Advertisement

Cospeciation and Host Shift

Chapter
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)

Abstract

When two interacting lineages have been in intimate association during much or all of their diversification, as in the case of obligate pollination mutualisms or many host–parasite interactions, there is a probability that speciation in one group is paralleled by speciation in the other. This mode of diversification results in a pattern of shared evolutionary history between the two lineages, known as cospeciation. Cospeciation can be a nonadaptive process that occurs in the absence of selection. For example, repeated vicariance events followed by shared allopatric speciation can produce a pattern of parallel diversification (Roderick 1997). However, cospeciation can also be reinforced or directly result from an adaptive process. For example, in feather lice and their avian hosts, preening behavior of the host imposes selection on louse body size, which prevents lice from switching between hosts of different sizes (Clayton et al. 2003). In obligate pollination mutualisms, the pollinators are responsible for the fertilization among conspecific host flowers, and thus some adaptation in the plants to exclude nonlegitimate pollinators is likely present. In fact, there are several reciprocally selected traits that may reinforce plant–pollinator specialization, such as synchronized phenological patterns (Wiebes 1979; Patel and Hossaert-McKey 2000), species-specific olfactory signals (Hossaert-McKey et al. 1994; Song et al. 2001; Grison-Pigé et al. 2002, 2003; Okamoto et al. 2007; Svensson et al. 2008), and reciprocal adaptation between pollinator morphology and floral structure (Ramírez 1974; Herre 1989; van Noort and Compton 1996; Kato et al. 2003; Weiblen 2004). Thus, knowledge of the degree of cospeciation in obligate pollination mutualisms provides an essential step toward understanding the historical role of coevolution in shaping speciation and diversification in plants and pollinators.

Keywords

Coevolution Epicephala Glochidion Phylogeny Species specificity 

Literature Cited

  1. Addicott JF (1996) Cheaters in yucca/moth mutualism. Nature 380:114–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Addicott JF, Bao T (1999) Limiting the costs of mutualism: multiple modes of interaction between yuccas and yucca moths. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Airy Shaw HK (1978) Notes on Malesian and other Asiatic Euphorbiaceae. Kew Bull 33:25–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Althoff DM, Segraves KA, Smith CI, Leebens-Mack J, Pellmyr O (2012) Geographic isolation trumps coevolution as a driver of yucca and yucca moth diversification. Mol Phylogenet Evol 62:898–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakrabarty T, Gangopadhyay M (1995) The genus Glochidion (Euphorbiaceae) in the Indian subcontinent. J Econ Taxon Bot 19:173–234Google Scholar
  6. Clayton DH, Bush SE, Goates BM, Johnson KP (2003) Host defense reinforces host–parasite cospeciation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:15694–15699CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Compton SG (1990) A collapse of host specificity in some African fig wasps. S Afr J Sci 86:39–40Google Scholar
  8. Conow C, Fielder D, Ovadia Y, Libeskind-Hadas R (2010) Jane: a new tool for the cophylogeny reconstruction problem. Algorithm Mol Biol 5:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Govaerts R, Frodin RG, Radcliffe-Smith A (2000) World checklist and bibliography of Euphorbiaceae. Royal Botanic Gardens, KewGoogle Scholar
  10. Grison-Pigé L, Bassière J, Hossaert-McKey M (2002) Specific attraction of fig-pollinating wasps: role of volatile compounds released by tropical figs. J Chem Ecol 28:283–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Grison-Pigé L, Hossaert-McKey M, Greeff JM, Bassière J (2003) Fig volatile compounds—a first comparative study. Phytochemistry 61:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hembry DH, Kawakita A, Gurr NE, Schmaedick MA, Baldwin BG, Gillespie RG (2013a) Non-congruent colonizations and diversification in a coevolving pollination mutualism on oceanic islands. Proc R Soc B 280:20130361CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hembry DH, Okamoto T, McCormack G, Gillespie RG (2013b) Phytophagous insect community assembly through niche conservatism on oceanic islands. J Biogeogr 40:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herre EA (1989) Coevolution of reproductive characteristics in 12 species of New World figs and their pollinator wasps. Experientia 45:367–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herre EA, Machado CA, Bermingham E, Nason JD, Windsor DM, McCafferty S, Van Houten W, Bachmann K (1996) Molecular phylogenies of figs and their pollinator wasps. J Biogeogr 23:521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hossaert-McKey M, Gibernau M, Frey JE (1994) Chemosensory attraction of fig wasps to substances produced by receptive figs. Entomol Exp Appl 70:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jobb G (2011) TREEFINDER version of March 2011. Munich, Germany. Distributed by the author at http://www.treefinder.de/
  18. Kato M, Takimura A, Kawakita K (2003) An obligate pollination mutualism and reciprocal diversification in the tree genus Glochidion (Euphorbiaceae). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:5264–5267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Kawakita A, Kato M (2006) Assessment of the diversity and species specificity of the mutualistic association between Epicephala moths and Glochidion trees. Mol Ecol 15:3567–3581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kawakita A, Kato M (2009) Repeated independent evolution of obligate pollination mutualism in the Phyllantheae–Epicephala association. Proc R Soc B 276:417–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kawakita A, Takimura A, Terachi T, Sota T, Kato M (2004) Cospeciation analysis of an obligate pollination mutualism: Have Glochidion trees (Euphorbiaceae) and pollinating Epicephala moths (Gracillariidae) diversified in parallel? Evolution 58:2201–2214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerdelhue C, Le Clainche I, Rasplus JY (1999) Molecular phylogeny of the Ceratosolen species pollinating Ficus of the subgenus Sycomorus sensu stricto: biogeographical history and origins of the species-specificity breakdown cases. Mol Phylogenet Evol 3:401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Legendre P, Desdevises Y, Bazin E (2002) A statistical test for host–parasite coevolution. Syst Biol 51:217–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lopez-Vaamonde C, Dixon DJ, Cook JM, Rasplus JY (2002) Revision of the Australian species of Pleistodontes (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae) fig-pollinating wasps and their host–plant associations. Zool J Linnean Soc 136:637–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Machado CA, Jousselin E, Kjellberg F, Compton SG, Herre EA (2001) Phylogenetic relationships, historical biogeography and character evolution of fig-pollinating wasps. Proc R Soc B 268:685–694CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Huson DH, Göker M (2007) COPYCAT: cophylogenetic analysis tool. Bioinformatics 23:898–900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Michaloud G, Carriere S, Kobbi M (1996) Exceptions to the one:one relationship between African fig trees and their fig wasp pollinators: possible evolutionary scenarios. J Biogeogr 23:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molbo D, Machado CA, Sevenster JG, Keller L, Herre EA (2003) Cryptic species of fig-pollinating wasps: implications for the evolution of the fig–wasp mutualism, sex allocation, and precision of adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:5867–5872CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Okamoto T, Kawakita A, Kato M (2007) Interspecific variation of floral scent composition in Glochidion and its association with host-specific pollinating seed parasite (Epicephala). J Chem Ecol 33:1065–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Patel A, Hossaert-McKey M (2000) Components of reproductive success in two dioecious fig species, Ficus exasperata and Ficus hispida. Ecology 81:2850–2866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pellmyr O (1999) A systematic revision of the yucca moths in the Tegeticula yuccasella complex north of Mexico. Syst Entomol 24:243–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pellmyr O, Leebens-Mack J (1999) Forty million years of mutualism: evidence for Eocene origin of the yucca–yucca moth association. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:9178–9183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Pellmyr O, Leebens-Mack J, Huth CJ (1996b) Non-mutualistic yucca moths and their evolutionary consequences. Nature 380:155–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Pellmyr O, Segraves KA, Althoff DM, Balcázar-Lara M, Leebens-Mack J (2007) The phylogeny of yuccas. Mol Phylogenet Evol 43:493–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramírez WB (1974) Coevolution of Ficus and Agaonidae. Ann Mo Bot Gard 61:770–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roderick GK (1997) Herbivorous insects and the Hawaiian silversword alliance: coevolution or cospeciation? Pac Sci 51:440–449Google Scholar
  37. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Song Q, Yang D, Zhang G, Yang C (2001) Volatiles from Ficus hispida and their attractiveness to fig wasps. J Chem Ecol 27:1929–1942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. van Noort S, Compton SG (1996) Convergent evolution of agaonine and sycoecine (Agaonidae, Chalcidoidea) head shape in response to the constraints of host fig morphology. J Biogeogr 23:415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Webster GL (1994) Synopsis of the genera and suprageneric taxa of Euphorbiaceae. Ann Mo Bot Gard 81:33–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiblen GD (2000) Phylogenetic relationships of functionally dioecious Ficus (Moraceae) based on ribosomal DNA sequences and morphology. Am J Bot 87:1342–1357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Weiblen GD (2001) Phylogenetic relationships of fig wasps pollinating functionally dioecious Ficus based on mitochondrial DNA sequences and morphology. Syst Biol 50:243–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Weiblen GD (2004) Correlated evolution in fig pollination. Syst Biol 53:128–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Weiblen GD, Bush GL (2002) Speciation in fig pollinators and parasites. Mol Ecol 11:1573–1578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiebes JT (1979) Co-evolution of figs and their insect pollinators. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 10:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Ecological ResearchKyoto UniversityOtsuJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Human and Environmental StudiesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations