Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 7, Issue 5, pp 465–487 | Cite as

Evolutionarily unstable fitness maxima and stable fitness minima of continuous traits

  • Peter A. Abrams
  • Hiroyuki Matsuda
  • Yasushi Harada
Article

Summary

We present models of adaptive change in continuous traits for the following situations: (1) adaptation of a single trait within a single population in which the fitness of a given individual depends on the population's mean trait value as well as its own trait value; (2) adaptation of two (or more) traits within a single population; (3) adaptation in two or more interacting species. We analyse a dynamic model of these adaptive scenarios in which the rate of change of the mean trait value is an increasing function of the fitness gradient (i.e. the rate of increase of individual fitness with the individual's trait value). Such models have been employed in evolutionary game theory and are often appropriate both for the evolution of quantitative genetic traits and for the behavioural adjustment of phenotypically plastic traits. The dynamics of the adaptation of several different ecologically important traits can result in characters that minimize individual fitness and can preclude evolution towards characters that maximize individual fitness. We discuss biological circumstances that are likely to produce such adaptive failures for situations involving foraging, predator avoidance, competition and coevolution. The results argue for greater attention to dynamical stability in models of the evolution of continuous traits.

Keywords

fitness continuous traits evolutionary stable strategy frequency dependence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, P. A. (1986) Adaptive responses of predators to prey and prey to predators: the failure of the arms race analogy.Evolution 40, 1229–47.Google Scholar
  2. Abrams, P. A. (1989) The importance of intraspecific frequency dependent selection in modelling competitive coevolution.Evol. Ecol. 3, 215–20.Google Scholar
  3. Abrams, P. A. (1990) The evolution of antipredator traits in prey in response to evolutionary change in predators.Oikos 59, 147–56.Google Scholar
  4. Abrams, P. A. (1991) The relationship between food availability and foraging effort: effects of life history and time-scale.Ecology 72, 1242–52.Google Scholar
  5. Abrams, P. A. (1992) Adaptive foraging by predators as a cause of predator—prey cycles.Evol. Ecol. 6, 56–72.Google Scholar
  6. Altenberg, L. (1991) Chaos from linear frequency-dependent selection.Am. Nat. 138, 51–68.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S. and Vincent, T. L. (1987) Coevolution as an evolutionary game.Evolution 41, 66–79.Google Scholar
  8. Case, T. J. (1982) Coevolution in resource-limited competition communities.Theor. Pop. Biol. 21, 69–91.Google Scholar
  9. Charlesworth, B. (1990) Optimization models, quantitative genetics, and mutation.Evolution 44, 520–38.Google Scholar
  10. Christiansen, F. B. (1991) On conditions for evolutionary stability for a continuous varying character.Am. Nat. 138, 37–50.Google Scholar
  11. Cressman, R., Dash, A. T. and Akin, E. A. (1986) Evolutionary games and two species population dynamics.J. Math. Biol. 23, 221–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Curtsinger, J. W. (1984) Evolutionary principles for polynomial models of frequency dependent selection.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81, 2840–2.Google Scholar
  13. Endler, J. A. (1986)Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Eshel, I. (1983) Evolutionary and continuous stability.J. Theor. Biol. 103, 99–111.Google Scholar
  15. Eshel, I. and Akin, E. (1983) Coevolutionary instability of mixed Nash solutions.J. Math. Biol. 18, 123–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Eshel, I. and Motro, U. (1981) Kin selection and strong evolutionary stability of mutual help.Theor. Pop. Biol. 19, 420–33.Google Scholar
  17. Felsenstein, J. (1979) Excursions along the interface between disruptive and stabilizing selection.Genetics 93, 773–95.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, R. A. (1930)The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK (reprinted 1958, Dover, New York).Google Scholar
  19. Grant, P. (1986)Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Haldane, J. B. S. (1932)The Causes of Evolution. Harper and Brothers, London, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Hartl, D. and Clark, A. (1988)Principles of Population Genetics, 2nd edn. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Hastings, A. and Hom, C. (1990) Multiple equilibria and maintenance of additive genetic variance in a model of pleiotropy.Evolution 44, 1153–63.Google Scholar
  23. Hofbauer, J. and Sigmund, K. (1988) The theory of evolution and dynamical systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  24. Holling, C. S. (1966) The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density.Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 48, 1–86.Google Scholar
  25. Huxley, J. S. (1938) The present standing of the theory of sexual selection. InEvolution (G. R. de Beer, ed.), pp. 11–42. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. and Nee, S. (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The ‘handicap’ principle.Evolution 45, 1431–42.Google Scholar
  27. Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (1991)Behavioural Ecology, 3rd edn. Blackwell Scientific, London, UK.Google Scholar
  28. Lande, R. (1976) Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution.Evolution 30, 314–34.Google Scholar
  29. Lande, R. (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721–5.Google Scholar
  30. Lande, R. (1982) A quantitative genetic theory of life history evolution.Ecology 63, 607–15.Google Scholar
  31. Lawlor, L. R. and Maynard Smith, J. (1976) The coevolution and stability of competing species.Am. Nat. 110, 79–99.Google Scholar
  32. Lessard, S. (1990) Evolutionary stability: one concept, several meanings.Theor. Pop. Biol. 37, 159–70.Google Scholar
  33. Matsuda, H. (1988) Interaction in a prey predator system and the theory of coevolution.Bull. Pop. Ecol. Soc. 45, 3–10 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  34. Maynard Smith, J. (1982)Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Maynard Smith, J. and Brown, R. L. W. (1986) Competition and body size.Theor. Pop. Biol. 30, 166–79.Google Scholar
  36. Maynard Smith, J. and Price, G. R. (1973) The logic of animal conflict.Nature 246, 15–18.Google Scholar
  37. Murdoch, W. W. (1969) Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations.Ecol. Monog. 39, 335–54.Google Scholar
  38. Pacala, S. W. and Roughgarden, J. (1983) The evolution of resource partitioning in a multidimensional resource space.Theor. Pop. Biol. 22, 127–45.Google Scholar
  39. Packer, C. and Abrams, P. A. (1990) Are cooperative groups more vigilant than selfish groups?J. Theor. Biol. 142, 341–57.Google Scholar
  40. Parker, G. A. and Hammerstein, P. (1985) Game theory and animal behaviour. InEvolution: Essays in Honour of John Maynard Smith (P. J. Greenwood, P. H. Harvey and M. Slatkin, eds), pp. 73–94. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  41. Parker, G. A. and Maynard Smith, J. (1990) Optimality theory in evolutionary biology.Nature 348, 27–33.Google Scholar
  42. Pease, C. (1984) On the evolutionary reversal of competitive dominance.Evolution 38, 109–15.Google Scholar
  43. Roughgarden, J. (1978) Coevolution in ecological systems III. Co-adaptation and equilibrium population size. InEcological Genetics (P. F. Brussard, ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  44. Roughgarden, J. (1979)The Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction. MacMillan, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Roughgarden, J. (1983) The theory of coevolution. InCoevolution (D. J. Futuyma and M. Slatkin, eds), pp. 33–64. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Roughgarden, J. (1987) Community coevolution: a comment.Evolution 41, 1130–4.Google Scholar
  47. Rummel, J. D. and Roughgarden, J. (1985) The theory of faunal build-up for competition communities.Evolution 39, 1009–33.Google Scholar
  48. Seger, J. and Hamilton, W. D. (1988) Parasites and sex. InThe Evolution of Sex (R. E. Michod and B. R. Levin, eds), pp. 176–93. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  49. Stenseth, N. Chr. and Maynard Smith, J. (1984) Coevolution in ecosystems: Red Queen evolution or stasis?Evolution 38, 870–80.Google Scholar
  50. Takada, T. and Kigami, J. (1991) The dynamical attainability of ESS in evolutionary games.J. Math. Biol. 29, 513–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Taper, M. (1988) The coevolution of resource competition: appropriate and inappropriate models of character displacement.Bull. Pop. Ecol. Soc. (Japan) 44, 45–54.Google Scholar
  52. Taper, M. and Case, T. J. (1992) Models of character displacement and the theoretical robustness of taxon cycles.Evolution 46, 317–33.Google Scholar
  53. Taylor, P. D. (1989) Evolutionary stability in one-parameter models under weak selection.Theor. Pop. Biol. 36, 125–43.Google Scholar
  54. Thomas, B. (1985) On evolutionary stable sets.J. Math. Biol. 22, 105–15.Google Scholar
  55. Turelli, M. (1988) Population genetic models for polygenic variation and evolution.Proc. Second Int. Conf. Quantitative Genetics (B. S. Weir, E. J. Eisen, M. M. Goodman and G. Nankoong, eds), pp. 601–18. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Vincent, T. L. and Brown, J. S. (1988) The evolution of ESS theory.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19 423–44.Google Scholar
  57. Wiggins, D. A. (1991) Natural selection on body size and laying date in the tree swallow.Evolution 45, 1169–74.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, D. S. and Turelli, M. (1986) Stable underdominance and the evolutionary invasion of empty niches.Am. Nat. 127, 835–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Abrams
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Matsuda
    • 1
  • Yasushi Harada
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EcologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries Resource ManagementTokyo University of Fisheries, KonanTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations