Plant-Herbivore Interactions

Author(s):  
May Berenbaum

As is the case with most supposedly modern concepts in evolutionary biology, the idea of coevolution, or reciprocal evolutionary change between interacting species, actually goes back to Charles Darwin. In the introduction to The Origin of Species (1859), he wrote: …In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if wellfounded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration. It is, therefore, of the highest importance to gain a clear insight into the means of modification and coadaptation…. Early on, then, Darwin pointed out the importance of interactions among organisms in determining evolutionary change, as opposed to “external conditions such as climate, food,” or even “the volition” of the organism itself. Interactions among organisms, however, take many forms. Antagonistic interactions, in which one species benefits and the other is harmed, are themselves diverse. Among those interactions in which both species are animals, the gamut runs from predation, in which one species kills and consumes several individuals of the other species during its lifetime, to parasitism, in which one species merely saps the “reserves” and rarely kills its host. Intermediate and unique to the phylum Arthropoda is parasitoidism, in which one species kills its prey, as does a predator, but, like a parasite, is normally restricted to a single host individual. A comparable continuum exists for interactions between an animal and a plant species; these associations are usually referred to as forms of herbivory (with parasitoidism akin to internal seed feeders of plants). In mutualistic interactions, both species benefit from the interaction. Mutualisms can involve interactions between animals and plants, generally in which a food reward from the plant is exchanged for mobility provided by the animal partner.

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Archibald

Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen. Charles Lyell had held similar views to those of Owen, but it is clear from correspondence with Darwin that he was beginning to accept the idea of monophyly of major groups.


1997 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elias L. Khalil

The paper identifies two major conceptual challenges facing evolutionary economics and shows how they parallel similar challenges facing evolutionary and developmental biology. One issue is the differentiation between learning-by-doing, on one hand, and habit formation, on the other. Another issue is the distinction between the cause or origin of evolutionary mutation/innovation, on one side, and the relevant unit which is the subject of evolutionary change, on the other. The failure to identify these two sets of distinction may hinder the articulation of an apropos evolutionary economic theory.


2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Morton

The further scholarship investigates life forms (ecology, evolutionary biology and microbiology) the less those forms can be said to have a single, independent and lasting identity. The further scholarship delves into texts (deconstruction) the less they too can be said to have a single, independent and lasting identity. This similarity is not simply an analogy. Life forms cannot be said to differ in a rigorous way from texts. On many levels and for many reasons, deconstruction and ecology should talk to one another. It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 395–396)


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Glenn-Peter Sætre ◽  
Mark Ravinet

The fields of evolutionary biology and genetics were founded as separate disciplines in the mid-1800s, largely due to the works of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel respectively. It would, however, take decades before biologists finally understood the deep connection between the principles of heredity and the processes of evolution and that neither could be fully understood without the other. This chapter takes a brief look at the history of these disciplines, including how the key concepts, ideas, and technologies, fundamental to all of biology, were discovered and how these have affected our ways of thinking. Many important concepts are foreshadowed here that will be handled at greater depth in later chapters. The chapter ends with a brief review of important methods in contemporary evolutionary genetics and a hint towards future developments in the field.


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-114
Author(s):  
Christine E. Jackson

For 25 years, from 1831 into 1856, the English zoologist William Yarrell was both a friend and adviser to Charles Darwin. He was regarded by Darwin as a wise and eminent naturalist of the older generation. Yarrell was part of a small group of naturalists, including Leonard Jenyns and John Stevens Henslow, whose interests in ornithology, entomology and geology expanded over the years. Their knowledge helped to support publication of the results of the HMS Beagle voyage and to inform Darwin while he was developing his hypotheses on evolution before the publication of On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859.


Paleobiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-177
Author(s):  
James C. Lamsdell ◽  
Curtis R. Congreve

The burgeoning field of phylogenetic paleoecology (Lamsdell et al. 2017) represents a synthesis of the related but differently focused fields of macroecology (Brown 1995) and macroevolution (Stanley 1975). Through a combination of the data and methods of both disciplines, phylogenetic paleoecology leverages phylogenetic theory and quantitative paleoecology to explain the temporal and spatial variation in species diversity, distribution, and disparity. Phylogenetic paleoecology is ideally situated to elucidate many fundamental issues in evolutionary biology, including the generation of new phenotypes and occupation of previously unexploited environments; the nature of relationships among character change, ecology, and evolutionary rates; determinants of the geographic distribution of species and clades; and the underlying phylogenetic signal of ecological selectivity in extinctions and radiations. This is because phylogenetic paleoecology explicitly recognizes and incorporates the quasi-independent nature of evolutionary and ecological data as expressed in the dual biological hierarchies (Eldredge and Salthe 1984; Congreve et al. 2018; Fig. 1), incorporating both as covarying factors rather than focusing on one and treating the other as error within the dataset.


Author(s):  
James Aaron Green

Abstract In Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863), Charles Lyell appraised the distinct contribution made by his protégé, Charles Darwin (On the Origin of Species (1859)), to evolutionary theory: ‘Progression … is not a necessary accompaniment of variation and natural selection [… Darwin’s theory accounts] equally well for what is called degradation, or a retrogressive movement towards a simple structure’. In Rhoda Broughton’s first novel, Not Wisely, but Too Well (1867), written contemporaneously with Lyell’s book, the Crystal Palace at Sydenham prompts precisely this sort of Darwinian ambivalence to progress; but whether British civilization ‘advance[s] or retreat[s]’, her narrator adds that this prophesized state ‘will not be in our days’ – its realization exceeds the single lifespan. This article argues that Not Wisely, but Too Well is attentive to the irreconcilability of Darwinism to the Victorian ‘idea of progress’: Broughton’s novel, distinctly from its peers, raises the retrogressive and nihilistic potentials of Darwin’s theory and purposes them to reflect on the status of the individual in mid-century Britain.


1971 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-91
Author(s):  
MICHAEL J. GENTLE

1. The colour of the minnow Phoxinus phoxinus L. and its ability to undergo colour change were studied after partial and complete blinding. The blinding was accomplished either by section of the optic nerve or by tectal ablation. 2. Following bilateral section of the optic nerve the blinded minnows darken. After the initial darkening, half of the fish pale and the other half remain dark. 3. The colour of the fish blinded by bilateral section of the optic nerve could not be affected by external conditions. 4. Following complete removal of the optic tectum the fish at first paled, but after 24 h they darkened to very variable tints. 5. Unilateral section of the optic nerve coupled with unilateral tectal removal on the same or opposite side did not affect the ability of the fish to change colour. 6. The bilateral removal of the anterior tectum from a blinded darkened fish did not affect its colour. 7. The bilateral removal of the posterior tectum of a darkened fish caused maximal pallor. 8. By a series of lesions an area in the dorsal posterior part of the optic tectum was found to cause darkening in the blinded fish because following its removal the fish paled. 9. It is suggested that the fibres from the tectum may act by exciting or inhibiting the neurones of the paling centre in the anterior medulla.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document