Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms

Rebecca T. Batstone, Kelly A. Carscadden, Michelle Afkhami, Megan E. Frederickson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For a mutualism to remain evolutionarily stable, theory predicts that mutualists should limit their associations to high-quality partners. However, most mutualists either simultaneously or sequentially associate with multiple partners that confer the same type of reward. By viewing mutualisms through the lens of niche breadth evolution, we outline how the environment shapes partner availability and relative quality, and ultimately a focal mutualist's partner breadth. We argue that mutualists that associate with multiple partners may have a selective advantage compared to specialists for many reasons, including sampling, complementarity, and portfolio effects, as well as the possibility that broad partner breadth increases breadth along other niche axes. Furthermore, selection for narrow partner breadth is unlikely to be strong when the environment erodes variation in partner quality, reduces the costs of interacting with low-quality partners, spatially structures partner communities, or decreases the strength of mutualism. Thus, we should not be surprised that most mutualists have broad partner breadth, even if it allows for ineffective partners to persist.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1039-1050
Number of pages12
JournalEcology
Volume99
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

niche breadth
mutualism
niches
complementarity
Lens
niche
community structure
sampling
cost
effect

Keywords

  • cheaters
  • generalization
  • mutualism
  • niche breadth
  • specialization
  • symbiosis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Cite this

Batstone, R. T., Carscadden, K. A., Afkhami, M., & Frederickson, M. E. (2018). Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms. Ecology, 99(5), 1039-1050. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2188

Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms. / Batstone, Rebecca T.; Carscadden, Kelly A.; Afkhami, Michelle; Frederickson, Megan E.

In: Ecology, Vol. 99, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 1039-1050.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Batstone, RT, Carscadden, KA, Afkhami, M & Frederickson, ME 2018, 'Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms', Ecology, vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 1039-1050. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2188
Batstone, Rebecca T. ; Carscadden, Kelly A. ; Afkhami, Michelle ; Frederickson, Megan E. / Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms. In: Ecology. 2018 ; Vol. 99, No. 5. pp. 1039-1050.
@article{d21f7461cb6540fea6bc597dcdf94aa2,
title = "Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms",
abstract = "For a mutualism to remain evolutionarily stable, theory predicts that mutualists should limit their associations to high-quality partners. However, most mutualists either simultaneously or sequentially associate with multiple partners that confer the same type of reward. By viewing mutualisms through the lens of niche breadth evolution, we outline how the environment shapes partner availability and relative quality, and ultimately a focal mutualist's partner breadth. We argue that mutualists that associate with multiple partners may have a selective advantage compared to specialists for many reasons, including sampling, complementarity, and portfolio effects, as well as the possibility that broad partner breadth increases breadth along other niche axes. Furthermore, selection for narrow partner breadth is unlikely to be strong when the environment erodes variation in partner quality, reduces the costs of interacting with low-quality partners, spatially structures partner communities, or decreases the strength of mutualism. Thus, we should not be surprised that most mutualists have broad partner breadth, even if it allows for ineffective partners to persist.",
keywords = "cheaters, generalization, mutualism, niche breadth, specialization, symbiosis",
author = "Batstone, {Rebecca T.} and Carscadden, {Kelly A.} and Michelle Afkhami and Frederickson, {Megan E.}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ecy.2188",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "99",
pages = "1039--1050",
journal = "Ecology",
issn = "0012-9658",
publisher = "Ecological Society of America",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms

AU - Batstone, Rebecca T.

AU - Carscadden, Kelly A.

AU - Afkhami, Michelle

AU - Frederickson, Megan E.

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - For a mutualism to remain evolutionarily stable, theory predicts that mutualists should limit their associations to high-quality partners. However, most mutualists either simultaneously or sequentially associate with multiple partners that confer the same type of reward. By viewing mutualisms through the lens of niche breadth evolution, we outline how the environment shapes partner availability and relative quality, and ultimately a focal mutualist's partner breadth. We argue that mutualists that associate with multiple partners may have a selective advantage compared to specialists for many reasons, including sampling, complementarity, and portfolio effects, as well as the possibility that broad partner breadth increases breadth along other niche axes. Furthermore, selection for narrow partner breadth is unlikely to be strong when the environment erodes variation in partner quality, reduces the costs of interacting with low-quality partners, spatially structures partner communities, or decreases the strength of mutualism. Thus, we should not be surprised that most mutualists have broad partner breadth, even if it allows for ineffective partners to persist.

AB - For a mutualism to remain evolutionarily stable, theory predicts that mutualists should limit their associations to high-quality partners. However, most mutualists either simultaneously or sequentially associate with multiple partners that confer the same type of reward. By viewing mutualisms through the lens of niche breadth evolution, we outline how the environment shapes partner availability and relative quality, and ultimately a focal mutualist's partner breadth. We argue that mutualists that associate with multiple partners may have a selective advantage compared to specialists for many reasons, including sampling, complementarity, and portfolio effects, as well as the possibility that broad partner breadth increases breadth along other niche axes. Furthermore, selection for narrow partner breadth is unlikely to be strong when the environment erodes variation in partner quality, reduces the costs of interacting with low-quality partners, spatially structures partner communities, or decreases the strength of mutualism. Thus, we should not be surprised that most mutualists have broad partner breadth, even if it allows for ineffective partners to persist.

KW - cheaters

KW - generalization

KW - mutualism

KW - niche breadth

KW - specialization

KW - symbiosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044319244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044319244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ecy.2188

DO - 10.1002/ecy.2188

M3 - Article

VL - 99

SP - 1039

EP - 1050

JO - Ecology

JF - Ecology

SN - 0012-9658

IS - 5

ER -