Ecological interactions shape and are shaped by the evolution of interacting species. Mathematical models and empirical work have explored the multiple ways coevolution could occur in small sets of species, revealing that the addition of even one species can change the coevolutionary dynamics of a pairwise interaction. As a consequence, one of the current challenges in evolutionary biology is to understand how species-rich assemblages evolve and coevolve as networks of interacting species. We combined an adaptive network framework, a trait evolutionary model, and data on network structure to study how network organization affects and is affected by selection in antagonistic interactions such as parasitism, predation, and herbivory. We explored how selection imposed by interactions shapes the evolution of attack and defense traits, parameterizing our models with structural information from 31 empirical assemblages of antagonistic species. In the simulations, the form of coevolution in antagonistic interactions is affected by the intensity and asymmetry of the selection imposed by the interacting partners. Transient escalation in attack and defensive traits was the most prevalent form of coevolutionary dynamics, especially in networks formed by modules of highly interacting species. Fluctuating evolution of traits was observed when the intensity of selection was higher in exploiters than in victims and was especially favored in nested networks. At the species level, highly connected species experienced higher temporal variation in selection regardless of the network structure, resulting in high trait mismatching with their partners. The mismatched patterns of highly connected species, in turn, may explain the emergence of modularity in antagonistic interactions in which selection is stronger on exploiters than on their victims. Our results highlight the roles of different aspects of network structure on antagonistic coevolution: nestedness shapes coevolutionary dynamics, whereas modularity emerges as one outcome of coevolutionary dynamics.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2017.
All research outputs
#12,347,312
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from The American Naturalist
#2,143
of 4,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,948
of 359,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Naturalist
#26
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
