• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • On the Perils of Ignoring Evolution in Networks (Letter)

    Author(s)
    Segar, Simon T
    Fayle, Tom M
    Srivastava, Diane S
    Lewinsohn, Thomas M
    Lewis, Owen T
    Novotny, Vojtech
    Kitching, Roger L
    Maunsell, Sarah C
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Kitching, Roger L.
    Year published
    2020
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Here, we reply to the stimulating comments from Sagoff [ 1 ] and Rossberg [ 2 ] on Segar et al. [ 3 ]. Sagoff posits that species assemblages are largely fortuitous and ephemeral, which thwarts opportunities for coevolutionary processes [ 4 ]. Given the dynamic nature of ecological communities, have populations from different interacting species had sufficient time in which to generate selective pressure on each other? As Rossberg points out, in long-lasting and highly intimate bipartite networks, ‘frequent co-occurrence of the two taxa’ is required for evolutionary lockstep between vulnerability (v) and foraging (f) traits. ...
    View more >
    Here, we reply to the stimulating comments from Sagoff [ 1 ] and Rossberg [ 2 ] on Segar et al. [ 3 ]. Sagoff posits that species assemblages are largely fortuitous and ephemeral, which thwarts opportunities for coevolutionary processes [ 4 ]. Given the dynamic nature of ecological communities, have populations from different interacting species had sufficient time in which to generate selective pressure on each other? As Rossberg points out, in long-lasting and highly intimate bipartite networks, ‘frequent co-occurrence of the two taxa’ is required for evolutionary lockstep between vulnerability (v) and foraging (f) traits. Fitness ‘seascapes’ [ 2 ] stem from constant community turnover: but the adaptive troughs and peaks of the shifting seascape can persist and allow reciprocal evolutionary change if allelic turnover is rapid and selection strong enough. How do we specify ‘frequent co-occurrence’? Since Janzen’s 1985 appraisal of coevolution [ 4 ], Colpoda protozoans have been through over 53 000 generations: resistance to mosquito predators develops in 50 [ 5 ]. We do agree that ecological (nongenetic) fitting is widespread. However, biotic selection within ecological networks does occur, is detectable, and its effects are far from trivial.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Trends in Ecology & Evolution
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.07.016
    Note
    This publication has been entered in Griffith Research Online as an advanced online version.
    Subject
    Environmental sciences
    Biological sciences
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/397388
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander