Predator-Prey Relationships: Coevolution Versus Escalation
Predator-Prey Relationships: Coevolution versus Escalation
Species on Earth interact in many different ways (Abrams, 2000). These interactions have evolved over millions of years to become an incredibly complex web of inter-species relationships and understanding these relationships enables science to model future species interactions (Abrams, 2000). From symbiosis to parasitism, Earth seems to have every type of relationship imaginable (Dietl and Kelley, 2002). One of the most intriguing and commonly studied relationships is that of predator and prey. The predator-prey relationship can manifest itself in many forms, be it two animals, an insect and a plant or a parasite and its host (Dietl and Kelley, 2002). Predators evolve different offensive mechanisms such as speed, large canines and claws, or resistances to toxins, while prey develop defensive mechanisms such as camouflage, bright colours, toxins, burrowing or behaviours such as ‘playing dead’ (Ebner, 2006). The main topic of study within this relationship is discovering how this relationship develops between two species (Ebner, 2006). The two main hypotheses for its occurrence are coevolution and escalation (Ebner, 2006).
Coevolution is the process by which beneficial evolutionary changes in one species, that increase the species’ fitness, influence evolutionary changes in the other (Ottino-Lofler et al., 2007). The two species (predator and its prey) selectively influence each other’s characteristics through an evolutionary ‘arms race’, each attempting to gain the upper hand through genetic mutation, drift and random chance (Ottino-Lofler et al., 2007). This is a very circular process, causing cyclic fluctuations in predator and prey populations, with a lag time in between (Ottino-Lofler et al., 2007). One species, for example the prey evolves a new defense mechanism enabling it to better escape its predator; there will be a lag time as the predator either evolves a new predation method or
Species on Earth interact in many different ways (Abrams, 2000). These interactions have evolved over millions of years to become an incredibly complex web of inter-species relationships and understanding these relationships enables science to model future species interactions (Abrams, 2000). From symbiosis to parasitism, Earth seems to have every type of relationship imaginable (Dietl and Kelley, 2002). One of the most intriguing and commonly studied relationships is that of predator and prey. The predator-prey relationship can manifest itself in many forms, be it two animals, an insect and a plant or a parasite and its host (Dietl and Kelley, 2002). Predators evolve different offensive mechanisms such as speed, large canines and claws, or resistances to toxins, while prey develop defensive mechanisms such as camouflage, bright colours, toxins, burrowing or behaviours such as ‘playing dead’ (Ebner, 2006). The main topic of study within this relationship is discovering how this relationship develops between two species (Ebner, 2006). The two main hypotheses for its occurrence are coevolution and escalation (Ebner, 2006).
Coevolution is the process by which beneficial evolutionary changes in one species, that increase the species’ fitness, influence evolutionary changes in the other (Ottino-Lofler et al., 2007). The two species (predator and its prey) selectively influence each other’s characteristics through an evolutionary ‘arms race’, each attempting to gain the upper hand through genetic mutation, drift and random chance (Ottino-Lofler et al., 2007). This is a very circular process, causing cyclic fluctuations in predator and prey populations, with a lag time in between (Ottino-Lofler et al., 2007). One species, for example the prey evolves a new defense mechanism enabling it to better escape its predator; there will be a lag time as the predator either evolves a new predation method or
References: Abrams, P.A. 2000. The evolution of predator-prey interactions: theory and evidence. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 31:79-105. Brower, L.P. 1995. Understanding and misunderstanding the migration of the monarch butterfly in North America. Biological Sciences 49: 304-385. Carroll, L. 1871. Through the Looking Glass. Macmillan, UK. Christiansen, P. and J.H. Mazak. 2009. A primitive late Pliocene cheetah and evolution of the cheetah lineage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 106: 512-515. Dietl, G.P. and P.H. Kelley. 2002. The fossil record of predator-prey arms races: coevolution and escalation hypotheses. Paleontological Society Papers 8: 353-374. Ebner, M. 2006. Coevolution and the red queen effect shape virtual plants. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 7: 103-123. Frey, R. and T. Riede. 2003. Sexual dimorphism of the larynx of the Mongolian gazelle. Journal of Comparative Zoology 242: 33-62. Garland, M. S. and A. K. Davis. 2002. An examination of monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) autumn migration in coastal Virginia. American Midland Naturalist 147:170–174. Gilchrist, M.A. and A. Sasaki. 2002. Modeling host-parasite coevolution: a nested approach based on mechanistic models. Journal of Theoretical Biology 218: 289-308. Hamilton, P.B., W.C. Gibson, and J.R. Stevens. 2007. Patterns of co-evolution between trypanosomes and their hosts deduced from ribosomal RNA and protein-coding gene phylogenies. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44: 15-25. Hudson, P.E., S.A. Corr, R.C. Payne-Davis, S.N. Clancy, E. Lane, and A.M. Wilson. 2011. Functional anatomy of the cheetah forelimb. Journal of Anatomy 218: 375-385. Marrow, P., R. Law, and C. Cannings. 1992. The coevolution of predator-prey interactions: ESSS and red queen dynamics. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 250: 133-141. Ottino-Lofler, J., W. Rand, and U. Wilensky, 2007. Coevolution of predators and prey in a spatial model. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation 3: 73-79. Rikvold, P.A. and R.K.P. Zia. 2003. Punctuated equilibria and 1/f noise in a biological coevolution model with individual-based dynamics. The American Physical Society 68: 14-30.