Coevolution of reproductive characteristics in 12 species of New World figs and their pollinator wasps
- 389 Downloads
Figs (Ficus) and fig-pollination wasps (Agaonidae) are highly coevolved mutualists that depend completely on each other for continued reproduction. However, their reproductive interests are not identical.
The natural history of their interaction often permits the direct measurement of total lifetime reproductive success of the wasp and of major components of reproductive success for the fig.
Data from 12 monoecious species of New World figs (subgenusUrostigma) and their wasp pollinators (Pegoscapus spp.) indicate that fig fruit size (number of flowers per fruit), wasp size, and the number of foundresses that pollinate and lay eggs in any given fruit interact in complex but systematic ways to affect the reproductive success of both the wasps and the figs.
Different aspects of the interaction may work against the reproductive interests of either the wasp or the fig, or often, both. For example, in some species an ‘average’ foundress may only realize 25% of its reproductive potential due to the high average number of foundresses. However, that same crowding slects for more male-biased sex ratios in the wasps that reduce potential fitness gains through pollen dispersal for the fig. Nonetheless, the natural distributions of numbers of foundresses per fruit more clearly reflect the reproductive interests of the figs than of the wasps.
Generally, it appears that most of the fig species studied can be arranged along a continuum from those with physically small fruits that produce a relatively low proportion of viable seed butt are very efficient at the production of female wasps to physically large, relatively seed-rich fruits that are relatively inefficient at producing female wasps. The implications of these findings for the coevolution of figs and their wasps are discussed.
Key wordsFicus figs fig pollinating wasps pollination mutualisms coevolution sex allocation plant breeding systems
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Berg, C. C., Floral differentiation and dioecism inFicus (Moraceae), in: Minisymposium: Figs and Fig Insects, pp. 15–25. Eds F. Kjellberg and G. Valdeyrons. CNRS. Montpellier, France 1984.Google Scholar
- 2.Bonacorrso, F., Foraging and reproduction in a Panamanian bat community. Bull. State Mus., Biol. Sci.24 (4) (1979) 359–408.Google Scholar
- 3.Bronstein, J. L., Limits to fruit production in a monoecious fig: consequences of an obligate mutualism. Ecology69 (1988a) 207–214.Google Scholar
- 4.Bronstein, J. L., Mutualism, antagonism, and the fig-pollinator interaction. Ecology69 (4) (1988b) 1298–1302.Google Scholar
- 5.Bulmer, M. G., and Taylor, P. D., Dispersal and the sex ratio. Nature284 (1980) 448–449.Google Scholar
- 6.Charnov, E. L., The Theory of Sex Allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1982.Google Scholar
- 7.Colwell, R. C., Group selection is implicated in the evolution of female-biased sex ratios. Nature290 (1981) 401–404.Google Scholar
- 8.Frank, S. A., A hierarchical view of sex-ratio patterns. Florida Ent.66 (1) (1983) 42–75.Google Scholar
- 9.Frank, S. A., The behavior and morphology of the fig waspsPegoscapus assuetus andP. jiminezi: descriptions and suggested behaviors for phylogenetic studies. Psyche91 (1984) 289–307.Google Scholar
- 10.Frank, S. A., Hierarchial selection theory and sex ratios. II. On applying the theory, and a test with fig wasps. Evolution39 (1985) 949–964.Google Scholar
- 11.Galil, J., and Eisikowitch, D., Studies on mutualistic symbiosis between syconia and sycophilous wasps in monoecious figs. New Phytol.70 (1985) 773–787.Google Scholar
- 12.Garwood, N. C., and Horvitz, C. C., Factors limiting fruit and seed production of a temperate shrub,Staphylea trifolia L. (Staphylaceae). Am. J. Bot.72 (3) (1985) 453–466.Google Scholar
- 13.Hamilton, W. D., Extraordinary sex ratios. Science156 (1967) 477–488.Google Scholar
- 14.Hamilton, W. D., Wingless and fighting males in fig wasps and other insects, in: Reproductive Competition and Sexual Selection in Insects. Eds M. S. Blum and N. A. Blum. Academic Press, New York 1979.Google Scholar
- 15.Herre, E. A., Sex ratio adjustment in fig wasps. Science288 (1985) 896–898.Google Scholar
- 16.Herre, E. A., Optimality, plasticity, and selective regime in fig wasp sex ratios. Nature329 (1987) 627–629.Google Scholar
- 17.Herre, E. A., Leigh, E. G., and Fischer, E. A., Sex allocation in animals, in: The Evolution of Sex and its Consequences. Ed. S. C. Stearns. Birkhäuser, Basel 1987.Google Scholar
- 18.Janzen, D. H., How to be a fig. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst.10 (1979a) 13–51.Google Scholar
- 19.Janzen, D. H., How many babies do figs pay for babies? Biotropica11 (1979b) 48–50.Google Scholar
- 20.Janzen, D. H., How many parents do the wasps from a fig have? Biotropica11 (1979) 127–129.Google Scholar
- 21.Kjellberg, F., Gouyon, P. H., Ibrahim, M., Raymond, M., and Valdeyron, G., The stability of the symbiosis between dioecious figs and their pollinators: a study ofFicus carica L. andBlastophaga psenes L. Evolution41 (1987) 693–704.Google Scholar
- 22.Milton, K., Windsor, D. M., Morrison, D. W., and Estribi, M. A., Fruiting phenologies of two neotropicalFicus species. Ecology63 (1982) 752–762.Google Scholar
- 23.Ramirez B. W., Fig wasps; mechanism of pollen transfer. Science163 (1969) 580–582.Google Scholar
- 24.Ramirez B. W., Host specificity of fig wasps (Agaonidae). Evolution24 (1970) 681–691.Google Scholar
- 25.Ramirez B. W., Taxonomic and biological studies of neotropical fig wasps (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae). The University of Kansas Science Bull.46 (1970) 1–44.Google Scholar
- 26.Ramirez B., W., Specificity of Agaonidae: The coevolution ofFicus and its pollinators. Ph. D. thesis. University of Kansas 1974.Google Scholar
- 27.Ramirez B. W., Evolution of the monoecious and dioecious habit inFicus. Brenesia18 (1980) 207–216.Google Scholar
- 28.Schemske, D. W., Limits to specialization and coevolution in plantanimal mutualisms, in: Coevolution. Ed. M. H. Nitecki. University of Chicago Press 1983.Google Scholar
- 29.Schemske, D. W., and Horvitz, C. C., Variation among floral visitors in pollination ability: a precondition for mutualism specialization. Science (1984) 519–521.Google Scholar
- 30.Todzia, C., Growth habits, host tree species, and density of hemiepiphytes on Barro Colorado Island, Panamá. Biotropical18 (1986) 22–27.Google Scholar
- 31.Verkerke, W., Anatomy ofFicus ottoniifolia (Moraceae) syconia and its role in the fig-fig wasp symbiosis. Proc. K. ned. Akad. Wet.89 (1986) 443–469.Google Scholar
- 32.Wiebes, J. T., Co-evolution of figs and their insect pollinators. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst.10 (1979) 1–12.Google Scholar