Literature DB >> 28563514

ADAPTIVE RESPONSES OF PREDATORS TO PREY AND PREY TO PREDATORS: THE FAILURE OF THE ARMS-RACE ANALOGY.

Peter A Abrams1.   

Abstract

This paper analyzes a number of relatively general models of predator-prey adaptation and coadaptation. The motivation behind this work is, in part, to evaluate the "race analogy" that has been applied in analyzing predator-prey coevolution. The models are based on the assumption that increased investment in predation-related adaptations must be paid for by decreased adaptation to some other factor. Increased investment in predation-related adaptations by the prey lowers the predator's functional response, and increased investment by the predator increases the functional response. The models are used to determine how each species should respond to an increase in the predation-related investment of the other species. Several broad classes of population-dynamics models and several alternatives for the cost of predation-related adaptation are investigated. The results do not support the general applicability of the race analogy. In the type of model analyzed in greatest detail here, predator and prey adaptations combine multiplicatively in determining the predator's capture-rate constant. In such models, prey usually increase investment in predator avoidance or escape when predators increase their investment in capture. However, predators often do not change or decrease their investment in response to an increase in the prey's investment. The direction of the predator's response depends on the particular parameter that pays the cost of increased predation investment, the shape of the cost-benefit functions, and the assumptions about the population dynamics of the predator-prey system. Similar models are used to determine whether increased investment by one species should increase the rate of incorporation of mutations that improve the predation-related adaptations of the other species. The arms-race analogy also fails for this case. The results cast doubt on the usefulness of Dawkins and Krebs (1979) "life-dinner" principle. © 1986 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Year:  1986        PMID: 28563514     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb05747.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  6 in total

1.  The three C's - competition, coexistence and coevolution - and their impact on the breeding of forage crop mixtures.

Authors:  J Hill
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes.

Authors:  U Dieckmann; R Law
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.259

3.  UV radiation affects antipredatory defense traits in Daphnia pulex.

Authors:  Franceen Eshun-Wilson; Raoul Wolf; Tom Andersen; Dag O Hessen; Erik Sperfeld
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-11-21       Impact factor: 2.912

4.  Spatial compartmentalization: A nonlethal predator mechanism to reduce parasite transmission between prey species.

Authors:  L Gustavo R Oliveira-Santos; Seth A Moore; William J Severud; James D Forester; Edmund J Isaac; Yvette Chenaux-Ibrahim; Tyler Garwood; Luis E Escobar; Tiffany M Wolf
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 14.136

5.  The importance of aboveground-belowground interactions on the evolution and maintenance of variation in plant defense traits.

Authors:  Moniek van Geem; Rieta Gols; Nicole M van Dam; Wim H van der Putten; Taiadjana Fortuna; Jeffrey A Harvey
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 5.753

6.  Trait adaptation promotes species coexistence in diverse predator and prey communities.

Authors:  Toni Klauschies; David A Vasseur; Ursula Gaedke
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 2.912

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.