Role of Selective Flower Abortion in the Maintenance of Obligate Pollination Mutualism

  • Ryutaro Goto
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


Mutualism is an interaction between species, each of which gains benefits that have costs for the other. Such interactions are ubiquitous in nature and often play important roles in the maintenance of ecosystems and biodiversity. However, theoretical considerations suggest that mutualism is not evolutionarily stable because it is vulnerable to invasion by cheaters, which gain benefits without paying costs (Axelrod and Hamilton 1981; Bull and Rice 1991; Sachs et al. 2004). Thus, mechanisms preventing cheating may be essential if mutualism is to be stable (Kiers et al. 2003; Bshary and Grutter 2006; Kiers and Denison 2008; Jandér and Herre 2010; Jandér et al. 2012).


Cost of mutualism Epicephala Glochidion Mutualism stability Oviposition Resource limitation 

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. Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–1396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bao T, Addicott JF (1998) Cheating in mutualism: defection of Yucca baccata against its yucca moths. Ecol Lett 1:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bshary R, Grutter AS (2006) Image scoring and cooperation in a cleaner fish mutualism. Nature 441:975–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bull JJ, Rice WR (1991) Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of co-operation. J Theor Biol 149:63–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Crabb BA, Pellmyr O (2006) Impact of the third trophic level in an obligate mutualism: do yucca plants benefit from parasitoids of yucca moths? Int J Plant Sci 167:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dafni A, Kevan PG, Husband BC (2005) Practical pollination biology. Enviroquest, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis DR (1967) A revision of the moths of the subfamily Prodoxinae (Lepidoptera: Incurvariidae). US Nat Mus Bull 255:1–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goto R, Okamoto T, Kiers ET, Kawakita A, Kato M (2010) Selective flower abortion maintains moth cooperation in a newly discovered pollination mutualism. Ecol Lett 13:321–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Govaerts R, Frodin RG, Radcliffe-Smith A (2000) World checklist and bibliography of Euphorbiaceae. Royal Botanic Gardens, KewGoogle Scholar
  12. Holland JN (2000) Ecological and evolutionary conditions for fruit abortion to regulate pollinating seed-eaters and increase plant reproduction. Theor Pop Biol 61:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland JN, Fleming TH (1999) Mutualistic interactions between Upiga virescens (Pyralidae), a pollinating seed-consumer, and Lophocereus schottii (Cactaceae). Ecology 80:2074–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huth CJ, Pellmyr O (1999) Yucca moth oviposition and pollination behavior is affected by past flower visitors: evidence for a host-marking pheromone. Oecologia 119:593–599Google Scholar
  15. Huth CJ, Pellmyr O (2000) Pollen-mediated selective abortion in yuccas and its consequences for the plant–pollinator mutualism. Ecology 81:1100–1107Google Scholar
  16. Jandér KC, Herre EA (2010) Host sanctions and pollinator cheating in the fig tree–fig wasp mutualism. Proc R Soc B 277:1481–1488CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Jandér KC, Herre EA, Simms EL (2012) Precision of host sanctions in the fig tree–fig wasp mutualism: consequences for uncooperative symbionts. Ecol Lett 15:1362–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Kiers ET, Rousseau RA, West SA, Denison RF (2003) Host sanctions and the legume–rhizobium mutualism. Nature 425:78–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kiers ET, Denison RF (2008) Sanctions, cooperation, and the stability of plant-rhizosphere mutualisms. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:215–236Google Scholar
  21. Morishita M (1959) Measuring of the dispersion and analysis of the distribution patterns. Mem Fac Sci Kyushu Univ Series E 2:215–235Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Pellmyr O (1997) Pollinating seed eaters: why is active pollination so rare? Ecology 78:1655–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pellmyr O, Huth CJ (1994) Evolutionary stability of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths. Nature 372:257–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sachs JL, Mueller UG, Wilcox TP, Bull JJ (2004) The evolution of cooperation. Q Rev Biol 79:135–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Segraves KA (2003) Understanding stability in mutualisms: can extrinsic factors balance the yucca–yucca moth interaction? Ecology 84:2943–2951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Segraves KA (2008) Florivores limit cost of mutualism in the yucca–yucca moth association. Ecology 89:3215–3221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Svensson GP, Okamoto T, Kawakita A, Goto R, Kato M (2010) Chemical ecology of obligate pollination mutualisms: testing the ‘private channel’ hypothesis in the Breynia–Epicephala association. New Phytol 186:995–1004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations