What Is It Called When Two Animals Help Each Other

This article is about the biological term. For the economic theory and other uses, see Mutualism (disambiguation).

Mutually benign interaction between species

Mutualism describes the ecological interaction between two or more species where each species has a cyberspace do good.^[1] Mutualism is a common type of ecological interaction. Prominent examples include about vascular plants engaged in mutualistic interactions with mycorrhizae, flowering plants being pollinated by animals, vascular plants being dispersed by animals, and corals with zooxanthellae, amidst many others. Mutualism tin can be contrasted with interspecific competition, in which each species experiences reduced fitness, and exploitation, or parasitism, in which one species benefits at the "expense" of the other.

The term mutualism was introduced by Pierre-Joseph van Beneden in his 1876 volume Fauna Parasites and Messmates to hateful "mutual help among species".^{[2] [3]}

Mutualism is often conflated with two other types of ecological phenomena: cooperation and symbiosis. Cooperation most commonly refers to increases in fitness through inside-species (intraspecific) interactions, although it has been used (especially in the past) to refer to mutualistic interactions, and it is sometimes used to refer to mutualistic interactions that are not obligate.^[1] Symbiosis involves two species living in close physical contact over a long period of their being and may be mutualistic, parasitic, or commensal, so symbiotic relationships are not always mutualistic, and mutualistic interactions are not always symbiotic. Despite a different definition between mutualistic interactions and symbiosis, mutualistic and symbiosis have been largely used interchangeably in the past, and confusion on their use has persisted.^[4]

Mutualism plays a primal office in ecology and evolution. For example, mutualistic interactions are vital for terrestrial ecosystem function as about 80% of state plants species rely on mycorrhizal relationships with fungi to provide them with inorganic compounds and trace elements.^[five] As another example, the judge of tropical rainforest plants with seed dispersal mutualisms with animals ranges at least from lxx–93.v%.^[half-dozen] In addition, mutualism is thought to take driven the evolution of much of the biological diversity we run across, such as flower forms (important for pollination mutualisms) and co-evolution between groups of species.^[7] Mutualism has also been linked to major evolutionary events, such as the evolution of the eukaryotic cell (symbiogenesis) or the colonization of land by plants in association with mycorrhizal fungi.

Types [edit]

Resource-resources relationships [edit]

Mutualistic relationships tin can be thought of equally a form of "biological barter"^[8] in mycorrhizal associations between plant roots and fungi, with the establish providing carbohydrates to the mucus in return for primarily phosphate but also nitrogenous compounds. Other examples include rhizobia bacteria that gear up nitrogen for leguminous plants (family Fabaceae) in render for energy-containing carbohydrates.^[9]

Service-resource relationships [edit]

Service-resource relationships are mutual. Three of import types are pollination, cleaning symbiosis, and zoochory.

In pollination, a establish trades food resources in the class of nectar or pollen for the service of pollen dispersal.

Phagophiles feed (resources) on ectoparasites, thereby providing anti-pest service, every bit in cleaning symbiosis. Elacatinus and Gobiosoma, genera of gobies, feed on ectoparasites of their clients while cleaning them.^[x]

Zoochory is the dispersal of the seeds of plants past animals. This is similar to pollination in that the plant produces food resources (for example, fleshy fruit, overabundance of seeds) for animals that disperse the seeds (service). Plants may annunciate these resource using colour ^[11] and a diverseness of other fruit characteristics.

Another type is ant protection of aphids, where the aphids trade carbohydrate-rich honeydew (a by-production of their mode of feeding on constitute sap) in return for defense force against predators such as ladybugs.

Service-service relationships [edit]

Strict service-service interactions are very rare, for reasons that are far from clear.^[eight] One example is the relationship between sea anemones and anemone fish in the family Pomacentridae: the anemones provide the fish with protection from predators (which cannot tolerate the stings of the anemone's tentacles) and the fish defend the anemones confronting butterflyfish (family Chaetodontidae), which consume anemones. However, in common with many mutualisms, there is more than ane aspect to it: in the anemonefish-anemone mutualism, waste ammonia from the fish feeds the symbiotic algae that are found in the anemone's tentacles.^{[12] [13]} Therefore, what appears to exist a service-service mutualism in fact has a service-resource component. A second case is that of the relationship between some ants in the genus Pseudomyrmex and copse in the genus Acacia, such as the whistling thorn and bullhorn acacia. The ants nest inside the establish'southward thorns. In substitution for shelter, the ants protect acacias from assail by herbivores (which they often eat when those are small enough, introducing a resource component to this service-service relationship) and competition from other plants by trimming back vegetation that would shade the acacia. In addition, another service-resource component is present, every bit the ants regularly feed on lipid-rich food-bodies called Beltian bodies that are on the Acacia plant.^[14]

In the neotropics, the ant Myrmelachista schumanni makes its nest in special cavities in Duroia hirsute. Plants in the vicinity that belong to other species are killed with formic acrid. This selective gardening tin can be so ambitious that small areas of the rainforest are dominated by Duroia hirsute. These peculiar patches are known past local people every bit "devil's gardens".^[15]

In some of these relationships, the cost of the ant'due south protection tin exist quite expensive. Cordia sp. trees in the Amazonian rainforest have a kind of partnership with Allomerus sp. ants, which make their nests in modified leaves. To increment the amount of living space available, the ants will destroy the tree'due south flower buds. The flowers die and leaves develop instead, providing the ants with more dwellings. Another blazon of Allomerus sp. ant lives with the Hirtella sp. tree in the same forests, but in this relationship, the tree has turned the tables on the ants. When the tree is ready to produce flowers, the ant abodes on certain branches begin to wither and shrink, forcing the occupants to flee, leaving the tree's flowers to develop complimentary from ant set on.^[15]

The term "species group" tin can be used to describe the manner in which individual organisms grouping together. In this non-taxonomic context ane can refer to "same-species groups" and "mixed-species groups." While same-species groups are the norm, examples of mixed-species groups abound. For example, zebra (Equus burchelli) and wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) can remain in clan during periods of long distance migration across the Serengeti as a strategy for thwarting predators. Cercopithecus mitis and Cercopithecus ascanius, species of monkey in the Kakamega Wood of Kenya, can stay in close proximity and travel along exactly the aforementioned routes through the wood for periods of upward to 12 hours. These mixed-species groups cannot be explained past the coincidence of sharing the same habitat. Rather, they are created by the active behavioural choice of at to the lowest degree one of the species in question.^[16]

Mathematical modeling [edit]

Mathematical treatments of mutualisms, like the written report of mutualisms in general, has lagged behind those of predation, or predator-casualty, consumer-resource, interactions. In models of mutualisms, the terms "blazon I" and "type II" functional responses refer to the linear and saturating relationships, respectively, between benefit provided to an individual of species 1 (y-centrality) on the density of species 2 (x-axis).

Blazon I functional response [edit]

One of the simplest frameworks for modeling species interactions is the Lotka–Volterra equations.^[17] In this model, the change in population density of the 2 mutualists is quantified as:

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\frac {dN_{ane}}{dt}}&=r_{1}N_{1}-\alpha _{11}N_{1}^{2}+\beta _{12}N_{1}N_{2}\\[8pt]{\frac {dN_{two}}{dt}}&=r_{two}N_{2}-\alpha _{22}N_{ii}^{2}+\beta _{21}N_{one}N_{2}\end{aligned}}}$

where

Mutualism is in essence the logistic growth equation + mutualistic interaction. The mutualistic interaction term represents the increase in population growth of species one as a upshot of the presence of greater numbers of species two, and vice versa. Equally the mutualistic term is always positive, it may lead to unrealistic unbounded growth as information technology happens with the uncomplicated model.^[18] So, information technology is of import to include a saturation machinery to avoid the problem.

Type II functional response [edit]

In 1989, David Hamilton Wright modified the Lotka–Volterra equations by adding a new term, βM/K, to represent a mutualistic relationship.^[19] Wright also considered the concept of saturation, which means that with college densities, there are decreasing benefits of further increases of the mutualist population. Without saturation, species' densities would increment indefinitely. Because that is not possible due to environmental constraints and carrying chapters, a model that includes saturation would be more than accurate. Wright's mathematical theory is based on the premise of a simple two-species mutualism model in which the benefits of mutualism become saturated due to limits posed by handling time. Wright defines handling fourth dimension as the time needed to process a food item, from the initial interaction to the showtime of a search for new food items and assumes that processing of nutrient and searching for food are mutually exclusive. Mutualists that display foraging behavior are exposed to the restrictions on handling time. Mutualism can be associated with symbiosis.

Handling fourth dimension interactions In 1959, C. S. Holling performed his classic disc experiment that assumed the post-obit: that (1), the number of nutrient items captured is proportional to the allotted searching time; and (two), that there is a variable of handling time that exists separately from the notion of search time. He then developed an equation for the Type II functional response, which showed that the feeding charge per unit is equivalent to

${\displaystyle {\cfrac {ax}{one+axT_{H}}}}$

where,

• a=the instantaneous discovery rate
• 10=food item density
• T_H=treatment time

The equation that incorporates Type II functional response and mutualism is:

${\displaystyle {\frac {dN}{dt}}=N\left[r(ane-cN)+{\cfrac {baM}{1+aT_{H}M}}\correct]}$

where

• North and Thousand=densities of the ii mutualists
• r=intrinsic rate of increase of N
• c=coefficient measuring negative intraspecific interaction. This is equivalent to inverse of the carrying chapters, 1/K, of North, in the logistic equation.
• a=instantaneous discovery rate
• b=coefficient converting encounters with M to new units of North

or, equivalently,

${\displaystyle {\frac {dN}{dt}}=N[r(1-cN)+\beta K/(Ten+M)]}$

where

• 10=1/a T _H
• β=b/T _H

This model is most effectively applied to complimentary-living species that meet a number of individuals of the mutualist part in the course of their existences. Wright notes that models of biological mutualism tend to be like qualitatively, in that the featured isoclines generally have a positive decreasing gradient, and more often than not similar isocline diagrams. Mutualistic interactions are all-time visualized equally positively sloped isoclines, which tin can be explained by the fact that the saturation of benefits accorded to mutualism or restrictions posed by outside factors contribute to a decreasing slope.

The blazon II functional response is visualized as the graph of ${\displaystyle {\cfrac {baM}{1+aT_{H}M}}}$ vs. M.

Construction of networks [edit]

Mutualistic networks made up out of the interaction between plants and pollinators were found to have a similar structure in very dissimilar ecosystems on dissimilar continents, consisting of entirely different species.^[xx] The structure of these mutualistic networks may have large consequences for the way in which pollinator communities respond to increasingly harsh conditions and on the community carrying capacity.^[21]

Mathematical models that examine the consequences of this network structure for the stability of pollinator communities propose that the specific way in which plant-pollinator networks are organized minimizes competition between pollinators,^[22] reduce the spread of indirect effects and thus heighten ecosystem stability^[23] and may even lead to strong indirect facilitation betwixt pollinators when weather are harsh.^[24] This ways that pollinator species together can survive under harsh conditions. Simply it also means that pollinator species collapse simultaneously when atmospheric condition pass a critical betoken.^[25] This simultaneous collapse occurs, because pollinator species depend on each other when surviving under hard weather.^[24]

Such a community-wide collapse, involving many pollinator species, can occur suddenly when increasingly harsh weather condition pass a critical point and recovery from such a plummet might not exist easy. The improvement in conditions needed for pollinators to recover could be substantially larger than the improvement needed to return to conditions at which the pollinator community collapsed.^[24]

Humans [edit]

Humans are involved in mutualisms with other species: their gut flora is essential for efficient digestion.^[26] Infestations of head lice might take been beneficial for humans by fostering an immune response that helps to reduce the threat of body louse borne lethal diseases.^[27]

Some relationships between humans and domesticated animals and plants are to different degrees mutualistic. For case, agronomical varieties of maize provide food for humans and are unable to reproduce without man intervention considering the leafy sheath does non fall open up, and the seedhead (the "corn on the cob") does not shatter to besprinkle the seeds naturally.^[28]

In traditional agriculture, some plants have mutualist as companion plants, providing each other with shelter, soil fertility and/or natural pest control. For instance, beans may grow up cornstalks as a trellis, while fixing nitrogen in the soil for the corn, a phenomenon that is used in Three Sisters farming.^[29]

One researcher has proposed that the primal advantage Homo sapiens had over Neanderthals in competing over similar habitats was the one-time's mutualism with dogs.^[thirty]

Evolution of mutualism [edit]

Evolution by type [edit]

Every generation of every organism needs nutrients – and similar nutrients – more than they need particular defensive characteristics, every bit the fettle benefit of these vary heavily especially by environs. This may exist the reason that hosts are more than probable to evolve to become dependent on vertically transmitted bacterial mutualists which provide nutrients than those providing defensive benefits. This design is generalized beyond bacteria past Yamada et al 2015's demonstration that undernourished Drosophila are heavily dependent on their fungal symbiont Issatchenkia orientalis for amino acids.^[31]

Mutualism breakdown [edit]

Mutualisms are not static, and can be lost by evolution.^[32] Sachs and Simms (2006) suggest that this can occur via four main pathways:

1. Ane mutualist shifts to parasitism, and no longer benefits its partner,^[32] such as headlice^{[ citation needed ]}
2. One partner abandons the mutualism and lives autonomously^[32]
3. One partner may go extinct^[32]
4. A partner may be switched to another species^[33]

There are many examples of mutualism breakup. For example, plant lineages inhabiting food-rich environments have evolutionarily abased mycorrhizal mutualisms many times independently.^[34]

Measuring and defining mutualism [edit]

Measuring the exact fitness do good to the individuals in a mutualistic relationship is not always straightforward, particularly when the individuals tin receive benefits from a diversity of species, for instance most plant-pollinator mutualisms. It is therefore common to categorise mutualisms according to the closeness of the association, using terms such as obligate and facultative. Defining "closeness", however, is also problematic. Information technology can refer to mutual dependency (the species cannot live without i another) or the biological intimacy of the human relationship in relation to concrete closeness (e.g., 1 species living within the tissues of the other species).^[viii]

See besides [edit]

• Arbuscular mycorrhiza
• Co-adaptation
• Coevolution
• Ecological facilitation
• Frugivore
• Greater honeyguide – has a mutualism with humans
• Interspecies communication
• Müllerian mimicry
• Mutualisms and conservation
• Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
• Symbiogenesis

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Bronstein, Judith (2015). Mutualism. Oxford University Press.
2. ^ Van Beneden, Pierre-Joseph (1876). Animal Parasites and Messmates. London: Henry S. Rex.
3. ^ Bronstein, J. L. (2015). The study of mutualism. Mutualism. Oxford Academy Press. ISBN9780199675654. ^{[ page needed ]}
4. ^ Douglas, Angela E. (December 2014). The Symbiotic Habit. Usa: Princeton Academy Printing. ISBN9780691113425.
5. ^ Wang, B. (2006). "Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants". Mycorrhiza. 16 (five): 299–363. doi:10.1007/s00572-005-0033-6. PMID 16845554. S2CID 30468942.
6. ^ Jordano, P. 2000. Fruits and frugivory. pp. 125–166 in: Fenner, One thousand. (Ed) Seeds: the environmental of regeneration in plant communities. CABI.
7. ^ Thompson, J. North. 2005 The geographic mosaic of coevolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8. ^ ^{a b c} Ollerton, J. 2006. "Biological Barter": Interactions of Specialization Compared across Different Mutualisms. pp. 411–435 in: Waser, N.Yard. & Ollerton, J. (Eds) Found-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization. University of Chicago Printing.
9. ^ Denison, RF; Kiers, ET (2004). "Why are most rhizobia beneficial to their plant hosts, rather than parasitic". Microbes and Infection. 6 (xiii): 1235–1239. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2004.08.005. PMID 15488744.
10. ^ Yard.C. Soares; I.M. Côté; S.C. Cardoso & R.Bshary (Baronial 2008). "The cleaning goby mutualism: a arrangement without punishment, partner switching or tactile stimulation" (PDF). Journal of Zoology. 276 (3): 306–312. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00489.ten.
11. ^ Lim, Ganges; Burns, Kevin C. (24 November 2021). "Practise fruit reflectance properties bear upon avian frugivory in New Zealand?". New Zealand Periodical of Botany: 1–11. doi:10.1080/0028825X.2021.2001664. ISSN 0028-825X. S2CID 244683146.
12. ^ Porat, D.; Chadwick-Furman, Due north. E. (2004). "Effects of anemonefish on giant sea anemones: expansion behavior, growth, and survival". Hydrobiologia. 530 (one–3): 513–520. doi:ten.1007/s10750-004-2688-y. S2CID 2251533.
13. ^ Porat, D.; Chadwick-Furman, N. East. (2005). "Furnishings of anemonefish on giant sea anemones: ammonium uptake, zooxanthella content and tissue regeneration". Mar. Freshw.Behav. Phys. 38: 43–51. doi:x.1080/10236240500057929. S2CID 53051081.
14. ^ "Bloated Thorn Acacias". www2.palomar.edu . Retrieved 22 Feb 2019.
15. ^ ^{a b} Piper, Ross (2007), Boggling Animals: An Encyclopedia of Curious and Unusual Animals, Greenwood Press.
16. ^ Tosh CR, Jackson AL, Ruxton GD (March 2007). "Individuals from unlike-looking animal species may group together to confuse shared predators: simulations with artificial neural networks". Proc. Biol. Sci. 274 (1611): 827–32. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3760. PMC2093981. PMID 17251090.
17. ^ May, R., 1981. Models for Two Interacting Populations. In: May, R.M., Theoretical Ecology. Principles and Applications, 2nd ed. pp. 78–104.
18. ^ García-Algarra, Javier (2014). "Rethinking the logistic arroyo for population dynamics of mutualistic interactions" (PDF). Journal of Theoretical Biology. 363: 332–343. arXiv:1305.5411. Bibcode:2014JThBi.363..332G. doi:x.1016/j.jtbi.2014.08.039. PMID 25173080. S2CID 15940333.
19. ^ Wright, David Hamilton (1989). "A Elementary, Stable Model of Mutualism Incorporating Handling Time". The American Naturalist. 134 (four): 664–667. doi:10.1086/285003. S2CID 83502337.
20. ^ Bascompte, J.; Jordano, P.; Melián, C. J.; Olesen, J. M. (2003). "The nested assembly of plant–brute mutualistic networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (xvi): 9383–9387. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.9383B. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1633576100. PMC170927. PMID 12881488.
21. ^ Suweis, S.; Simini, F.; Banavar, J; Maritan, A. (2013). "Emergence of structural and dynamical properties of ecological mutualistic networks". Nature. 500 (7463): 449–452. arXiv:1308.4807. Bibcode:2013Natur.500..449S. doi:10.1038/nature12438. PMID 23969462. S2CID 4412384.
22. ^ Bastolla, U.; Fortuna, K. A.; Pascual-García, A.; Ferrera, A.; Luque, B.; Bascompte, J. (2009). "The compages of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity". Nature. 458 (7241): 1018–1020. Bibcode:2009Natur.458.1018B. doi:x.1038/nature07950. PMID 19396144. S2CID 4395634.
23. ^ Suweis, Southward., Grilli, J., Banavar, J. R., Allesina, S., & Maritan, A. (2015) Effect of localization on the stability of mutualistic ecological networks. "Nature Communications", six
24. ^ ^{a b c} Lever, J. J.; Nes, E. H.; Scheffer, M.; Bascompte, J. (2014). "The sudden collapse of pollinator communities". Ecology Letters. 17 (three): 350–359. doi:10.1111/ele.12236. hdl:10261/91808. PMID 24386999.
25. ^ Garcia-Algarra, J.; Pasotr, J. M.; Iriondo, J. One thousand.; Galeano, J. (2017). "Ranking of critical species to preserve the functionality of mutualistic networks using the k-core decomposition". PeerJ. v: e3321. doi:10.7717/peerj.3321. PMC5438587. PMID 28533969.
26. ^ Sears CL (October 2005). "A dynamic partnership: celebrating our gut flora". Anaerobe. eleven (five): 247–51. doi:ten.1016/j.anaerobe.2005.05.001. PMID 16701579.
27. ^ Rozsa, 50; Apari, P. (2012). "Why infest the loved ones – inherent human behaviour indicates former mutualism with head lice" (PDF). Parasitology. 139 (6): 696–700. doi:ten.1017/s0031182012000017. PMID 22309598. S2CID 206247019.
28. ^ "Symbiosis – Symbioses Between Humans And Other Species". Net Industries. Retrieved ix December 2012.
29. ^ Mount Pleasant, Jane (2006). "The science behind the Three Sisters mound arrangement: An agronomic cess of an indigenous agricultural organization in the northeast". In Staller, John East.; Tykot, Robert H.; Benz, Bruce F. (eds.). Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Development of Maize. Amsterdam: Academic Press. pp. 529–537. ISBN978-1-5987-4496-5.
30. ^ Shipman, Pat (2015). The Invaders: How Humans and Their Dogs Drove Neanderthals to Extinction. Cambridge, Maryland: Harvard University Printing.
31. ^ Biedermann, Peter H.Westward.; Vega, Fernando East. (7 Jan 2020). "Environmental and Development of Insect–Fungus Mutualisms". Annual Review of Entomology. Annual Reviews. 65 (1): 431–455. doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-024910. ISSN 0066-4170. PMID 31610133. S2CID 204704243.
32. ^ ^{a b c d} Sachs, JL; Simms, EL (2006). "Pathways to mutualism breakdown". TREE. 21 (x): 585–592. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.06.018. PMID 16828927.
33. ^ Werner, Gijsbert D. A.; Cornelissen, Johannes H. C.; Cornwell, William K.; Soudzilovskaia, Nadejda A.; Kattge, Jens; West, Stuart A.; Kiers, Eastward. Toby (xxx April 2018). "Symbiont switching and alternative resource conquering strategies drive mutualism breakup". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. National Academy of Sciences. 115 (20): 5229–5234. doi:10.1073/pnas.1721629115. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC5960305. PMID 29712857. S2CID 14055644.
34. ^ Wang, B.; Qiu, Y.-L. (half dozen May 2006). "Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants". Mycorrhiza. International Mycorrhiza Society (Springer). 16 (5): 299–363. doi:10.1007/s00572-005-0033-half dozen. ISSN 0940-6360. PMID 16845554. S2CID 30468942.

Further references [edit]

• Angier, Natalie (22 July 2016). "African Tribesmen Can Talk Birds into Helping Them Find Dear". The New York Times.
• Bascompte, J.; Jordano, P.; Melián, C. J.; Olesen, J. M. (2003). "The nested assembly of constitute–brute mutualistic networks". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 100 (16): 9383–9387. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.9383B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1633576100. PMC170927. PMID 12881488.
• Bastolla, U.; Fortuna, G. A.; Pascual-García, A.; Ferrera, A.; Luque, B.; Bascompte, J. (2009). "The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity". Nature. 458 (7241): 1018–1020. Bibcode:2009Natur.458.1018B. doi:10.1038/nature07950. PMID 19396144. S2CID 4395634. * Breton, Lorraine Yard.; Addicott, John F. (1992). "Density-Dependent Mutualism in an Aphid-Emmet Interaction". Ecology. 73 (6): 2175–2180. doi:x.2307/1941465. JSTOR 1941465.
• Bronstein, JL (1994). "Our current understanding of mutualism". Quarterly Review of Biological science. 69 (ane): 31–51. doi:10.1086/418432. S2CID 85294431.
• Bronstein, JL (2001). "The exploitation of mutualisms". Ecology Letters. 4 (3): 277–287. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00218.x.
• Bronstein JL. 2001. The costs of mutualism. American Zoologist 41 (4): 825-839 South
• Bronstein, JL; Alarcon, R; Geber, M (2006). "The evolution of institute-insect mutualisms". New Phytologist. 172 (three): 412–28. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01864.x. PMID 17083673.
• Denison, RF; Kiers, ET (2004). "Why are about rhizobia benign to their institute hosts, rather than parasitic?". Microbes and Infection. vi (13): 1235–1239. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2004.08.005. PMID 15488744.
• DeVries, PJ; Bakery, I (1989). "Butterfly exploitation of an ant-institute mutualism: Adding insult of herbivory". Periodical of the New York Entomological Guild. 97 (3): 332–340.
• Hoeksema, J.D.; Bruna, E.K. (2000). "Pursuing the large questions nearly interspecific mutualism: a review of theoretical approaches". Oecologia. 125 (3): 321–330. Bibcode:2000Oecol.125..321H. doi:10.1007/s004420000496. PMID 28547326. S2CID 22756212.
• Jahn, G.C.; Beardsley, J.Westward. (2000). "Interactions of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on pineapple". Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Gild. 34: 181–185.
• Jahn, Gary C.; Beardsley, J. W.; González-Hernández, H. (2003). "A review of the association of ants with mealybug wilt disease of pineapple" (PDF). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society. 36: nine–28.
• Lever, J. J.; Nes, Due east. H.; Scheffer, M.; Bascompte, J. (2014). "The sudden collapse of pollinator communities". Ecology Messages. 17 (3): 350–359. doi:x.1111/ele.12236. hdl:10261/91808. PMID 24386999.
• Noe, R.; Hammerstein, P. (1994). "Biological markets: supply and need make up one's mind the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 35: 1–xi. doi:x.1007/bf00167053. S2CID 37085820.
• Ollerton, J. 2006. "Biological Barter": Patterns of Specialization Compared across Different Mutualisms. pp. 411–435 in: Waser, N.1000. & Ollerton, J. (Eds) Institute-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization. Academy of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-87400-v
• Paszkowski, U (2006). "Mutualism and parasitism: the yin and yang of establish symbioses". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. ix (4): 364–370. doi:x.1016/j.pbi.2006.05.008. PMID 16713732.
• Porat, D.; Chadwick-Furman, N. E. (2004). "Effects of anemonefish on giant sea anemones:expansion behavior, growth, and survival". Hydrobiologia. 530 (1–three): 513–520. doi:10.1007/s10750-004-2688-y. S2CID 2251533.
• Porat, D.; Chadwick-Furman, Northward. E. (2005). "Effects of anemonefish on behemothic sea anemones: ammonium uptake, zooxanthella content and tissue regeneration". Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phys. 38: 43–51. doi:10.1080/10236240500057929. S2CID 53051081.
• Thompson, J. Northward. 2005. The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. University of Chicago Printing. ISBN 978-0-226-79762-five
• Wright, David Hamilton (1989). "A Simple, Stable Model of Mutualism Incorporating Handling Time". The American Naturalist. 134 (4): 664–667. doi:10.1086/285003. S2CID 83502337.

Further reading [edit]

• Boucher, D. Thousand.; James, Southward.; Keeler, K. (1984). "The ecology of mutualism". Almanac Review of Ecology and Systematics. 13: 315–347. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.13.110182.001531.
• Boucher, D. H. (editor) (1985) The Biology of Mutualism : Environmental and Evolution London : Croom Helm 388 p. ISBN 0-7099-3238-3

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28biology%29

Posted by: oglesbysorocalked.blogspot.com

Share this post