In biology,coevolution occurs when two or morespecies reciprocally affect each other'sevolution through the process of natural selection. The term sometimes is used for two traits in the same species affecting each other's evolution, as well asgene-culture coevolution.
Charles Darwin mentioned evolutionary interactions betweenflowering plants andinsects inOn the Origin of Species (1859). Although he did not use the word coevolution, he suggested how plants and insects could evolve through reciprocal evolutionary changes. Naturalists in the late 1800s studied other examples of how interactions among species could result in reciprocal evolutionary change. Beginning in the 1940s, plant pathologists developed breeding programs that were examples of human-induced coevolution. Development of new crop plant varieties that were resistant to some diseases favored rapid evolution in pathogen populations to overcome those plant defenses. That, in turn, required the development of yet new resistant crop plant varieties, producing an ongoing cycle of reciprocal evolution in crop plants and diseases that continues to this day.
Coevolution as a major topic for study in nature expanded rapidly from the 1960s, when Daniel H. Janzen showed coevolution betweenacacias and ants (see below) andPaul R. Ehrlich andPeter H. Raven suggested howcoevolution between plants and butterflies may have contributed to the diversification of species in both groups. The theoretical underpinnings of coevolution are now well-developed (e.g., the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution), and demonstrate that coevolution can play an important role in driving major evolutionary transitions such as the evolution of sexual reproduction or shifts inploidy.[2][3] More recently, it has also been demonstrated that coevolution can influence the structure and function of ecological communities, the evolution of groups of mutualists such as plants and their pollinators, and the dynamics of infectious disease.[2][4]
Each party in a coevolutionary relationship exertsselective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each other's evolution. Coevolution includes many forms ofmutualism,host-parasite, andpredator-prey relationships between species, as well ascompetition within orbetween species. In many cases, the selective pressures drive anevolutionary arms race between the species involved.Pairwise orspecific coevolution, between exactly two species, is not the only possibility; inmulti-species coevolution, which is sometimes calledguild ordiffuse coevolution, several to many species may evolve a trait or a group of traits in reciprocity with a set of traits in another species, as has happened between the flowering plants andpollinating insects such asbees,flies, andbeetles. There are a suite of specific hypotheses on the mechanisms by which groups of species coevolve with each other.[5]
Coevolution is primarily a biological concept, but researchers have applied it by analogy to fields such ascomputer science,sociology, andastronomy.
Coevolution is theevolution of two or morespecies which reciprocally affect each other, sometimes creating amutualistic relationship between the species. Such relationships can be of many different types.[6][7]
Flowers appeared and diversified relatively suddenly in the fossil record, creating whatCharles Darwin described as the "abominable mystery" of how they had evolved so quickly; he considered whether coevolution could be the explanation.[8][9] He first mentioned coevolution as a possibility inOn the Origin of Species, and developed the concept further inFertilisation of Orchids (1862).[7][10][11]
Moderninsect-pollinated (entomophilous) flowers are conspicuously coadapted with insects to ensure pollination and in return to reward thepollinators with nectar and pollen. The two groups have coevolved for over 100 million years, creating a complex network of interactions. Either they evolved together, or at some later stages they came together, likely with pre-adaptations, and became mutually adapted.[12][13]
Several highly successfulinsect groups—especially theHymenoptera (wasps, bees and ants) andLepidoptera (butterflies and moths) as well as many types ofDiptera (flies) andColeoptera (beetles)—evolved in conjunction withflowering plants during theCretaceous (145 to 66 million years ago). The earliest bees, important pollinators today, appeared in the early Cretaceous.[14] A group of waspssister to the bees evolved at the same time as flowering plants, as did the Lepidoptera.[14] Further, all the majorclades of bees first appeared between the middle and late Cretaceous, simultaneously with the adaptive radiation of theeudicots (three quarters of all angiosperms), and at the time when the angiosperms became the world's dominant plants on land.[8]
At least three aspects of flowers appear to have coevolved between flowering plants and insects, because they involve communication between these organisms. Firstly, flowers communicate with their pollinators by scent; insects use this scent to determine how far away a flower is, to approach it, and to identify where to land and finally to feed. Secondly, flowers attract insects with patterns of stripes leading to the rewards of nectar and pollen, and colours such as blue and ultraviolet, to which their eyes are sensitive; in contrast, bird-pollinated flowers tend to be red or orange. Thirdly, flowers such assome orchids mimic females of particular insects, deceiving males intopseudocopulation.[14][1]
Theyucca,Yucca whipplei, is pollinated exclusively byTegeticula maculata, ayucca moth that depends on the yucca for survival.[15] The moth eats the seeds of the plant, while gathering pollen. The pollen has evolved to become very sticky, and remains on the mouth parts when the moth moves to the next flower. The yucca provides a place for the moth to lay its eggs, deep within the flower away from potential predators.[16]
Hummingbirds andornithophilous (bird-pollinated) flowers have evolved amutualistic relationship. The flowers havenectar suited to the birds' diet, their color suits the birds' vision and their shape fits that of the birds' bills. The blooming times of the flowers have also been found to coincide with hummingbirds' breeding seasons. The floral characteristics of ornithophilous plants vary greatly among each other compared to closely related insect-pollinated species. These flowers also tend to be more ornate, complex, and showy than their insect pollinated counterparts. It is generally agreed that plants formed coevolutionary relationships with insects first, and ornithophilous species diverged at a later time. There is not much scientific support for instances of the reverse of this divergence: from ornithophily to insect pollination. The diversity in floral phenotype in ornithophilous species, and the relative consistency observed in bee-pollinated species can be attributed to the direction of the shift in pollinator preference.[17]
Flowers have converged to take advantage of similar birds.[18] Flowers compete for pollinators, and adaptations reduce unfavourable effects of this competition. The fact that birds can fly during inclement weather makes them more efficient pollinators where bees and other insects would be inactive. Ornithophily may have arisen for this reason in isolated environments with poor insect colonization or areas with plants which flower in the winter.[18][19] Bird-pollinated flowers usually have higher volumes of nectar and higher sugar production than those pollinated by insects.[20] This meets the birds' high energy requirements, the most important determinants of flower choice.[20] InMimulus, an increase in red pigment in petals and flower nectar volume noticeably reduces the proportion of pollination by bees as opposed to hummingbirds; while greater flower surface area increases bee pollination. Therefore, red pigments in the flowers ofMimulus cardinalis may function primarily to discourage bee visitation.[21] InPenstemon, flower traits that discourage bee pollination may be more influential on the flowers' evolutionary change than 'pro-bird' adaptations, but adaptation 'towards' birds and 'away' from bees can happen simultaneously.[22] However, some flowers such asHeliconia angusta appear not to be as specifically ornithophilous as had been supposed: the species is occasionally (151 visits in 120 hours of observation) visited byTrigona stingless bees. These bees are largely pollen robbers in this case, but may also serve as pollinators.[23]
Following their respective breeding seasons, several species of hummingbirds occur at the same locations inNorth America, and several hummingbird flowers bloom simultaneously in these habitats. These flowers haveconverged to a commonmorphology and color because these are effective at attracting the birds. Different lengths and curvatures of thecorolla tubes can affect the efficiency of extraction in hummingbird species in relation to differences in bill morphology. Tubular flowers force a bird to orient its bill in a particular way when probing the flower, especially when the bill and corolla are both curved. This allows the plant to placepollen on a certain part of the bird's body, permitting a variety of morphologicalco-adaptations.[20]
Ornithophilous flowers need to be conspicuous to birds.[20] Birds have their greatest spectral sensitivity and finest hue discrimination at the red end of thevisual spectrum,[20] so red is particularly conspicuous to them. Hummingbirds may also be able to see ultraviolet "colors". The prevalence of ultraviolet patterns and nectar guides in nectar-poor entomophilous (insect-pollinated) flowers warns the bird to avoid these flowers.[20] Each of the two subfamilies of hummingbirds, thePhaethornithinae (hermits) and theTrochilinae, has evolved in conjunction with a particular set of flowers. Most Phaethornithinae species are associated with largemonocotyledonous herbs, while the Trochilinae preferdicotyledonous plant species.[20]
The genusFicus is composed of 800 species of vines, shrubs, and trees, including the cultivated fig, defined by theirsyconia, the fruit-like vessels that either hold female flowers or pollen on the inside. Each fig species has its ownfig wasp which (in most cases) pollinates the fig, so a tight mutual dependence has evolved and persisted throughout the genus.[24]
_with_Beltian_bodies%2c_Caves_Branch_Jungle_Lodge%2c_Belmopan%2c_Belize_-_8505045055.jpg)
Theacacia ant (Pseudomyrmex ferruginea) is an obligate plant ant that protects at least five species of "Acacia" (Vachellia)[a] from preying insects and from other plants competing for sunlight, and the tree provides nourishment and shelter for the ant and its larvae.[25][26] Such mutualism is not automatic: other ant species exploit trees without reciprocating, following differentevolutionary strategies. These cheater ants impose important host costs via damage to tree reproductive organs, though their net effect on host fitness is not necessarily negative and, thus, becomes difficult to forecast.[27][28]
Host–parasite coevolution is the coevolution of ahost and aparasite.[29] A general characteristic of many viruses, asobligate parasites, is that they coevolved alongside their respective hosts. Correlated mutations between the two species enter them into an evolution arms race. Whichever organism, host or parasite, that cannot keep up with the other will be eliminated from their habitat, as the species with the higher average population fitness survives. This race is known as theRed Queen hypothesis.[30] The Red Queen hypothesis predicts that sexual reproduction allows a host to stay just ahead of its parasite, similar to theRed Queen's race inThrough the Looking-Glass: "it takes all the runningyou can do, to keep in the same place".[31] The host reproduces sexually, producing some offspring with immunity over its parasite, which then evolves in response.[32]
The parasite–host relationship probably drove the prevalence of sexual reproduction over the more efficient asexual reproduction. It seems that when a parasite infects a host, sexual reproduction affords a better chance of developing resistance (through variation in the next generation), giving sexual reproduction variability for fitness not seen in the asexual reproduction, which produces another generation of the organism susceptible to infection by the same parasite.[33][34][35] Coevolution between host and parasite may accordingly be responsible for much of the genetic diversity seen in normal populations, including blood-plasma polymorphism, protein polymorphism, and histocompatibility systems.[36]
Brood parasitism demonstrates close coevolution of host and parasite, for example in somecuckoos. These birds do not make their own nests, but lay their eggs in nests of other species, ejecting or killing the eggs and young of the host and thus having a strong negative impact on the host's reproductive fitness. Their eggs are camouflaged as eggs of their hosts, implying that hosts can distinguish their own eggs from those of intruders and are in an evolutionary arms race with the cuckoo between camouflage and recognition. Cuckoos are counter-adapted to host defences with features such as thickened eggshells, shorter incubation (so their young hatch first), and flat backs adapted to lift eggs out of the nest.[37][38][39]
Antagonistic coevolution is seen in theharvester ant speciesPogonomyrmex barbatus andPogonomyrmex rugosus, in a relationship both parasitic and mutualistic. The queens are unable to produce worker ants by mating with their own species. Only by crossbreeding can they produce workers. The winged females act as parasites for the males of the other species as their sperm will only produce sterile hybrids. But because the colonies are fully dependent on these hybrids to survive, it is also mutualistic. While there is no genetic exchange between the species, they are unable to evolve in a direction where they become too genetically different as this would make crossbreeding impossible.[40]
Predators and prey interact and coevolve: the predator to catch the prey more effectively, the prey to escape. The coevolution of the two mutually imposesselective pressures. These often lead to anevolutionary arms race between prey and predator, resulting inanti-predator adaptations.[41]
The same applies toherbivores, animals that eat plants, and the plants that they eat.Paul R. Ehrlich andPeter H. Raven in 1964 proposed the theory ofescape and radiate coevolution to describe the evolutionary diversification of plants and butterflies.[42] In theRocky Mountains,red squirrels andcrossbills (seed-eating birds) compete for seeds of thelodgepole pine. The squirrels get at pine seeds by gnawing through the cone scales, whereas the crossbills get at the seeds by extracting them with their unusual crossed mandibles. In areas where there are squirrels, the lodgepole's cones are heavier, and have fewer seeds and thinner scales, making it more difficult for squirrels to get at the seeds. Conversely, where there are crossbills but no squirrels, the cones are lighter in construction, but have thicker scales, making it more difficult for crossbills to get at the seeds. The lodgepole's cones are in an evolutionary arms race with the two kinds of herbivore.[43]
Bothintraspecific competition, with features such assexual conflict[44] andsexual selection,[45] andinterspecific competition, such as between predators, may be able to drive coevolution.[46]
Intraspecific competition can result insexual antagonistic coevolution, an evolutionary relationship analogous to anarms race, where the evolutionary fitness of the sexes is counteracted to achieve maximum reproductive success. For example, someinsects reproduce usingtraumatic insemination, which is disadvantageous to the female's health. During mating, males try to maximise their fitness by inseminating as many females as possible, but the more times a female'sabdomen is punctured, the less likely she is to survive, reducing her fitness.[47]
The types of coevolution listed so far have been described as if they operated pairwise (also called specific coevolution), in which traits of one species have evolved in direct response to traits of a second species, and vice versa. This is not always the case. Another evolutionary mode arises where evolution is reciprocal, but is among a group of species rather than exactly two. This is variously called guild or diffuse coevolution. For instance, a trait in several species offlowering plant, such as offering itsnectar at the end of a long tube, can coevolve with a trait in one or several species of pollinating insects, such as a long proboscis. More generally, flowering plants are pollinated by insects from different families includingbees,flies, andbeetles, all of which form a broadguild ofpollinators which respond to the nectar or pollen produced by flowers.[48][49][50]
Mosaic coevolution is a theory in whichgeographic location andcommunity ecology shape differing coevolution between strongly interacting species in multiple populations. These populations may be separated by space and/or time. Depending on the ecological conditions, the interspecific interactions may be mutualistic or antagonistic.[51] In mutualisms, both partners benefit from the interaction, whereas one partner generally experiences decreased fitness in antagonistic interactions. Arms races consist of two species adapting ways to "one up" the other. Several factors affect these relationships, including hot spots, cold spots, and trait mixing.[52] Reciprocal selection occurs when a change in one partner puts pressure on the other partner to change in response. Hot spots are areas of strong reciprocal selection, while cold spots are areas with no reciprocal selection or where only one partner is present.[52] The three constituents of geographic structure that contribute to this particular type of coevolution are: natural selection in the form of a geographic mosaic, hot spots often surrounded by cold spots, and trait remixing by means ofgenetic drift andgene flow.[52] Mosaic, along with general coevolution, most commonly occurs at the population level and is driven by both thebiotic and the abiotic environment. These environmental factors can constrain coevolution and affect how far it can escalate.[53]
Coevolution is primarily a biological concept, but has been applied to other fields byanalogy.
Coevolutionary algorithms are used for generatingartificial life as well as for optimization,game learning andmachine learning.[54][55][56][57][58]Daniel Hillis added "co-evolving parasites" to prevent an optimization procedure from becoming stuck atlocal maxima.[59]Karl Sims coevolved virtual creatures.[60]
The concept of coevolution was introduced in architecture by the Danish architect-urbanistHenrik Valeur as an antithesis to "star-architecture".[61] As the curator of the Danish Pavilion at the 2006 Venice Biennale of Architecture, he created an exhibition-project on coevolution in urban development in China; it won the Golden Lion for Best National Pavilion.[62][63][64][65]
At the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape,Newcastle University, a coevolutionary approach to architecture has been defined as a design practice that engages students, volunteers and members of the local community in practical, experimental work aimed at "establishing dynamic processes of learning between users and designers."[66]
In his bookThe Self-organizing Universe,Erich Jantsch attributed the entire evolution of thecosmos to coevolution.
Inastronomy, an emerging theory proposes thatblack holes andgalaxies develop in an interdependent way analogous to biological coevolution.[67]
Since year 2000, a growing number of management and organization studies discuss coevolution and coevolutionary processes. Even so, Abatecola el al. (2020) reveals a prevailing scarcity in explaining what processes substantially characterize coevolution in these fields, meaning that specific analyses about where this perspective on socio-economic change is, and where it could move toward in the future, are still missing.[68]
InDevelopment Betrayed: The End of Progress and A Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future (1994)[69]Richard Norgaard proposes a coevolutionary cosmology to explain how social and environmental systems influence and reshape each other.[70] InCoevolutionary Economics: The Economy, Society and the Environment (1994) John Gowdy suggests that: "The economy, society, and the environment are linked together in a coevolutionary relationship".[71]
Computer software andhardware can be considered as two separate components but tied intrinsically by coevolution. Similarly,operating systems and computerapplications,web browsers, andweb applications. All these systems depend upon each other and advance through a kind of evolutionary process. Changes in hardware, an operating system or web browser may introduce new features that are then incorporated into the corresponding applications running alongside.[72] The idea is closely related to the concept of "joint optimization" insociotechnical systems analysis and design, where a system is understood to consist of both a "technical system" encompassing the tools and hardware used for production and maintenance, and a "social system" of relationships and procedures through which the technology is tied into the goals of the system and all the other human and organizational relationships within and outside the system. Such systems work best when the technical and social systems are deliberately developed together.[73]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)Yucca and Yucca Moth
it takes all the runningyou can do, to keep in the same place.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
