Cheaters must prosper

Reconciling theoretical and empirical perspectives on cheating in mutualism

Emily I. Jones, Michelle Afkhami, Erol Akçay, Judith L. Bronstein, Redouan Bshary, Megan E. Frederickson, Katy D. Heath, Jason D. Hoeksema, Joshua H. Ness, M. Sabrina Pankey, Stephanie S. Porter, Joel L. Sachs, Klara Scharnagl, Maren L. Friesen

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Cheating is a focal concept in the study of mutualism, with the majority of researchers considering cheating to be both prevalent and highly damaging. However, current definitions of cheating do not reliably capture the evolutionary threat that has been a central motivation for the study of cheating. We describe the development of the cheating concept and distill a relative-fitness-based definition of cheating that encapsulates the evolutionary threat posed by cheating, i.e. that cheaters will spread and erode the benefits of mutualism. We then describe experiments required to conclude that cheating is occurring and to quantify fitness conflict more generally. Next, we discuss how our definition and methods can generate comparability and integration of theory and experiments, which are currently divided by their respective prioritisations of fitness consequences and traits. To evaluate the current empirical evidence for cheating, we review the literature on several of the best-studied mutualisms. We find that although there are numerous observations of low-quality partners, there is currently very little support from fitness data that any of these meet our criteria to be considered cheaters. Finally, we highlight future directions for research on conflict in mutualisms, including novel research avenues opened by a relative-fitness-based definition of cheating.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1270-1284
Number of pages15
JournalEcology Letters
Volume18
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

mutualism
fitness
researchers
experiment
methodology

Keywords

  • Ant-plant
  • Cleaner fish-client
  • Cooperation
  • Fig-fig wasp
  • Fitness conflict
  • Legume-rhizobia
  • Nectar larceny
  • Partner quality
  • Plant-mycorrhizae
  • Yucca-yucca moth

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Cite this

Jones, E. I., Afkhami, M., Akçay, E., Bronstein, J. L., Bshary, R., Frederickson, M. E., ... Friesen, M. L. (2015). Cheaters must prosper: Reconciling theoretical and empirical perspectives on cheating in mutualism. Ecology Letters, 18(11), 1270-1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12507

Cheaters must prosper : Reconciling theoretical and empirical perspectives on cheating in mutualism. / Jones, Emily I.; Afkhami, Michelle; Akçay, Erol; Bronstein, Judith L.; Bshary, Redouan; Frederickson, Megan E.; Heath, Katy D.; Hoeksema, Jason D.; Ness, Joshua H.; Pankey, M. Sabrina; Porter, Stephanie S.; Sachs, Joel L.; Scharnagl, Klara; Friesen, Maren L.

In: Ecology Letters, Vol. 18, No. 11, 01.11.2015, p. 1270-1284.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Jones, EI, Afkhami, M, Akçay, E, Bronstein, JL, Bshary, R, Frederickson, ME, Heath, KD, Hoeksema, JD, Ness, JH, Pankey, MS, Porter, SS, Sachs, JL, Scharnagl, K & Friesen, ML 2015, 'Cheaters must prosper: Reconciling theoretical and empirical perspectives on cheating in mutualism', Ecology Letters, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1270-1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12507
Jones, Emily I. ; Afkhami, Michelle ; Akçay, Erol ; Bronstein, Judith L. ; Bshary, Redouan ; Frederickson, Megan E. ; Heath, Katy D. ; Hoeksema, Jason D. ; Ness, Joshua H. ; Pankey, M. Sabrina ; Porter, Stephanie S. ; Sachs, Joel L. ; Scharnagl, Klara ; Friesen, Maren L. / Cheaters must prosper : Reconciling theoretical and empirical perspectives on cheating in mutualism. In: Ecology Letters. 2015 ; Vol. 18, No. 11. pp. 1270-1284.
@article{f2d6fe8182da44e981c590e0f8c8fe84,
title = "Cheaters must prosper: Reconciling theoretical and empirical perspectives on cheating in mutualism",
abstract = "Cheating is a focal concept in the study of mutualism, with the majority of researchers considering cheating to be both prevalent and highly damaging. However, current definitions of cheating do not reliably capture the evolutionary threat that has been a central motivation for the study of cheating. We describe the development of the cheating concept and distill a relative-fitness-based definition of cheating that encapsulates the evolutionary threat posed by cheating, i.e. that cheaters will spread and erode the benefits of mutualism. We then describe experiments required to conclude that cheating is occurring and to quantify fitness conflict more generally. Next, we discuss how our definition and methods can generate comparability and integration of theory and experiments, which are currently divided by their respective prioritisations of fitness consequences and traits. To evaluate the current empirical evidence for cheating, we review the literature on several of the best-studied mutualisms. We find that although there are numerous observations of low-quality partners, there is currently very little support from fitness data that any of these meet our criteria to be considered cheaters. Finally, we highlight future directions for research on conflict in mutualisms, including novel research avenues opened by a relative-fitness-based definition of cheating.",
keywords = "Ant-plant, Cleaner fish-client, Cooperation, Fig-fig wasp, Fitness conflict, Legume-rhizobia, Nectar larceny, Partner quality, Plant-mycorrhizae, Yucca-yucca moth",
author = "Jones, {Emily I.} and Michelle Afkhami and Erol Ak{\cc}ay and Bronstein, {Judith L.} and Redouan Bshary and Frederickson, {Megan E.} and Heath, {Katy D.} and Hoeksema, {Jason D.} and Ness, {Joshua H.} and Pankey, {M. Sabrina} and Porter, {Stephanie S.} and Sachs, {Joel L.} and Klara Scharnagl and Friesen, {Maren L.}",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ele.12507",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "1270--1284",
journal = "Ecology Letters",
issn = "1461-023X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cheaters must prosper

T2 - Reconciling theoretical and empirical perspectives on cheating in mutualism

AU - Jones, Emily I.

AU - Afkhami, Michelle

AU - Akçay, Erol

AU - Bronstein, Judith L.

AU - Bshary, Redouan

AU - Frederickson, Megan E.

AU - Heath, Katy D.

AU - Hoeksema, Jason D.

AU - Ness, Joshua H.

AU - Pankey, M. Sabrina

AU - Porter, Stephanie S.

AU - Sachs, Joel L.

AU - Scharnagl, Klara

AU - Friesen, Maren L.

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - Cheating is a focal concept in the study of mutualism, with the majority of researchers considering cheating to be both prevalent and highly damaging. However, current definitions of cheating do not reliably capture the evolutionary threat that has been a central motivation for the study of cheating. We describe the development of the cheating concept and distill a relative-fitness-based definition of cheating that encapsulates the evolutionary threat posed by cheating, i.e. that cheaters will spread and erode the benefits of mutualism. We then describe experiments required to conclude that cheating is occurring and to quantify fitness conflict more generally. Next, we discuss how our definition and methods can generate comparability and integration of theory and experiments, which are currently divided by their respective prioritisations of fitness consequences and traits. To evaluate the current empirical evidence for cheating, we review the literature on several of the best-studied mutualisms. We find that although there are numerous observations of low-quality partners, there is currently very little support from fitness data that any of these meet our criteria to be considered cheaters. Finally, we highlight future directions for research on conflict in mutualisms, including novel research avenues opened by a relative-fitness-based definition of cheating.

AB - Cheating is a focal concept in the study of mutualism, with the majority of researchers considering cheating to be both prevalent and highly damaging. However, current definitions of cheating do not reliably capture the evolutionary threat that has been a central motivation for the study of cheating. We describe the development of the cheating concept and distill a relative-fitness-based definition of cheating that encapsulates the evolutionary threat posed by cheating, i.e. that cheaters will spread and erode the benefits of mutualism. We then describe experiments required to conclude that cheating is occurring and to quantify fitness conflict more generally. Next, we discuss how our definition and methods can generate comparability and integration of theory and experiments, which are currently divided by their respective prioritisations of fitness consequences and traits. To evaluate the current empirical evidence for cheating, we review the literature on several of the best-studied mutualisms. We find that although there are numerous observations of low-quality partners, there is currently very little support from fitness data that any of these meet our criteria to be considered cheaters. Finally, we highlight future directions for research on conflict in mutualisms, including novel research avenues opened by a relative-fitness-based definition of cheating.

KW - Ant-plant

KW - Cleaner fish-client

KW - Cooperation

KW - Fig-fig wasp

KW - Fitness conflict

KW - Legume-rhizobia

KW - Nectar larceny

KW - Partner quality

KW - Plant-mycorrhizae

KW - Yucca-yucca moth

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943650178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943650178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ele.12507

DO - 10.1111/ele.12507

M3 - Review article

VL - 18

SP - 1270

EP - 1284

JO - Ecology Letters

JF - Ecology Letters

SN - 1461-023X

IS - 11

ER -