View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V. 8, 2002devices as speed, alertness, armor, spinescence,burrowing habits, nocturnal habits, poisonoussecretions, nauseous taste; and for offense, in suchcounter-attributes as speed, … ambush, allurement,visual acuity, claws, teeth, stings, …[and] poisonfangs. Just as greater speed in the pursued hasdeveloped in relation to increased speed in thepursuer; or defensive armor in relation to aggressiveweapons; so the perfection of concealing deviceshas evolved in response to increased powers ofperception” (Cott, 1940).Arms races are usually envisioned as attackdefense“games” that are slowly played out overlong periods of evolutionary time, graduallymolding species interactions, especially inpredator-prey systems (Futuyma and Slatkin,1983a; see also the recent popular account by Levy,1999). Thus it is generally thought that, as the quoteby Cott suggests, offensive adaptation on one sideis countered by defensive adaptation on the otherside and vice versa. To paraphrase Dawkins andKrebs (1979), claws get stronger, so shells getthicker, so claws get stronger still. But is thisreciprocity the only, or even the most likely, waythat the elaborate feeding structures of predatorsand the defenses of their prey evolve?The arms race concept has emerged in severalrelated forms in the modern literature of evolutionaryecology and paleoecology, including through thehypotheses of coevolution and escalation. Both ofthese processes assume that biological factors aremajor agents of natural selection and that organismsare able to respond evolutionarily to selective factorsimposed by other organisms in the environment.Coevolution is defined traditionally as theevolution of two or more species in response toone another (Futuyma and Slatkin, 1983b). Theterm “coevolution” was first used to describe theevolution of species interactions by Ehrlich andRaven (1964). Various definitions have beenascribed to coevolution; in the strict sense the termhas been applied to reciprocal adaptation of species,in which each species evolves in response to theother (Fig. 1). The interacting species may bepredator and prey, competitors, parasite and host,or mutualists. The term “diffuse coevolution” hasbeen applied to interactions involving more thantwo species (for instance, a predator with multipleprey species).“Arms races” may also occur withoutinvolving coevolution, as argued by Vermeij (1983,1987, 1994). Vermeij’s hypothesis of escalationclaims that biological hazards have become moresevere with time, and adaptations to those hazardshave increased in expression. The hypothesis ofescalation considers the most significant selectiveagent to be an organism’s enemies. However,adaptation need not be reciprocal (Fig. 1). Vermeij(1987) has argued that prey respond to theirpredators, but that predators are more likely torespond to their own enemies (for instance, theirpredators) than they are to their prey. Thusadaptation is unilateral. However, coevolution mayoccur if both escalating parties are enemies (suchas in the case of a predator and dangerous prey, orparasite and host). Escalation has two components:the “gap” between an organism and its biologicalenvironment (or hazard) and the level of the hazard.Escalation occurs when the level of the hazardincreases and the gap narrows. In other words,escalation occurs when adaptations to the hazardbecome better expressed.Thus, in coevolution, the claws of the predatorget stronger and the prey’s shell becomes thicker inreciprocal response. In escalation, increased defensein the prey is a response to the stronger claws of itspredator, but the increased claw strength of thepredator is a response to agents other than the prey.Coevolution and escalation clearly are related butthey differ in what agents are responsible forselection when it occurs (Fig. 1) (Vermeij, 1994).The distinction between coevolution and escalationis not always clear in the literature, in part becausethe term coevolution has sometimes been definedto encompass the concept of escalation. Forinstance, prior to Vermeij’s introduction of the termescalation for enemy-driven evolution, thisphenomenon was described as “unilateralcoevolution” (Futuyma and Slatkin, 1983b).The fossil record of invertebrate predator-preysystems has excellent potential for testing arms racehypotheses, but it is not always straightforward to354
DIETL AND KELLEY—PREDATOR-PREY ARMS RACESFIGURE 1—Direction of selective pressures in coevolution and escalation of predator-prey interactions.determine what process was responsible for thepattern we observe. Such tests require a)demonstration that two species interacted aspredator and prey, and b) evidence of evolution ofone or both members of the system in response toone another. Chapters in the first two sections ofthis volume describe various lines of evidence andmethods used to analyze predation in the fossilrecord. In this chapter, we discuss the dynamics ofthe evolutionary processes responsible for the historyof predator-prey systems. We assess the likelihoodof the occurrence of coevolution and/or escalationfor several fossil invertebrate predator-prey systems,in order to address the fundamental question: Arethere any general “rules,” or overriding principles,that govern the ecological and evolutionarytrajectories and outcomes of predator-preyinteractions (see also Herre, 1999)? We also explorethe effect of scale in our perception of processesand patterns of predator-prey evolution.MODELS OF COEVOLUTIONAND ESCALATIONRed Queen Hypothesis.—The extreme view ofan arms race is represented in Van Valen’s “RedQueen Hypothesis.” Van Valen (1973, 1976) arguedthat adaptation by one species has a deleterious effecton all other species within its effective environment;this idea is an extension of Fisher’s (1930) view thatany well-adapted species will experience a“constantly deteriorating” environment, owing to“the evolutionary changes…in associatedorganisms.” As Van Valen (1976, p. 181) suggested:“A change in the realized absolute fitness of onespecies is balanced by an equal and opposite changein the realized absolute fitness of all interactingspecies considered together.” Thus a species mustbe running in place (continually adapting) simplyto survive in the context of a changing biologicalenvironment, even if no change occurs within the355
Page 1:
THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETYPAPERSVo
Page 4 and 5:
The Paleontological Society Special
Page 6 and 7:
AuthorsRICHARD K. BAMBACHBotanical
Page 9 and 10:
THE FOSSIL RECORD OF PREDATIONMicha
Page 13 and 14:
INTRODUCTIONTHE FOSSIL RECORD OF PR
Page 15:
KOWALEWSKI—ANALYTICAL METHODSTHE
Page 18 and 19:
PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V.
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317: PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V.
Page 412: THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERSP
show all

View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?