Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

A Critical Analysis of Unusual Prey Predator Relationships with Regard to their Exclusive Evolutionary Advantages


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 study unusual prey-predator relationships and generalize them to include behavior reversals and to find out whether they are actually role reversals or mere misnomers. Methods: Meta-evolutionary Analysis of various cases of role reversal e.g. plant parasitism, plant Carnivory, prey-predator role-reversal and cannibalism to find out their exclusive evolutionary advantages for the species involved. Findings: Most cases of role-reversal are, strictly speaking, not role reversals at all. Rather, such unusual prey-predator relationship is part of their natural method of survival or reproduction. The nomenclature of role-reversal on the basis of just their relative size is thus not proper. Santalum, wrongly designated as an obligate ischolar_main-parasite is rather a self-sacrificing species for its evolution by purposive association without harming the host plants. Similarly, plant carnivory also is a kind of role-reversal, since plants are thought to be preyed upon by animals and not the converse. It is proposed that a proto-instinct has developed in these plants. Prey-predator role-reversals are studied most commonly under role-reversals, but we find that they may not be fit to be called role reversals at all, if that method is the part of the obligatory fulfillment of the survival and reproductive urges. Applications/Improvements: Generalization of role reversals to behavior reversals and their meta-evolutionary analysis.
User

  • Cohen JE, Pimm SL, Yodzis P, Salda-AJ. Body Sizes of Animal Predators and Animal Prey in Food Webs. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1993; 62(1):67-78. https://doi.org/10.2307/5483.

  • Toledo LF, Silva RR, Haddad CFB. Anurans as prey: an exploratory analysis and size relationships between predators and their prey. Journal of Zoology. 2007; 271(2):170-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00195.x.

  • Dawkins R, Krebs JR. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 1979; 205(1161):489-511. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1979.0081 PMid:42057.

  • Evans DL, Schmidt JO. Insect Defence: Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators. State University of New York Press; New York. 1990; p. 1-482. PMCid:PMC1257123.

  • Lovei GL, Sunderland KD. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology. 1996; 41:231-56. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.001311 PMid:15012329.

  • Magalhaes S, Janssen A, Monserrat M, Sabelis MW. Prey attack and predators defend. Counterattacking prey trigger prental care in predators. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2005; 272(1575):1929-33. PMid:16191599 PMCid:PMC1559880.

  • Saito Y. Prey kills predator: Counter-attack success of a spider mite against its specific phytoseiid predator. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 1986; 2(1):47-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01193354.

  • Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD. The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 1989; 20:297-330. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001501.

  • Dorn NJ, Mittelbach GG. More than predator and prey: a review of interactions between fish and crayfish. Vie et Milieu. 1999; 49(4):229-37.

  • Palomares F, Caro TM. Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores. The American Naturalist. 1999; 153(5):492-508. https://doi.org/10.1086/303189 PMid:29578790.

  • 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.

  • Wizen G, Gasith A. An unprecedented role reversal ground beetle larvae lure amphibians and prey upon them. Plos One. 2011; 6(9):e25161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025161 PMid:21957480 PMCid:PMC3177849.

  • Barkai A, McQuaid C. Predator-Prey role reversal in a marine benthic ecosystem. Science. 1988; 242(4875):62-4 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.242.4875.62 PMid:17757631.

  • Choh Y, Ignacio M, Sabelis MW, Janssen A. Prey predator role reversals, juvenile experience and adult antipredator behavior. Scientific Reports. 2012; 2:728-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00728 PMid:23061011 PMCid:PMC3469038.

  • Janssen A, Faraji F, van de Hammen T, Magalhaes S, Sabells MW. Interspecific infanticide deter predators. Ecology Letters. 2002; 5(4):490-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.14610248.2002.00349.x.

  • Seitz RD, Lipcius RN, Hines AH, Eggleston DB. Densitydependant predation, habitat variation, and the persistence of marine bivalve Prey. Ecology. 2001; 82(9):2435-51. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2435:DDPH VA]2.0.CO;2.

  • Benton MJ. Progress and competition in macro evolution. Biological Reviews. 1987; 62(3):395-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1987.tb00666.x.

  • Iyengar AVV. The physiology of ischolar_main parasitism in sandal (Santalum album Linn.) Indian Forester. 1965; 91(4): 246-56.

  • Radomiljac AM, McComb JA, Pate JS, Tennakoon KU. Xylem transfer of organic solutes in Santalum album L. (Indian Sandalwood) in association with legume and non legume hosts. Annals of Botany. 1998; 82(5):675-82. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0741.

  • Tripathy A, Pradhan RK. Role of evolutionary urge in epigenetics and Gene culture co-evolution: A metaevolution perspective. International Journal of Science & Technology. 2018.

  • Darwin CR. Insectivorous Plants. John Murray; London. 1875. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.17335 https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.99933 PMid:17231073 PMCid:PMC1319125.

  • Givnish TJ, Burkhardt EL, Happel RE, Weintraub JD. carnivory in Bromeliad Brocchinia Reducta, with a cost/benefit model for the general restriction of carnivorous plants to Suuny moist nutrient-poor habitats. American Naturalist. 1984; 124(4):479-97. https://doi.org/10.1086/284289.

  • Givnish TJ. Ecology and evolution of carnivorous plants. Plant-Animal Interactions. McGraw-Hill; New York. 1989; p. 243-90.

  • Ellison AM, Gotelli N. Energetics and the evolution of carnivorous plants-Darwin’s most wonderful plants in the world. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2009; 60(1):9-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ern179 PMid:19213724.

  • Givnish TJ. New evidence on the origin of carnivorous plants. PNAS. 2015; 112(1):10-1. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1422278112 PMid:25538295 PMCid:PMC4291624.

  • Ewert JP. Neuroethology of releasing mechanisms: prey catching in toads. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1987; 10(3):337-68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023128.

  • Hatle JD, Salazar BA. Aposematic coloration of gregarious insects can delay predation by an ambush predator. Environmental Entomology. 2001; 30(1):51-4. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-30.1.51.

  • Ewert JP. The visual system of the toad: behavioral and physiological studies on a pattern recognition system. The Amphibian Visual System: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Academic Press; New York.1976; p. 141-202.

  • Pavlovic A, Singerova L, Demko V, Hudak J. Feeding enhances photosynthetic efficiency in the carnivorous pitcher plant Nepenthes Talangensis. Annals of Botany. 2009; 104(2):307-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcp121 PMid:19454591 PMCid:PMC2710902.

  • Nyffeler M, Maxwell MR, Remsen JV. Bird predation by praying mantises: a global perspective. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 2017; 129(2):331-44. https://doi.org/10.1676/16-100.1.

  • Tripathy A, Pradhan RK. A prelude to meta-evolution. International Journal of Science & Technology. 2018.

  • Polis GA. The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1981; 12:225-51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.12. 110181.001301.

  • Kadoi M, Morimoto K, Takami Y. Male mate choice in a sexually cannibalistic species: male escapes from hungry females in the praying mantid Tenodera angustipennis. Journal of Ethology. 2017; 35(2):177-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-017-0506-z PMid:29225403 PMCid: PMC5711982.

  • Kudo K, Shirai A. Effect of food availability on larval cannibalism by foundresses of the paper wasp Polistes chinensis antennalis. Insectes Sociaux. 2012; 59(2):279-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-011-0217-3.

  • Suttle KB. The Evolution of Sexual Cannibalism. University of California; Berkeley. 1999.

  • Welke KW, Schneider JM. Sexual cannibalism benefits offspring survival. Animal Behaviour. 2012; 83(1):201-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.027.

  • Schwartz S, Wagner W, Hebets E. Males Can Benefit from Sexual Cannibalism Facilitated by Self-Sacrifice. Current Biology. 2016; 26(20):2794-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.010 PMid:27720621.

  • Pfennig DW, Reeve HK, Sherman PW. Kin recognition and cannibalism in spadefoot toad tadpoles. Animal Behaviour. 1993; 46(1):87-94. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1993.1164.

  • Klug H, Lindstrom K, Mary CMS. Parents benefit from eating offspring: density-dependent egg survivorship compensates for filial cannibalism. Evolution. 2006; 60(10): 2087-95. https://doi.org/10.1554/05-283.1 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01846.x PMid:17133865.

  • Dobzhansky T, Ayala AJ, Stebbbins GL. Evolution. WH. Freeman; San Francisco. 1977; p. 1-572.

  • Simpson GG. Rates of evolution in animals. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution. Princeton University Press; Princeton. 1949; p. 205-28.

  • Simpson GG. The Major Features of Evolution. Columbia University Press; New York. 1953.

  • Huxley JS. Evolution: the Modern Synthesis. George Allen & Unwin; London. 1942.

  • Huxley JS. Evolutionary processes and taxonomy with special reference to grades. Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift; Uppsala. 1958; p. 21-39.

  • Simpson GG. The concept of progress in organic evolution. Social Research. 1974; 41(1):28-51.

  • Williams GC. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton University Press; Princeton. 1966.

  • Stebbins GL. The Basis of Progressive Evolution. University of North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill. 1969.

  • Rensch B. Biophilosophy. Columbia University Press, New York. 1971; p. 1-377.

  • Schaeffer B. The role of experimentation in the origin of higher levels of organization. Systematic Zoology. 1965; 14(4):318-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/2411684 PMid: 5892256.

  • Stanley SM. Macroevolution, Pattern and Process. W. H. Freeman; San Francisco. 1979; p. 1-332.

  • Van Valen LM. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory. 1973; 1(1):1-30.

  • Thoday JM. Natural selection and biological progress. A Century of Darwin (ed. S. A. Barnett). George Allen and Unwin; London. 1958; p. 313-33.

  • Tripathy A, Pradhan RK. Methylation-Assisted Epigenetic Evolution and the Psycho-biology of Human Experiences. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2018.

  • Stanley SM. Effects of competition on rates of evolution, with special reference to bivalve mollusks and mammals. Systematic Biology. 1974; 22(4):486-506.

  • Stanley SM. Trends, rates and patterns of evolution in Bivalvia. Developments in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy. 1977; p. 209-50.


Abstract Views: 237

PDF Views: 0




  • A Critical Analysis of Unusual Prey Predator Relationships with Regard to their Exclusive Evolutionary Advantages

Abstract Views: 237  |  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 study unusual prey-predator relationships and generalize them to include behavior reversals and to find out whether they are actually role reversals or mere misnomers. Methods: Meta-evolutionary Analysis of various cases of role reversal e.g. plant parasitism, plant Carnivory, prey-predator role-reversal and cannibalism to find out their exclusive evolutionary advantages for the species involved. Findings: Most cases of role-reversal are, strictly speaking, not role reversals at all. Rather, such unusual prey-predator relationship is part of their natural method of survival or reproduction. The nomenclature of role-reversal on the basis of just their relative size is thus not proper. Santalum, wrongly designated as an obligate ischolar_main-parasite is rather a self-sacrificing species for its evolution by purposive association without harming the host plants. Similarly, plant carnivory also is a kind of role-reversal, since plants are thought to be preyed upon by animals and not the converse. It is proposed that a proto-instinct has developed in these plants. Prey-predator role-reversals are studied most commonly under role-reversals, but we find that they may not be fit to be called role reversals at all, if that method is the part of the obligatory fulfillment of the survival and reproductive urges. Applications/Improvements: Generalization of role reversals to behavior reversals and their meta-evolutionary analysis.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2018%2Fv11i39%2F131270