Search for: All records

Abstract Obligate mutualisms, reciprocally obligate beneficial interactions, are some of the most important mutualisms on the planet, providing the basis for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell, the formation and persistence of terrestrial ecosystems and the establishment and expansion of coral reefs. In addition, these mutualisms can also lead to the diversification of interacting partner species. Accompanying this diversification is a general pattern of a high degree of specificity among interacting partner species. A survey of obligate mutualisms demonstrates that greater than half of these systems have only one or two mutualist species on each side of the interaction. This is in stark contrast to facultative mutualisms that can have dozens of interacting mutualist species. We posit that the high degree of specificity in obligate mutualisms is driven by competition within obligate mutualist guilds that limits species richness. Competition may be particularly potent in these mutualisms because mutualistic partners are totally dependent on each other's fitness gains, which may fuel interspecific competition. Theory and the limited number of empirical studies testing for the role of competition in determining specificity suggest that competition may be an important force that fuels the high degree of specificity. Further empirical research is needed to dissect the relative roles of trait complementarity, mutualism regulation, and competition among mutualist guild members in determining mutualism specificity at local scales. 

Although we have a good understanding of how phenotypic plasticity evolves in response to abiotic environments, we know comparatively less about responses to biotic interactions. We experimentally tested how competition and mutualism affected trait and plasticity evolution of pairwise communities of genetically modified brewer’s yeast. We quantified evolutionary changes in growth rate, resource use efficiency (RUE), and their plasticity in strains evolving alone, with a competitor, and with a mutualist. Compared to their ancestors, strains evolving alone had lower RUE and RUE plasticity. There was also an evolutionary tradeoff between changes in growth rate and RUE in strains evolving alone, suggesting selection for increased growth rate at the cost of efficiency. Strains evolving with a competitive partner had higher growth rates, slightly lower RUE, and a stronger tradeoff between growth rate and efficiency. In contrast, mutualism had opposite effects on trait evolution. Strains evolving with a mutualist had slightly lower growth rates, higher RUE, and a weak evolutionary tradeoff between growth rate and RUE. Despite their different effects on trait evolution, competition and mutualism had little effect on plasticity evolution for either trait, suggesting that abiotic factors could be more important than biotic factors in generating selection for plasticity.