Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Protocooperation

Protocooperation is a type of ecological interaction in which two or more species mutually benefit from their association, but the relationship is not obligatory, allowing each species to survive independently without the other.^[1] This facultative form of symbiosis, also known as synergism, was popularized by ecologist Eugene P. Odum in his seminal work Fundamentals of Ecology (1953), where it is described as an interaction favorable to both participants yet not essential for their existence.^[2] Unlike obligate mutualism, where separation leads to the decline or extinction of at least one partner, protocooperation involves optional cooperation that enhances fitness without dependency, often categorized into service-service, service-resource, or resource-resource exchanges.^[1] In ecological systems, protocooperation plays a key role in community dynamics, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity maintenance by facilitating resource sharing and protection without the risks of coevolutionary lock-in seen in stricter mutualisms. It occurs across diverse taxa, from microbes to macroorganisms, and can influence population stability, as models show that such non-obligate benefits promote coexistence at high densities while avoiding collapse thresholds at low densities.^[3] Notable examples include the relationship between ants and aphids, where ants protect aphid colonies from predators in exchange for honeydew, a sugar-rich excretion, though aphids can persist without ant guardianship and ants without aphid resources. Another classic case is the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) and grazing mammals, such as cattle, where egrets forage on insects flushed by the animals' movement, gaining easier access to prey, while the mammals receive incidental parasite removal, with the association boosting egret feeding efficiency by up to 3.6 times yet remaining non-essential for either.^[2] In microbial contexts, protocooperation manifests in syntrophic partnerships, like bacteria degrading pollutants through complementary metabolic pathways, enhancing environmental remediation without mutual dependence.^[4] These interactions underscore protocooperation's evolutionary flexibility, allowing opportunistic alliances that bolster resilience in variable ecosystems.^[3]

Definition and Classification

Definition

Protocooperation is a form of symbiotic interaction between two species in which both derive net benefits, such as enhanced resource acquisition or protection, yet neither species requires the association for survival or reproduction.^[2] This facultative nature distinguishes it from more dependent forms of mutualism, allowing each participant to persist independently if the interaction ceases. The term was introduced by zoologist Warder Clyde Allee in his 1931 book Animal Aggregations: A Study in General Sociology to describe unconscious, beneficial aggregations among conspecifics that promote group survival without compulsion.^[5] In the mid-20th century, ecologist Eugene P. Odum extended and popularized the concept to interspecific relationships in the first edition of Fundamentals of Ecology (1953), framing protocooperation as a subtype of mutualism where benefits accrue voluntarily rather than obligatorily. Central criteria defining protocooperation emphasize reciprocal fitness gains—evidenced by metrics like increased growth rates or reduced mortality—while underscoring the optional character of the partnership, enabling both species to achieve reproductive success in isolation.^[3] Within the broader framework of symbiosis, protocooperation represents a non-essential positive association that contributes to ecological community dynamics.^[6]

Classification within Symbiosis

Protocooperation occupies a specific position within the framework of symbiotic relationships, which broadly refer to close and prolonged associations between organisms of different species. Symbiosis, as defined by Anton de Bary in 1879, encompasses interactions ranging from beneficial to harmful, categorized by their net effects on the participating species: mutualism (+/+), where both benefit; commensalism (+/0), where one benefits and the other is unaffected; parasitism (-/+), where one benefits at the expense of the other; and amensalism (-/0), where one is harmed while the other is unaffected.^[7] Protocooperation falls under mutualism as a facultative subtype, characterized by reciprocal benefits without the necessity of the association for either species' survival.^[8] This classification distinguishes protocooperation from other symbiotic categories by emphasizing its non-obligatory nature. In contrast to parasitism, which involves exploitation and harm to the host, or commensalism, which provides unilateral advantage without reciprocity or detriment, protocooperation requires mutual positive outcomes but permits independent persistence if the interaction ends.^[7] It further refines mutualism by contrasting with obligate forms, where separation would lead to the decline or extinction of at least one partner, as protocooperation allows both species to thrive autonomously while gaining advantages through association.^[9] The taxonomic framework for protocooperation evolved in ecological literature following the establishment of mutualism as a concept. The term "mutualism" was coined by Pierre-Joseph van Beneden in 1876 to describe interspecific reciprocal aid, building on earlier observations of symbiotic phenomena documented since antiquity.^[7] Protocooperation emerged post-1920s as a refinement to highlight facultative +/+ interactions, with the term gaining widespread adoption through Eugene P. Odum's Fundamentals of Ecology (1953), where it is explicitly defined as a beneficial but nonessential interspecific cooperation.^[7]^[9] This development addressed ambiguities in earlier broad mutualism definitions, providing clearer delineation within symbiosis.^[8]

Characteristics

Facultative Nature

Protocooperation, as a form of mutualism, is characterized by its facultative nature, wherein neither participating species depends on the interaction for essential survival, reproduction, or completion of their life cycles. This independence allows each species to dissociate from the partnership without incurring severe reductions in fitness, distinguishing protocooperation from more binding symbiotic associations. In such relationships, the benefits accrued are advantageous but not indispensable, enabling populations of both species to persist and thrive in the absence of the mutualistic partner.^[10] The facultative quality of protocooperation imparts significant flexibility to these interactions, permitting them to arise opportunistically in response to environmental conditions such as fluctuating resource availability, seasonal changes, or spatial proximity of the species involved. This adaptability fosters dynamic associations that can strengthen or weaken based on contextual cues, enhancing overall ecological resilience without imposing long-term commitments. For instance, interactions may intensify during periods of stress, like nutrient scarcity, but readily dissolve when conditions normalize, allowing species to pursue alternative strategies.^[11] Field studies provide empirical support for this non-obligatory aspect, demonstrating that species engaged in protocooperation exhibit generalist behaviors and maintain viable populations even when isolated from their mutualistic counterparts. Observations in arid ecosystems reveal that plants interacting with mycorrhizal fungi show improved drought tolerance through the association, yet experimental exclusions confirm that the plants sustain growth and reproduction independently, albeit at reduced efficiency. Similarly, in salt marsh habitats, cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa) form facultative pairings that enhance nutrient cycling and boost survival rates by up to 25-fold during stress events; however, long-term monitoring indicates both species persist in non-associated states without population collapse. These findings underscore the optional yet beneficial dynamics of protocooperation, highlighting its role in promoting adaptive, non-dependent ecological linkages.^[11]^[12]

Mutual Benefits and Mechanisms

Protocooperation involves mutual benefits that can be classified into three primary categories based on the nature of exchanges between interacting species: resource-resource, service-resource, and service-service. In resource-resource interactions, both species exchange commodities such as nutrients or energy sources, thereby improving resource acquisition and utilization for each partner without obligate dependence. Service-resource interactions occur when one species provides a non-commodity benefit, such as transport or pollination, in exchange for resources like food or habitat. Service-service interactions feature reciprocal provision of intangible benefits, including mutual protection or information sharing, enhancing survival or reproductive success for both. These categories highlight the flexibility of protocooperation, where benefits arise from diverse exchange dynamics. The mechanisms underlying these benefits in protocooperation typically involve behavioral adaptations that promote interaction without enforcing co-dependency. Signaling mechanisms, such as chemical cues, visual displays, or acoustic signals, enable species to detect and attract potential partners, facilitating timely exchanges. Habitat modification by one species, such as altering microenvironments to improve resource availability or reduce stress, can further support the other species' access to benefits. These adaptations are often facultative, allowing species to engage opportunistically based on environmental conditions or partner availability, thus maintaining the non-obligatory nature of the relationship.^[13] Fitness outcomes from protocooperation manifest as incremental improvements in individual and population performance, including elevated growth rates, better predator avoidance, and greater resource efficiency. Ecological models demonstrate that these interactions increase equilibrium population densities beyond levels achievable in isolation, often through density-dependent dynamics where benefits saturate at higher densities to prevent overexploitation. Studies quantify these gains as marginal, with modest increases in population growth rates in the presence of mutualists, yet species retain viability independently, underscoring the optional enhancement rather than essential reliance. Such outcomes contribute to overall stability in interacting populations by buffering against environmental variability.^[14]

Examples

Terrestrial Examples

One prominent example of protocooperation in terrestrial ecosystems is the relationship between certain ant species, such as Formica spp., and aphids like Aphis spp. Ants provide protection to aphids by defending them against predators, including ladybird beetles, which significantly reduces aphid mortality rates. In return, aphids secrete honeydew, a nutrient-rich exudate from their feeding on plant sap, which serves as a primary food source for the ants. This interaction is facultative, as aphid populations can persist without ants, though they decline markedly in the presence of predators, and ants can forage independently but gain substantial nutritional benefits from the honeydew.^[15]^[16] In African savannas, cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis) exhibit protocooperation with large grazing mammals, such as plains zebras (Equus quagga) and African buffaloes (Syncerus caffer). The birds opportunistically forage on insects, including grasshoppers and flies, that are flushed into view by the mammals' movement while grazing, thereby increasing the egrets' feeding efficiency. The grazing mammals benefit from incidental parasite control, as egrets consume ticks and other ectoparasites from their hides, reducing potential irritation and disease transmission without causing harm to the birds. This association is widespread, with egrets comprising over 50% of observed bird-mammal interactions in savanna habitats, and it remains facultative, allowing both parties to thrive separately.^[17]^[18]

Aquatic and Microbial Examples

In aquatic environments, protocooperation is exemplified by the cleaning symbiosis between cleaner wrasse fish, such as Labroides dimidiatus, and larger reef fish clients like groupers or parrotfish. The cleaner wrasse remove ectoparasites and dead tissue from the clients' bodies, reducing parasite loads and improving client health, while the clients provide the wrasse with a food source in the form of these parasites and mucus. This interaction is facultative, as both species can survive and thrive independently—client fish maintain low parasite levels without cleaners in some habitats, and wrasse can forage on other prey when clients are absent—yet it enhances fitness for both in reef ecosystems.^[19]^[20] Facultative mycorrhizal associations between fungi and plant roots represent another key example of protocooperation in aquatic and semi-aquatic systems, particularly among pioneer or wetland species. In these cases, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) extend the root system's reach to enhance uptake of nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen from nutrient-poor soils or waterlogged sediments, while plants supply the fungi with carbohydrates via photosynthesis. Unlike obligate associations, both partners can persist without the other; for instance, ectomycorrhizal fungi in facultative associations with trees like Populus species facilitate nitrogen acquisition in riparian zones without strict dependency, supporting plant establishment in dynamic environments.^[21]^[22]^[23] At the microbial scale, protocooperation occurs between bacteria and protozoa in soil microbiomes, particularly within rhizospheres, where they engage in mutual nutrient cycling without obligatory dependence. Soil protists (protozoa) actively transport and redistribute beneficial bacteria, such as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, along plant roots like those of Medicago truncatula, enhancing bacterial access to root exudates and improving nutrient mineralization for both microbes and the host plant. This flexible association, highlighted in recent studies, stimulates bacterial proliferation and protozoan grazing efficiency, fostering nutrient release (e.g., ammonium) that benefits the broader microbiome while allowing independent survival in nutrient-variable soils. For example, protozoa like Colpoda species graze selectively on bacteria, releasing nutrients that bacteria then recycle, creating a non-dependent loop that sustains rhizosphere health.^[24]^[25] In aquatic microbial contexts, protocooperation is seen in syntrophic interactions between sulfate-reducing bacteria (e.g., Desulfovibrio spp.) and methanogenic archaea in anaerobic marine or freshwater sediments. The bacteria consume hydrogen produced by the archaea during methanogenesis, preventing feedback inhibition and allowing continued methane production, while benefiting from the stable environment; neither partner requires the other for basic survival but the association enhances efficiency in nutrient-poor conditions.^[26]

With Obligate Mutualism

Protocooperation differs from obligate mutualism primarily in the degree of dependency between interacting species. In obligate mutualism, the co-presence of partners is essential for survival and reproduction, as neither species can persist independently without the benefits provided by the other.^[3] For instance, in the yucca-yucca moth interaction, yucca plants rely exclusively on female moths for pollination using specialized tentacles to deposit pollen, while moth larvae depend on yucca seeds as their sole food source, rendering separation inviable for both.^[27] In contrast, protocooperation, being facultative, allows each species to maintain viability and reproductive success in the absence of the partner, with interactions providing optional enhancements rather than necessities.^[3] Regarding fitness impacts, protocooperation contributes additive benefits that boost per-capita growth rates and equilibrium population densities without altering the fundamental survival thresholds of the involved species.^[3] Obligate mutualism, however, establishes foundational fitness dependencies where the absence of interaction leads to negative intrinsic growth rates, often resulting in population collapse or co-extinction if one partner declines below critical density thresholds.^[3] This heightened interdependence in obligate cases amplifies vulnerability to perturbations, such as environmental changes affecting one species, potentially cascading to the entire mutualistic pair.^[28] Evolutionary models suggest that some interactions can transition from protocooperation-like facultative states to obligate mutualism over time, particularly when the reproductive benefits of association substantially outweigh the costs of independent living, leading to the loss of autonomous reproduction capabilities in one or both partners.^[29] This shift typically occurs under conditions of high host encounter rates or strong selective pressures favoring dependency, as seen in adaptive dynamics simulations of symbiotic evolution.^[29] Such transitions highlight protocooperation as a potential precursor stage in the development of more tightly coupled mutualisms.^[29]

With Commensalism and Parasitism

Protocooperation differs from commensalism in that it involves reciprocal benefits for both participating species (+/+ interaction), whereas commensalism provides a benefit to one species without affecting the other (+/0 interaction).^[1] In commensalism, the benefiting species gains resources or habitat, but the host experiences no net change in fitness. A classic example is the attachment of barnacles to the skin of whales, where barnacles access nutrient-rich ocean currents for feeding and reproduction, while the whale remains unharmed and unaffected. This contrasts with protocooperation, where both species derive measurable advantages, such as enhanced nutrient availability or protection, though neither depends on the interaction for survival.^[30] In comparison to parasitism, protocooperation ensures no harm to either species, maintaining symmetric and non-exploitative benefits (+/+), unlike parasitism where one species gains at the direct expense of the other (+/- interaction).^[31] Parasites derive nutrients or shelter from a host, often reducing the host's fitness through resource depletion or tissue damage, as seen in bacteriophages infecting bacterial hosts and lysing cells for replication.^[1] Protocooperation avoids such exploitation, with benefits accruing equally without compromising either participant's viability.^[2] Distinguishing protocooperation from commensalism can present boundary challenges in rare cases where benefits appear uneven, potentially due to one species gaining more substantial fitness advantages under specific environmental conditions.^[1] These ambiguities arise particularly in microbial communities, such as polymicrobial biofilms, where limited data on growth and survival metrics complicates precise classification.^[4] Ecological assessments address this by evaluating long-term fitness outcomes for both species through experimental co-cultures or field observations to confirm reciprocity.^[1]

Evolutionary and Ecological Significance

Evolutionary Origins

Protocooperation, as a form of facultative mutualism, often evolves from commensal relationships or weak mutualistic interactions through mechanisms of gradual reciprocity, where initial one-sided benefits transition into mutual gains as partners develop conditional responses to each other's presence.^[32] This evolutionary shift is facilitated by processes such as kin selection, which favors cooperative behaviors among related individuals to enhance inclusive fitness, and partner choice, where hosts selectively associate with beneficial symbionts, stabilizing the interaction without obligate dependence.^[33] In microbial systems, for instance, transitions along the antagonism-mutualism continuum demonstrate how facultative mutualisms arise when symbionts provide optional benefits like nutrient provisioning or defense, reciprocated by host tolerance or resources, preventing exploitation.^[34] These dynamics underscore the facultative nature of protocooperation, enabling evolution without the risks of obligate co-dependence. At the genetic level, protocooperation relies on relatively simple behavioral and regulatory genes that enable optional cooperative traits, contrasting with the extensive co-adaptations and genome reductions seen in obligate mutualisms. Genomic studies from the 2010s reveal that facultative symbionts maintain dynamic genomes with mobile elements and minimal reductive evolution, allowing flexibility in association strength; for example, in insect-bacterial systems, transitions to mutualism involve acquisition of a few key genes for benefit provision without profound host-symbiont integration.^[35] Horizontal gene transfer and de novo mutations further support these simple adaptations, as evidenced in aphid-symbiont interactions where facultative bacteria like Serratia symbiotica exhibit pseudogene accumulation but retain recombination potential, facilitating optional cooperation rather than fixed interdependence.^[36] This genetic simplicity lowers the evolutionary barriers to protocooperation compared to obligate forms, which demand synchronized metabolic pathways. The concept of protocooperation emerged in ecological theory during the mid-20th century, with Warder Clyde Allee introducing the term in the 1930s to describe non-obligatory cooperative behaviors among animals, later formalized in Principles of Animal Ecology (1949). Eugene Odum popularized it in Fundamentals of Ecology (1953), distinguishing it from stricter mutualisms. Fossil evidence indicates deep evolutionary roots, with heritable facultative mutualisms like the Glomeromycota-Ca. Glomeribacter gigasporarum symbiosis dating back at least 400 million years, as inferred from codivergence patterns and the ancient fungal record, suggesting protocooperation predates complex terrestrial ecosystems.^[37] These ancient associations highlight how facultative mechanisms, such as occasional host switching, have sustained protocooperation over geological timescales.

Ecological Roles and Importance

Protocooperation plays a key role in enhancing ecosystem resilience by forming flexible support networks among species, allowing them to adapt to environmental fluctuations without mandatory dependence. For instance, in soil ecosystems, nitrogen-fixing bacteria engage in protocooperation with plants by converting atmospheric nitrogen into usable forms like ammonium, facilitating nutrient cycling and supporting plant growth while benefiting from root exudates, which promotes overall soil fertility without obligate reliance. Similarly, in pest control scenarios, such as the interaction between ants and aphids where ants protect aphids from predators in exchange for honeydew, this facultative mutualism provides defensive benefits to aphids and a food source to ants, contributing to natural population regulation and reducing the need for chemical interventions in agroecosystems.^[25]^[2] The importance of protocooperation lies in its support for biodiversity maintenance in variable environments, where these interactions buffer against stressors by enabling species to switch partners or forgo associations as needed. Facultative mutualisms, including protocooperative ones, commonly influence ecosystem structure and biodiversity by fostering diverse interspecies connections that stabilize communities, particularly in dynamic habitats like forests and grasslands. Disruptions to these links, such as those induced by climate change, can exacerbate declines; for example, 2024 studies highlight how altered phenology and resource availability weaken protocooperative relationships between pollinators and plants, leading to reduced pollination services and broader biodiversity losses.^[11]^[38] In human-managed systems, protocooperation informs conservation strategies by emphasizing the promotion of facultative interactions to bolster agroecosystem sustainability. Practices like conservation agriculture enhance multifunctionality through protocooperative microbial and invertebrate networks that improve soil health, nutrient retention, and pest suppression, thereby reducing reliance on synthetic inputs and supporting long-term productivity. These approaches address gaps in applied ecology by integrating such interactions to mitigate environmental pressures, ensuring resilient food systems amid global change.^[39]^[40]

References

[1]
Current Trends and Potential Applications of Microbial Interactions ...
Protocooperation is a class of interaction where participating partners benefit; however, the association is not obligatory and both populations can survive on ...
[2]
Protocooperation Interaction- Definition and Examples - Microbe Notes
Aug 3, 2023 · Protocooperation is a type of ecological interaction where both the species involved in the interaction are benefitted, but the interaction is not obligatory ...Protocooperation Definition · Ants and aphids · Cattle egret and animals
[3]
Ecological theory of mutualism: Robust patterns of stability and ...
Dec 15, 2021 · Additionally, the terms “mutualism,” “cooperation,” and “protocooperation” have been used idiosyncratically for beneficial interactions within ...
[4]
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01156
[5]
[PDF] Bats and Allee effects: When social behaviours go batty
Warder Clyde Allee published his. 'proto-cooperation' idea in his seminal book Animal Aggregations. (Allee 1931), an idea that would later become known as the ' ...
[6]
Mutualism | Oxford Academic
Jul 1, 2015 · Abstract. Mutualisms, interactions between two species that benefit both of them, have long captured the public imagination.Missing: protocooperation | Show results with:protocooperation
[7]
History of Ecological Sciences, Part 52: Symbiosis Studies - Egerton
Jan 1, 2015 · Their textbook discussed three kinds: commensalism, mutualism, and parasitism. Other kinds that some authors have identified, phoresis and ...
[8]
[PDF] The Ecology of Mutualism - UNL Digital Commons
Elementary ecology texts tell us that organisms interact in three fundamen tal ways, generally given the names competition, predation, and mutualism.
[9]
Unsolved Problems in Ecology on JSTOR
Odum's (1959) Fundamentals of Ecology, the era's dominant ecology text, defines mutualism and protocooperation (nonobligate mutualism) (p. 225) and gives ...
[10]
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1785&context=bioscifacpub
[11]
Facultative mutualisms: A double‐edged sword for foundation ...
Mounting evidence suggests that facultative mutualisms commonly influence biodiversity and ecosystem structure, as many organisms are directly involved in ...Missing: independence | Show results with:independence
[12]
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12473
[13]
The evolution of facilitation and mutualism - Bronstein - 2009
Oct 13, 2009 · Mobile partners such as pollinators and seed dispersers commonly forage and make choices that lie within a behavioural repertoire also used by ...
[14]
A consumer–resource approach to the density‐dependent ...
May 1, 2010 · To this end, we propose that the consumer–resource approach can unify the population ecology of mutualism by providing a broad mechanistic basis ...
[15]
Ant-aphid relationship: protocooperation or commensalism?
Our purpose was to explore the relationship between ants and aphids and to determine if this relationship is obligate mutualism or some other form of symbio...
[16]
Symbiosis: Rich, Exciting, Neglected Topic - UC Press Journals
Authorities differ in their usages of such terms. Odum (1971:211) uses the term "protocooperation" ... books give definitions and examples of the different.
[17]
Large-scale assessment of commensalistic–mutualistic associations ...
Mar 19, 2018 · Birds sitting or feeding on live large African herbivorous mammals are a visible, yet quite neglected, type of commensalistic–mutualistic association.
[18]
[PDF] Cattle Egret and Grazer – Story of their Relationship
Jun 2, 2019 · If a Cattle egret eats ticks off the hide of grazing mammals, then the relationship becomes mutualism. Cattle egrets also serve important ...
[19]
A shift in the foraging habitat of cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) and the ...
Consequently, climate warming may lead to abundance declines in drier sites and some reptile habitats are deteriorating in the absence of goat grazing. ...
[20]
The Crocodile-Plover Myth - Dickinson College Commentaries
Howell concludes believing that Egyptian Plovers “probably sometimes pick food from jaws and teeth of crocodiles” and “may have been more frequent and ...
[21]
(PDF) Cleaning Symbioses: Proximate and Adaptive Explanations
Aug 9, 2025 · Three forms of symbiotic relationship -mutualism (in which the participants depend on the interaction), protocooperation (in which the benefits ...
[22]
Cleaner Wrasses Labroides dimidiatus Are More Cooperative in the ...
Jul 12, 2011 · Here we show that cleaners immediately increase current levels of cooperation in the presence of bystander client reef fish. Furthermore, we ...
[23]
Facultative mycorrhization in a fern (Struthiopteris spicant L. Weiss ...
Feb 9, 2024 · Mycorrhizal associations are a widespread ecological strategy for plants to survive under stressful environmental conditions such as droughts, ...
[24]
Facultative mycorrhizal associations promote plant naturalization ...
Nov 15, 2019 · One example is the relationship with mycorrhizal fungi. Although mycorrhizal symbiosis has been thoroughly studied in plant ecology, ...
[25]
A facultative ectomycorrhizal association is triggered by organic ...
Dec 19, 2022 · Our results suggest that C. hobsonii is a facultative ectomycorrhizal fungus. Access to various forms of N acts as an on/off switch for mutualism.
[26]
Movement of bacteria in the soil and the rhizosphere - PMC - NIH
Sep 12, 2025 · 2023. Soil protists can actively redistribute beneficial bacteria along medicago truncatula roots. Appl Environ Microbiol 89:e0181922. doi ...
[27]
Soil Symphony: A Comprehensive Overview of Plant–Microbe ...
Protocooperation includes nitrogen-fixing bacteria in soil ecosystems that offer usable nitrogen to the nearby plants in the form of ammonium (NH4⁺) and other ...
[28]
Origin of a complex key innovation in an obligate insect–plant ...
The well known obligate pollination mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths is a major model system for studies of coevolution.
[29]
Obligate mutualistic cooperation limits evolvability - Nature
Jan 17, 2022 · First, obligate mutualistic cooperation between two or more individuals could enhance their ability to evolve. Due to the commonly very strong ...
[30]
On the difficult evolutionary transition from the free-living lifestyle to ...
Jul 30, 2020 · Obligate symbiosis evolved from free-living individuals most likely via the intermediate stage of facultative symbiosis.
[31]
[PDF] Types of microbial interaction
Microbial interaction may be positive such as mutualism, proto-cooperation, commensalism or may be negative such as parasitism, predation or competition.
[32]
Symbiotic Relationships (Mutualism, Commensalism and parasitism)
Feb 18, 2016 · Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship in which one species (the parasite) benefits while the other species (the host) is harmed.
[33]
A co-evolutionary model of mutualism from a commensal ... - PubMed
This paper considers a Lotka-Volterra type of model of competition between a commensal pair of species and a mutualistic pair, presumed to have descended ...
[34]
Microbial evolution and transitions along the parasite–mutualist ...
Apr 19, 2021 · Growing evidence suggests that microbial symbionts can evolve rapidly, resulting in drastic transitions along the parasite–mutualist continuum.Missing: protocooperation | Show results with:protocooperation
[35]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3609409/
[36]
Strategies of genomic integration within insect-bacterial mutualisms
Genomic studies have captured transitions along the symbiotic spectrum from facultative and obligate mutualism, illuminating the evolutionary, functional ...
[37]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22834753/
[38]
Evolutionary stability in a 400-million-year-old heritable facultative ...
We found that heritable facultative mutualisms can be both ancient and evolutionarily stable. We detected significant patterns of codivergence between the ...
[39]
What are the main reasons for the worldwide decline in pollinator ...
May 15, 2024 · The changes in water and temperature associated with climate change can lower the quantity and quality of resources available to pollinators, ...Missing: protocooperation | Show results with:protocooperation
[40]
Organic and conservation agriculture promote ecosystem ... - Science
Aug 20, 2021 · We show that organic and conservation agriculture promoted ecosystem multifunctionality, especially by enhancing regulating and supporting ...Missing: protocooperation | Show results with:protocooperation
[41]
Conservation agriculture improves soil health and sustains crop ...
Oct 10, 2024 · Conservation agriculture results in an average 21% increase in soil health and supports similar levels of crop production after long-term warming.Results · Discussion · MethodsMissing: protocooperation | Show results with:protocooperation