Information and endogenous first mover advantages in the ultimatum game: an evolutionary approach. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2007, 64:129-143.
39. Rummel J.D., Roughgarden J. Some differences between invasion-structured and coevolution-structured competitive communities: a preliminary theoretical analysis. Oikos 1983, 41:477-486.
40. Rummel J.D., Roughgarden J. A theory of faunal buildup for competition communities. Evolution 1985, 39:1009-1033.
41. Sachs J.L., Mueller U.G., Wilcox T.P., Bull J.J. The evolution of cooperation. Q. Rev. Biol. 2004, 79:135-160.
42. Schwartz M.W., Hoeksema J.D. Specialization and resource trade: biological markets as a model of mutualisms. Ecology 1998, 79:1029-1038.
43. Simms E.L., Taylor D.L. Partner choice in nitrogen-fixation mutualisms of legumes and rhizobia. Integ. Comp. Biol 2002, 42:369-380.
44. Simms E.L., Taylor D.L., Povich J., Shefferson R.P., Sachs J.L., Urbina M., Tausczik Y. An empirical test of partner choice mechanisms in a wild legume-rhizobium interaction. Proc. R. Soc. London B 2006, 273:77-81.
45. Taper M.L., Case T.J. Models of character displacement and the theoretical robustness of taxon cycles. Evolution 1992, 46:317-333.
46. Toquenaga Y., Suzuki Y. Evolution of generosity in the demand game. Pop. Ecol. 2005, 47:31-39.
47. West S.A., Kiers E.T., Simms E.L., Denison R.F. Sanctions and mutualism stability: why do rhizobia fix nitrogen?. Proc. R. Soc. London B 2002, 269:685-694.
48. West S.A., Diggle S.P., Buckling A., Gardner A., Griffins A.S. The social lives of microbes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2007, 38:53-77.