Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 8, pages 185–195 (2007)Cite this article

Key Points

  • Co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities offers a new understanding of adaptation and gene function that cannot be obtained from genomic data without an ecological context.

  • Some interspecific interactions, such as those that involve host and pathogen or predator and prey, can be intensified by reciprocal co-evolution, whereas other interactions, such as competition over limiting resources, can be diminished by reciprocal co-evolution.

  • Molecular phylogenetics offers an historical context for studying species interactions, providing evidence for co-speciation and the means for distinguishing co-speciation from other processes, like duplication or host switching.

  • Genotype-by-environment interactions (G x E) have a central role in co-evolution. They have given rise to many unique co-evolutionary adaptations, such as the inducible defenses of many prey species, which are textbook cases of adaptive phenotypic plasticity and developmental switching.

  • Under some circumstances, G x E increases genetic diversity in both species that interact with each other. This kind of interspecific G x E holds the potential to be an engine of biodiversity by accelerating co-evolution and facilitating the co-speciation of hosts and pathogens, whenever ecological communities are subdivided and gene flow among them is reduced.

  • The same genetic theory that was used to describe the evolution of epistatic interactions (interactions between nuclear genes at different loci) can be used to describe the co-evolution of interacting species. Recognizing that co-evolution affects gene combinations between species (that is, interspecific epistasis), epistasis theory can be applied to co-evolution in ecological communities. Just as reductions in recombination facilitate selection on gene combinations, co-dispersal of hosts and symbionts facilitates selection on interspecific gene combinations and leads to a high degree of interspecific cooperation, as in reciprocal obligate symbioses.

  • The co-evolution of mitochondrial–nuclear gene combinations is a model to study the co-evolution of interspecific gene combinations.

Abstract

Co-evolution has produced many intriguing adaptations and made significant contributions to biodiversity through the co-adaptive radiations of interacting groups, such as pollinating insects and flowering plants or hosts and endosymbionts. New methods from molecular genetics and comparative genomics, in conjunction with advances in evolutionary genetic theory, are for the first time providing tools for detecting, investigating and understanding the genetic bases of the co-adaptive process and co-speciation. Advances in the emerging field of community genetics, which integrates genetics and community ecology, could revolutionize how co-evolution is studied, how genes are functionally annotated and how conservation geneticists implement preservation strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Example of an inducible defence in phytoplankton.
Figure 2: Co-evolutionary mutualism of figs and fig wasps.
Figure 3: Examples of tangled phylogenetic trees and co-speciation.
Figure 4: Co-dispersal of host and symbiont genes.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species 95, 102 (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Futuyma, D. J. & Slatkin M. (eds) Coevolution (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 1983). One of the earliest and most influential edited volumes on co-evolution, which clearly frames many important ecological genetic questions.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson, J. N. The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 2005). This book develops the leading evolutionary hypothesis of community ecology, that local co-adaptation is the fundamental unit of ecosystem function.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Clayton, D. H. & Moore J. (eds) Host–Parasite Evolution: General Principles & Avian Models (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Spaulding, A. E. & von Dohlen, C. D. Psyllid endosymbionts exhibit patterns of co-speciation with hosts and destabilizing substitutions in ribosomal RNA. Insect Mol. Biol. 10, 57–67 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fuqua, C. & Winans, S. C. Conserved cis-acting promoter elements are required for density-dependent transcription of Agrobacterium tumefaciens conjugal transfer genes. J. Bacteriol. 178, 435–440 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Tollrian, R. & Harvell C. D. The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boeing, W. J., Wissel, B. & Ramcharan, C. W. Costs and benefits of Daphnia defense against Chaoborus in nature. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62, 1286–1294 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lively, C. M. Predator-induced shell dimorphism in the acorn barnacle Chthamalus anisopoma. Evolution 40, 232–242 (1986).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Verschoor, A. M., van der Stap, I., Helmsing, N. R., Lurling, M. & Van Donk, E. Inducible colony formation within the Scenedesmaceae: adaptive responses to infochemicals from two different herbivore taxa. J. Phycol. 40, 808–814 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Donk, E., Lürling, M. & Lampert, W. in Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses (eds Tollrian, R. & Harvell, C. D.) 89–103 (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kyong, H., Jang, M.-H., Joo, G.-J. & Takamura, N. Growth and morphological changes in Scenedesmus dimorphus induced by substances releases from grazers, Daphnia magna and Moina macrocopa. Kor. J. Limnol. 34, 285–291 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Vos, M. et al. Inducible defenses and trophic structure. Ecology 85, 2783–2794 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection 2nd edn (Dover Press, New York, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lerner, I. M. Genetic Homeostasis (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  16. van Valen, L. A new evolutionary law. Evol. Theory 1, 1–30 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Webb, C. A complete classification of Darwinian extinction in ecological interactions. Am. Nat. 161, 181–205 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hubbell, S. P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Whitham, T. G. et al. Community genetics: a consequence of the extended phenotype. Ecology 84, 559–573 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Whitham, T. G. et al. A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nature Rev. Genet. 7, 510–523 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wade, M. J. Community genetics and species interactions. Ecology 84, 583–585 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kiester, A. R., Lande, R. & Schemske, D. W. Models of coevolution and speciation in plants and their pollinators. Am. Nat. 124, 220–243 (1984). These authors established the principles that co-evolution takes place between traits and that the co-evolutionary effective population size is determined by the rarer species.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brodie III, E. D. & Ridenhour, B. J. Reciprocal selection at the phenotypic interface of coevolution. Integr. Comp. Biol. 43, 408–418 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ebert, D., Zschokke-Rohringer, C. D. & Carius, H.-J. Within- and between-population variation for resistance of Daphnia magna to the bacterial endoparasite, Pasteuria ramose. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 265, 2127–2134 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Agrawal, A. & Lively, C. M. Infection genetics: gene-for-gene versus matching alleles models and all points in between. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4, 79–90 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Via, S. & Lande, R. Genotype–environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39, 505–522 (1985).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Falconer, D. S. The problem of environment and selection. Am. Nat. 86, 293–298 (1952).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stearns, S. C. The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. BioScience 39, 436–445 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schlichting, C. D. & Pigliucci, M. Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ahnesjo, J. & Forsman, A. Differential habitat selection by pygmy grasshopper color morphs; interactive effects of temperature and predator avoidance. Evol. Ecol. 20, 235–257 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Curtsinger, J. W., Service, P. M. & Prout, T. Antagonistic pleiotropy, reversal of dominance, and genetic polymorphism. Am. Nat. 144, 210–228 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Page, R. D. M. Tangled Trees: Phylogeny, Cospeciation, and Coevolution (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003). The most comprehensive and up-to-date reference on the issues of comparing phylogenies in co-evolutionary studies.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jousselin, E., Rasplus, J.-Y. & Kjellberg, F. Convergence and coevolution in a mutualism: evidence from a molecular phylogeny of Ficus. Evolution 57, 1255–1269 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Herre, E. A. in Levels of Selection in Evolution (ed. Keller, L.) 209–237 (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Clark, M. A., Moran, N. A., Baumann, P. & Wernegreen, J. J. Cospeciation between bacterial endosymbionts (Buchnera) and a recent radiation of aphids (Uroleucon) and pitfalls of testing for phylogenetic congruence. Evolution 54, 517–525 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Page, R. D. M. & Charleston, M. A. Trees within trees: phylogeny and historical associations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 356–359 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Whitlock, M. C., Phillips, P. C. & Wade, M. J. Gene interaction affects the additive genetic variance in subdivided populations with migration and extinction. Evolution 72, 1758–1769 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Brodie, E. D. Jr, Ridenhour, B. J. & Brodie III, E. D. The evolutionary response of predators to dangerous prey: hotspots and coldspots in the geographic mosaic of coevolution between garter snakes and newts. Evolution 56, 2067–2082 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wade, M. J. in Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process (eds Wolf, J., Brodie III, E. D. & Wade, M. J.) 213–231 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wade, M. J. in Artificial Life VII Workshop Proceedings (eds Maley, C. C. & Boudreau, E.) 79–81 (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cockerham, C. C. & Weir, B. S. Digenic descent measures for finite populations. Genet. Res. 30, 121–147 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Goodnight, C. J. On the effect of founder events on the epistatic genetic variance. Evolution 41, 80–91 (1987).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Goodnight, C. J. Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic variance. Evolution 42, 441–454 (1988).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wade, M. J. & Goodnight, C. J. Cyto-nuclear epistasis: two-locus random genetic drift in hermaphroditic and dioecious species. Evolution 60, 643–659 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wade, M. J. in Key Words in Evolutionary Biology (eds Keller, E. F. & Lloyd, E. A.) 87–91 (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wade, M. J., Winther, R. G., Agrawal, A. F. & Goodnight, C. J. Alternative definitions of epistasis: dependence and interaction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 498–504 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Phillips, P. C., Otto, S. P. & Whitlock, M. C. in Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process (eds Wolf, J. B., Brodie, E. D. & Wade, M. J.) 20–38 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Priest, N. K., Roach, D. A. and Galloway, L. F. Mating-induced recombination in fruit flies. Evolution 61, 160–167 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Weir, B. S. Genetic Data Analysis II (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cruzan, M. B. & Arnold, M. L. Consequences of cyto-nuclear epistasis and assortative mating for the genetic structure of hybrid populations. Heredity 82, 36–45 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wolf, J. B., Brodie III, E. D. & Wade, M. J. in Phenotypic Plasticity. Functional and Conceptual Approaches (eds DeWitt, T. & Scheiner, S.) (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Blachford, A. & Agrawal, A. F. Assortative mating for fitness and the evolution of recombination. Evolution 60, 1337–1343 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lapolla, J. S., Schultz, T. R., Kjer, K. M. & Bischoff, J. F. Phylogenetic position of the ant genus Acropyga Roger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and the evolution of trophophoresy. Insect Syst. Evol. 37, 197–212 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Braendle, C. et al. Developmental origin and evolution of bacteriocytes in the aphid — Buchnera symbiosis. PLoS Biol. 1, e21 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Lynch, M. & Gabriel W. Mutation load and the survival of small populations. Evolution 44, 1725–1737 (1990).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Charlesworth, D., Morgan, M. T. & Charlesworth, B. Mutation accumulation in finite outbreeding and inbreeding populations. Genet. Res. 61, 39–56 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Paine, T. D., Raffa, K. F. & Harrington, T. C. Interactions among scolytid bark beetles, their associated fungi, and live host conifers. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42, 179–206 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wilson, D. S. & Knollenberg W. G. Adaptive indirect effects: the fitness of burying beetles with and without their phoretic mites. Evol. Ecol. 1, 139–159, (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bergstrom, C. T. et al. in Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation (ed. Hammerstein, P.) 241–256 (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Brandvain, Y., Barker, M. S. & Wade M. J. Gene co-inheritance and transfer. Science (in the press).

  61. Neuhauser, C. et al. Community genetics: expanding the synthesis of ecology and genetics. Ecology 84, 545–558 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Clay, K. Hereditary symbiosis in the grass genus, Danthonia. New Phytol. 126, 223–231 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Clayton, D. H., Bush, S. E., Goates, B. M. & Johnson, K. P. Host defense reinforces host–parasite cospeciation Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 15694–15699 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Hessen, D. O. & Van Donk, E. Morphological changes in Scenedesmus induced by substances released from Daphnia. Arch. Hydrobiol. 127, 129–140 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Spaulding, A. W. & von Dohlen, C. D. Psyllid endosymbionts exhibit patterns of co-speciation with hosts and destabilizing substitutions in ribosomal RNA. Insect Mol. Biol. 10, 57–67 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank N. Priest, D. McCauley, J. Bever, Y. Brandvain, J. D. Van Dyken, T. Cruickshank, D. Drury, J. Thompson and D. Huestis for comments on the manuscript, and the US National Institutes of Health and the US National Science Foundation for support of this research.

Author information

Author notes

  1. mjwade@indiana.edu

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Indiana University, 1001 East Third Street, Bloomington, 47405-3700, Indiana, USA

    Michael J. Wade

Authors
  1. Michael J. Wade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

Figweb

Mike Wade's homepage

Myrmecos

Glossary

Geographic mosaic

A theory of community ecology that was founded on the premise that communities are genetically and ecologically subdivided so that the rate of co-evolution varies geographically, resulting in rapid co-evolution (hot spots) in some localities but slower co-evolution (cold spots) in others.

Congeners

Species that are members of the same genus.

Quorum sensing

Gene expression patterns in bacteria that are conditional on colony density.

Inducible defence

An adaptive phenotypic change in a prey species that develops in response to predation on conspecifics, which reduces vulnerability.

Trophic structure

The species interactions that make up food chains and energy flows through an ecological community.

Co-evolutionary arms race

The escalating and reciprocal co-evolution between the offensive ability of a predator and the defensive capability of its prey.

Life-history trade-off

A negative correlation between viability and the amount or timing of reproduction, such that an increase in one results in a concomitant decrease in the other.

Character displacement

Phenotypic differences between sympatric species that arise as an evolutionary response to competition for shared, limiting resources.

Red Queen hypothesis

The continual evolutionary change by a species that is necessary to retain its place in an ecosystem because of ongoing co-evolution by other species.

Darwinian extinction

A decline in mean fitness that occurs as a result of adaptation by natural selection, which reduces the size of the population until it becomes inviable.

Gene-for-gene model

A model of host–pathogen co-evolution that proposes that, for every gene in the host that confers resistance, there is a corresponding virulence gene in the pathogen.

Genotype-matching model

An ecological genetic model of host–pathogen co-evolution that proposes that rare host genotypes escape the more abundant pathogens, which are adapted to more common host genotypes, leading to oscillations in population size and genetic composition of both species.

Gene flow

The movement of genes from one population to another, as individuals leave their population of birth and become breeding members of another.

Synteny

The conservation of gene order over chromosome segments across taxa.

Random genetic drift

Random changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next.

Trophophoresy

The transporting of a species that is used for food by another species.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wade, M. The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities. Nat Rev Genet 8, 185–195 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2031

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2031

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing