Search for: All records

Abstract Biological market theory can be used to explain intraspecific cooperation, interspecific mutualism, and sexual selection through models of game theory. These models describe the interactions between organisms as two classes of traders (buyers/sellers) exchanging commodities in the form of goods (e.g. food, shelter, matings) and services (e.g. warning calls, protection). Here, we expand biological market theory to include auction theory where bidding serves to match buyers and sellers.In a reverse auction, the seller increases the value of the item or decreases the cost until a buyer steps forward. We provide several examples of ecological systems that may have reverse auctions as underlying mechanisms to form mutualistic relationships.We focus on the yellow baboon (Papio cynocephalus) mating system as a case study to propose how the mechanisms of a reverse auction, which have the unintended but emergent consequence of producing a mutually beneficial outcome that improves collective reproductive benefits of the troop in this multi‐female multi‐male polygynandrous social system. For the yellow baboon, we posit that the “seller” is the reproductively cycling female, and the “buyer” is a male looking to mate with a cycling female. To the male, the “item for the sale” is the opportunity to sire an offspring, the price is providing safety and foraging time (via consortship) to the female. The “increasing value of the item for sale” is the chance of conception, which increases with each cycle since a female has resumed cycling post‐partum. The female's sexual swelling is an honest indicator of that cycle's probability of conception, and since resident males can track a female's cycle since resumption, there is transparency. The males presumably know the chance of conception when choosing to bid by offering consortship.Across nature, this reverse auction game likely exists in other inter‐ and intraspecific social relationships. Considering an ecological system as a reverse auction broadens our view of social evolution and adaptations through the lens of human economic structures. 

Abstract Due to their non-motile nature, plants rely heavily on mutualistic interactions to obtain resources and carry out services. One key mutualism is the plant–microbial mutualism in which a plant trades away carbon to a microbial partner for nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous. Plants show much variation in the use of this partnership from the individual level to entire lineages depending upon ecological, evolutionary and environmental context. We sought to determine how this context dependency could result in the promotion, exclusion or coexistence of the microbial mutualism by asking if and when the partnership provided a competitive advantage to the plant. To that end, we created a 2 × 2 evolutionary game in which plants could either be a mutualist and pair with a microbe or be a non-mutualist and forgo the partnership. Our model includes both frequency dependence and density dependence, which gives us the eco-evolutionary dynamics of mutualism evolution. As in all models, mutualism only evolved if it could offer a competitive advantage and its net benefit was positive. However, surprisingly the model reveals the possibility of coexistence between mutualist and non-mutualist genotypes due to competition between mutualists over the microbially obtained nutrient. Specifically, frequency dependence of host strategies can make the microbial symbiont less beneficial if the microbially derived resources are shared, a phenomenon that increasingly reduces the frequency of mutualism as the density of competitors increases. In essence, ecological competition can act as a hindrance to mutualism evolution. We go on to discuss basic experiments that can be done to test and falsify our hypotheses.