Cheaters must prosper: reconciling theoretical and empirical perspectives on cheating in mutualism.
- Jones EI Department of BioSciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, 77005, USA.
- Afkhami ME Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3G5, Canada.
- Akçay E Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
- Bronstein JL Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
- Bshary R Institute of Biology, University of Neuchâtel, CH-2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
- Frederickson ME Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3G5, Canada.
- Heath KD Department of Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
- Hoeksema JD Department of Biology, University of Mississippi, University, MS, 38677, USA.
- Ness JH Department of Biology, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, 12866, USA.
- Pankey MS Department of Molecular, Cell and Biomedical Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 08624, USA.
- Porter SS Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521, USA.
- Sachs JL Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521, USA.
- Scharnagl K Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
- Friesen ML Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
- 2015-09-22
Published in:
- Ecology letters. - 2015
Ant-plant
cleaner fish-client
cooperation
fig-fig wasp
fitness conflict
legume-rhizobia
nectar larceny
partner quality
plant-mycorrhizae
yucca-yucca moth
English
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.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- hybrid
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1111/ele.12507
- PMID 26388306
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/139959
Statistics
Document views: 27
File downloads:
- Full-text: 0