Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Symbiotic Interactions, Law of Purposive Association and the +/+ Nature of all Co-Evolution


Affiliations
1 Department of Zoology, Bhadrak Autonomous College, Bhadrak − 756100, Odisha, India
2 Department of Physics, Bhadrak Autonomous College, Bhadrak − 756100, Odisha, India
 

Objectives: To investigate all symbiotic interactions and the resulting specific and diffuse co-evolutions to bring out the +/+ nature of all of them. Methods: Analysis of all symbiotic interactions in light of law of purposive association and competition as the fundamental factor behind all of them. Findings: All symbiotic interactions are driven by competition at the fundamental level ultimately leading to +/+ co-evolution. All competition, including that involved in mimicry and endosymbiosis, finally ends up in cooperation for gainful evolution. Speciation and diversification depend not only on competition strength and the intensity of the driving instinct for perpetuation. Evolution is all-pervading force acting continuously in and through all organisms towards their perpetuation and up-gradation to higher evolutionary strata through purposive association, even though the organisms themselves don’t precisely know or decisively undertake the exercise of such progressive evolution. A holistic vision of the organic wholeness of all life as giant self-evolving organism that includes all life-forms as its mutually interacting components emerges in the final analysis which can be extended to include biotic factors as well. Applications/Improvements: Meta-evolutionary analysis of symbiotic interactions based on law of purposive association for gainful evolution of species through competition.
User

  • Dimijian GG. Evolving together: The biology of symbiosis, part I, Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. 2000; 13(3):217–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2000.1192 7677, https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2000.11927678. PMid: 16389385.

  • Tripathy A, Pradhan RK. The Ubiquitousness of PreyPredator Relationship (PPR), the law of purposive association and fundamental questions in evolution, Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2018; 11(32):1−11. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i13/122032, https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i32/131052, https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i5/120437.

  • Tripathy A, Pradhan RK. Role of evolutionary urge in epigenetics and Gene culture co-evolution: A meta-evolution perspective, Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2018; 11(32):1−10. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i32/131051 https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i13/122032, https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i5/120437.

  • Darwin C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray; 1859.

  • Ehrlich PR, Raven PH. Butterflies and plants: A study in coevolution, Evolution. 1964; 18(4):586−608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2406212, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1964.tb01674.x.

  • Strong DR. Natural variability and the manifold mechanisms of ecological communities, American Naturalist. 1983; 122(5):636−60. https://doi.org/10.1086/284164.

  • Benton MJ. Progress and competition in macroevolution, Biological Reviews. 1987; 62(3):395−98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1987.tb00666.x.

  • Janzen DH. When is it Coevolution? Evolution. 1980; 34(3):611−12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408229, https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1980.tb04849.x. PMid: 28568694.

  • Tripathy A, Kar SK, Mohanty AK. Impact of Chloroquine on drug resistance of local plasmodium falciparum malarial parasites, Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development. 2016; 7(4):146−49. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2016.00207.2.

  • Janzen DH. Coevolution of mutualism between ants and Acacias in Central America, Evolution. 1966; 20(3):249−75. https://doi.org/10.2307/2406628, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1966.tb03364.x. PMid: 28562970.

  • Champman JL, Reiss MJ. Ecology: Principles and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992. PMid: 1349902.

  • Kay KM, Reeves PA, Olmstead RG, Schemske DW. Rapid speciation and the evolution of hummingbird pollination in neotropical Costus subgenus Costus (Costaceae): Evidence from nrDNA ITS and ETS sequences, American Journal of Botany. 2005; 92(11):1899–910. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.92.11.1899. PMid: 21646107.

  • Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A. Convergence, competition, and mimicry in a temperate community of hummingbirdpollinated flowers, Ecology. 1979; 60(5):1022–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936870.

  • Cronk Q, Ojeda I. Bird-pollinated flowers in an evolutionary and molecular context, Journal of Experimental Botany. 2008; 59(4):715–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ern009. PMid: 18326865.

  • Stiles FG. Geographical aspects of bird flower Coevolution, with particular reference to Central America, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 1981; 68(2):323–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2398801.

  • Schemske DW, Bradshaw HD. Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkey-flowers (Mimulus), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1999; 96(21):11910–15. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.21.11910. PMid: 10518550.

  • Stein K, Hensen I. Potential Pollinators and Robbers: A study of the floral visitors of heliconia angusta (Heliconiaceae) and their behaviour, Journal of Pollination Ecology. 2011; 4(6):39–47.

  • Gullan PJ, Cranston PS. The Insects: An Outline of Entomology. 4th Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 291–93.

  • Potter M, De Jong KA. Evolving Complex Structures via Cooperative Coevolution. Fourth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming. San Diego: CA; 1995.

  • Rader R, Bartomeus I. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination, PNAS. 2016; 113(1):146–51. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517092112. PMid: 26621730, PMCid: PMC4711867.

  • Abrams PA. The evolution of predator-prey interactions: Theory and evidence, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2000; 31(1):79−105. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.79.

  • Woolhouse MEJ, Webster JP. Domingo E, Charlesworth B, Levin BR. Biological and biomedical implications of the coevolution of pathogens and their hosts, Nature Genetics. 2002; 32(4):569–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1202-569. PMid: 12457190.

  • Nuismer S. Introduction to co evolutionary theory. New York: W.F. Freeman; 2017. p. 1−395.

  • Van Valen L. A new evolutionary law, Evolutionary Theory. 1973; 1:1–30.

  • Carroll L, Through the Looking-glass: And what Alice Found There. London: Macmillan; 1896. p. 42.

  • Rabajante J. Red Queen dynamics in multi-host and multi-parasite interaction system, Scientific Reports. 2015; 5:10004. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10004. PMid: 25899168, PMCid: PMC4405699.

  • Morran, LT, Schmidt OG, Gelarden IA, Parrish RC II, Lively CM. Running with the Red Queen: Host-Parasite Coevolution Selects for Biparental Sex, Science. 2011; 333(6039):216. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206360. PMid: 21737739, PMCid: PMC3402160.

  • Anderson R, May R. Coevolution of hosts and parasites, Parasitology. 1982; 85(2):411–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182000055360. PMid: 6755367.

  • Schluter J, Foster KR. The evolution of mutualism in Gut Microbiota via host epithelial selection, PLoS Biology. 2012; 10(11):e1001424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001424. PMid: 23185130, PMCid: PMC3502499.

  • Sandoval-Motta S, Aldana M, Frank A. Evolving Ecosystems: Inheritance and Selection in the light of the microbiome, Archives of Medical Research. 2017; 48(8):780−89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2018.01.002. PMid: 29366516.

  • Canny GO, McCormick BA. Bacteria in the intestine, helpful residents or enemies from within? Infection and Immunity. 2008; 76(8):3360–73. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00187-08. PMid: 18474643, PMCid: PMC2493210.

  • Burkepile DE, Parker JD. Recent advances in plant-herbivore interactions, F1000 Research. 2017; 6:1−119. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10313.1. PMid: 28232868, PMCid: PMC5302155.

  • Tripathy A, Pradhan RK. A critical analysis of unusual prey predator relationships with regard to their exclusive evolutionary advantages, Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2018; 11(39):1−8. https://doi.org/10.17485/ ijst/2018/v11i39/131270, https://doi.org/10.17485/ ijst/2018/v11i13/122032, https://doi.org/10.17485/ ijst/2018/v11i5/120437.

  • Balile V, Moran JA, Le Moguedec G, Marshal DJ, Gaume L. A carnivorous plant fed by its ant symbiont: A unique multifaceted nutritional mutualism, PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(5):e36179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036179. PMid: 22590524, PMCid: PMC3348942.

  • Odum EP. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1953. p. 1−165.

  • Lidicker WZ. A Clarification of interactions in ecological systems, BioScience. 1979; 29(8):475–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/1307540.

  • Pasteur G. A classificatory review of mimicry systems, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1982; 13:169−99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.13.110182.001125.

  • Weiblen GD. Interspecific Coevolution. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences; 2003. p. 1−12.

  • Rothstein SI. A model system for coevolution: Avian brood parasitism, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1990; 21:481–508. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.21.110190.002405.

  • Canestrari D, Bolopo D, Turlings TC, Röder G, Marcos JM, Baglione V. From parasitism to mutualism: Unexpected interactions between a cuckoo and its host, Science. 2014; 343(6177):1350−52. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1249008. PMid: 24653032.

  • Skelhorn J, Rowland HM, Ruxton GD. The evolution and ecology of masquerade, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2010; 99(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.10958312.2009.01347.x.

  • Tripathy A, Pradhan RK. A prelude to meta-evolution, Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2018; 11(31):1−13. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i13/122032, https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i5/120437, https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i31/130098.

  • Grant PR, Grant BR. Evolution of character displacement in Darwin’s finches, Science. 2006; 313(5784):224–26. https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.1128374. PMid: 16840700.

  • Pfennig DW, Martin RA. Evolution of character displacement in spade foot toads: Different proximate mechanisms in different species, Evolution. 2010; 64(8):2331–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01005.x.

  • Losos JB. Lizards in an evolutionary tree: the ecology of adaptive radiation in anoles. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2009.

  • Schluter D, McPhail JD. Ecological character displacement and speciation in sticklebacks, American Society of Naturalists. 1992; 140(1):85–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/285404. PMid: 19426066.

  • Schluter D. Frequency dependent natural selection during character displacement in sticklebacks, Evolution. 2003; 57(5):1142–50. https://doi.org/10.1554/00143820(2003)057[1142:FDNSDC]2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00323.x. PMid:12836830.

  • Vamosi SM, Schluter D. Character shifts in the defensive armor of sympatric sticklebacks, Evolution. 2004; 58(2):376–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01653.x, https://doi.org/10.1554/03-080. PMid: 15068354.

  • Reimchen TE. Predator handling failures of lateral plate morphs in Gasterosteus aculeatus: Functional implications for the ancestral plate condition, Behaviour. 2000; 137(7):1081–96. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853900502448.

  • Reimchen TE. Injuries on stickleback from attacks by a toothed predator (Oncorhynchus) and implications for the evolution of lateral plates, Evolution. 1992; 46(4):1224– 30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2409768, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1992.tb00631.x. PMid: 28564400.

  • Marchinko KB, Schluter D. Parallel evolution by correlated response: Lateral plate reduction in three spine stickleback, Evolution. 2007; 61(5):1084–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00103.x. PMid: 17492963.

  • Barrett RDH, Rogers SM, Schluter D. Environment specific pleiotropy facilitates divergence at the Ectodysplasin locus in three spine stickleback, Evolution. 2009; 63(11):2831–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00762.x. PMid: 19545262.

  • Reimchen TE, Nosil P. Replicated ecological landscapes and the evolution of morphological diversity among Gasterosteus populations from an archipelago on the west coast of Canada, Canadian Journal of Zoology. 2006; 84(5):643–54. https://doi.org/10.1139/z06-036.

  • Marchinko KB. Predation’s role in repeated phenotypic and genetic divergence of armor in threespine stickleback, Evolution. 2009; 63(1):127–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00529.x. PMid: 18803682.

  • Maccoll ADC. Parasites may contribute to ‘magic trait’ evolution in the adaptive radiation of three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus (Gasterosteiformes: Gasterosteidae), Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2009; 96(2):425– 33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01123.x.

  • Abrams PA. Adaptive responses of predators to prey and prey to predators: The failure of the arms race analogy, Evolution. 1986; 40(6):1229–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb05747.x, https://doi.org/10.2307/2408950. PMid: 28563514.

  • Lack D. Darwin’s finches. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 1947. PMid: 20264594.

  • Grant BR, Grant PR. Fission and fusion of Darwin’s Finches populations, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Science. 2008; 363(1505):2821–29.

  • Schluter D. The Ecology of adaptive Radiation, (Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution). 1st Edition. Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 1−296.

  • Jablonski D. The interplay of physical and biotic factors in macro-evolution. Chicago: APA; 2003.

  • Stanley SM. Macroevolution, Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman; 1979.

  • Stanley SM. Effects of competition on rates of evolution, with special reference to bivalve mollusks and mammals, Systematic Zoology. 1974; 22(4):486−506. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412955.

  • Gould SJ. The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology, Paleobiology, 1985; 11(1):2–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0094837300011350.

  • Gould SJ. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap: press of Harvard University press, Cambridge; MA; 2002.

  • Tripathy A, Pradhan RK. Methylation-assisted epigenetic evolution and the psycho-biology of human experiences, Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development.2018.

  • Gause GF. The Struggle for Existence. 1st Edition. Baltimore, The Williams & Wilkins Company; 1934. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.4489.

  • Hardin G. The competitive exclusion principle, Science. 1960; 131(3409):1292–97. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 131.3409.1292. PMid: 14399717.

  • Gómez JM. González-Megías A. Asymmetrical interactions between ungulates and phytophagous insects: Being different matters, Ecology. 2002; 83(1):203–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0203:AIBUAP]2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.2307/2680132.

  • Farrell BD. “Inordinate fondness” explained: Why are there so many beetles? Science. 1998; 281(5376):555−59. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5376.555. PMid: 9677197.

  • Margulis L. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution. 2nd Edition. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1993. p. 1−452.


Abstract Views: 220

PDF Views: 0




  • Symbiotic Interactions, Law of Purposive Association and the +/+ Nature of all Co-Evolution

Abstract Views: 220  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Asima Tripathy
Department of Zoology, Bhadrak Autonomous College, Bhadrak − 756100, Odisha, India
Rajat Kumar Pradhan
Department of Physics, Bhadrak Autonomous College, Bhadrak − 756100, Odisha, India

Abstract


Objectives: To investigate all symbiotic interactions and the resulting specific and diffuse co-evolutions to bring out the +/+ nature of all of them. Methods: Analysis of all symbiotic interactions in light of law of purposive association and competition as the fundamental factor behind all of them. Findings: All symbiotic interactions are driven by competition at the fundamental level ultimately leading to +/+ co-evolution. All competition, including that involved in mimicry and endosymbiosis, finally ends up in cooperation for gainful evolution. Speciation and diversification depend not only on competition strength and the intensity of the driving instinct for perpetuation. Evolution is all-pervading force acting continuously in and through all organisms towards their perpetuation and up-gradation to higher evolutionary strata through purposive association, even though the organisms themselves don’t precisely know or decisively undertake the exercise of such progressive evolution. A holistic vision of the organic wholeness of all life as giant self-evolving organism that includes all life-forms as its mutually interacting components emerges in the final analysis which can be extended to include biotic factors as well. Applications/Improvements: Meta-evolutionary analysis of symbiotic interactions based on law of purposive association for gainful evolution of species through competition.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2018%2Fv11i43%2F132577