更改

{{Main|Predation}}

{{Main|Predation}}

[[Predator]]s and prey interact and coevolve: the predator to catch the prey more effectively, the prey to escape. The coevolution of the two mutually imposes [[selective pressure]]s. These often lead to an [[evolutionary arms race]] between prey and predator, resulting in [[anti-predator adaptation]]s.<ref>{{cite web|title=Predator-Prey Relationships|url=https://necsi.edu/predator-prey-relationships|publisher=New England Complex Systems Institute|access-date=17 January 2017}}</ref>

[[Predator]]s and prey interact and coevolve: the predator to catch the prey more effectively, the prey to escape. The coevolution of the two mutually imposes [[selective pressure]]s. These often lead to an [[evolutionary arms race]] between prey and predator, resulting in [[anti-predator adaptation]]s.

Predators and prey interact and coevolve: the predator to catch the prey more effectively, the prey to escape. The coevolution of the two mutually imposes selective pressures. These often lead to an evolutionary arms race between prey and predator, resulting in anti-predator adaptations.

Predators and prey interact and coevolve: the predator to catch the prey more effectively, the prey to escape. The coevolution of the two mutually imposes selective pressures. These often lead to an evolutionary arms race between prey and predator, resulting in anti-predator adaptations.

捕食者和猎物互动并共同演化：捕食者去更有效地捕捉猎物，猎物去逃离追捕。两者的共同演化相互施加这一选择压。这往往导致猎物和捕食者之间的进化军备竞赛，并导致反捕食者适应。

捕食者和猎物互动并共同演化：捕食者去更有效地捕捉猎物，猎物去逃离追捕。两者的共同演化相互施加这一选择压。这往往导致猎物和捕食者之间的进化军备竞赛，并导致反捕食者适应。<ref>{{cite web|title=Predator-Prey Relationships|url=https://necsi.edu/predator-prey-relationships|publisher=New England Complex Systems Institute|access-date=17 January 2017}}</ref>

The same applies to [[herbivore]]s, animals that eat plants, and the plants that they eat.  [[Paul R. Ehrlich]] and [[Peter H. Raven]] in 1964 proposed the theory of [[escape and radiate coevolution]] to describe the evolutionary diversification of plants and butterflies. In the [[Rocky Mountains]], [[red squirrel]]s and [[crossbill]]s (seed-eating birds) compete for seeds of the [[lodgepole pine]]. The squirrels get at pine seeds by gnawing through the cone scales, whereas the crossbills get at the seeds by extracting them with their unusual crossed mandibles. In areas where there are squirrels, the lodgepole's cones are heavier, and have fewer seeds and thinner scales, making it more difficult for squirrels to get at the seeds. Conversely, where there are crossbills but no squirrels, the cones are lighter in construction, but have thicker scales, making it more difficult for crossbills to get at the seeds. The lodgepole's cones are in an evolutionary arms race with the two kinds of herbivore.

The same applies to [[herbivore]]s, animals that eat plants, and the plants that they eat.  [[Paul R. Ehrlich]] and [[Peter H. Raven]] in 1964 proposed the theory of [[escape and radiate coevolution]] to describe the evolutionary diversification of plants and butterflies. In the [[Rocky Mountains]], [[red squirrel]]s and [[crossbill]]s (seed-eating birds) compete for seeds of the [[lodgepole pine]]. The squirrels get at pine seeds by gnawing through the cone scales, whereas the crossbills get at the seeds by extracting them with their unusual crossed mandibles. In areas where there are squirrels, the lodgepole's cones are heavier, and have fewer seeds and thinner scales, making it more difficult for squirrels to get at the seeds. Conversely, where there are crossbills but no squirrels, the cones are lighter in construction, but have thicker scales, making it more difficult for crossbills to get at the seeds. The lodgepole's cones are in an evolutionary arms race with the two kinds of herbivore.

多种蜂和长舌蜜蜂共同进化，不论是成对的还是“广泛”进化的，都被称为公会。

多种蜂和长舌蜜蜂共同进化，不论是成对的还是“广泛”进化的，都被称为公会。

The types of coevolution listed so far have been described as if they operated pairwise (also called specific coevolution), in which traits of one species have evolved in direct response to traits of a second species, and vice versa. This is not always the case. Another evolutionary mode arises where evolution is reciprocal, but is among a group of species rather than exactly two. This is variously called guild or diffuse coevolution. For instance, a trait in several species of [[flowering plant]], such as offering its [[nectar]] at the end of a long tube, can coevolve with a trait in one or several species of pollinating insects, such as a long proboscis. More generally, flowering plants are pollinated by insects from different families including [[bee]]s, [[fly|flies]], and [[beetle]]s, all of which form a broad [[guild (ecology)|guild]] of [[pollinator]]s which respond to the nectar or pollen produced by flowers.<ref name=Juenger>Juenger, Thomas, and [[Joy Bergelson]]. "Pairwise versus diffuse natural selection and the multiple herbivores of scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata." Evolution (1998): 1583–1592.</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Gullan, P. J. |author2=Cranston, P. S. |date=2010 |title=The Insects: An Outline of Entomology |url=https://archive.org/details/insectsoutlineen00pjgu |url-access=limited |publisher=Wiley |edition=4th |isbn=978-1-118-84615-5 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/insectsoutlineen00pjgu/page/n315 291]–293}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rader |first1=Romina |last2=Bartomeus |first2=Ignasi |display-authors=etal |title=Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination |journal=PNAS |date=2016 |volume=113 |issue=1 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1517092112 |pmid=26621730 |pmc=4711867 |pages=146–151 |bibcode=2016PNAS..113..146R|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The types of coevolution listed so far have been described as if they operated pairwise (also called specific coevolution), in which traits of one species have evolved in direct response to traits of a second species, and vice versa. This is not always the case. Another evolutionary mode arises where evolution is reciprocal, but is among a group of species rather than exactly two. This is variously called guild or diffuse coevolution. For instance, a trait in several species of [[flowering plant]], such as offering its [[nectar]] at the end of a long tube, can coevolve with a trait in one or several species of pollinating insects, such as a long proboscis. More generally, flowering plants are pollinated by insects from different families including [[bee]]s, [[fly|flies]], and [[beetle]]s, all of which form a broad [[guild (ecology)|guild]] of [[pollinator]]s which respond to the nectar or pollen produced by flowers.

The types of coevolution listed so far have been described as if they operated pairwise (also called specific coevolution), in which traits of one species have evolved in direct response to traits of a second species, and vice versa. This is not always the case. Another evolutionary mode arises where evolution is reciprocal, but is among a group of species rather than exactly two. This is variously called guild or diffuse coevolution. For instance, a trait in several species of flowering plant, such as offering its nectar at the end of a long tube, can coevolve with a trait in one or several species of pollinating insects, such as a long proboscis. More generally, flowering plants are pollinated by insects from different families including bees, flies, and beetles, all of which form a broad guild of pollinators which respond to the nectar or pollen produced by flowers.Juenger, Thomas, and Joy Bergelson. "Pairwise versus diffuse natural selection and the multiple herbivores of scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata." Evolution (1998): 1583–1592.

The types of coevolution listed so far have been described as if they operated pairwise (also called specific coevolution), in which traits of one species have evolved in direct response to traits of a second species, and vice versa. This is not always the case. Another evolutionary mode arises where evolution is reciprocal, but is among a group of species rather than exactly two. This is variously called guild or diffuse coevolution. For instance, a trait in several species of flowering plant, such as offering its nectar at the end of a long tube, can coevolve with a trait in one or several species of pollinating insects, such as a long proboscis. More generally, flowering plants are pollinated by insects from different families including bees, flies, and beetles, all of which form a broad guild of pollinators which respond to the nectar or pollen produced by flowers.Juenger, Thomas, and Joy Bergelson. "Pairwise versus diffuse natural selection and the multiple herbivores of scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata." Evolution (1998): 1583–1592.

== Geographic mosaic theory ==

== Geographic mosaic theory ==

The geographic mosaic theory of coevolution was developed by John N. Thompson as a way of linking the ecological and evolutionary processes that shape interactions among species across ecosystems. It is based on three observations that are taken as assumptions: (1) species are usually groups of populations that are somewhat genetically distinct from each other, (2) interacting species often co-occur in only parts of their geographic ranges, and (3) interactions among species differ ecologically among environments.

The geographic mosaic theory of coevolution was developed by John N. Thompson as a way of linking the ecological and evolutionary processes that shape interactions among species across ecosystems. It is based on three observations that are taken as assumptions: (1) species are usually groups of populations that are somewhat genetically distinct from each other, (2) interacting species often co-occur in only parts of their geographic ranges, and (3) interactions among species differ ecologically among environments.

From these assumptions, geographic mosaic theory suggests that natural selection on interactions among species is driven by three sources of variation:

From these assumptions, geographic mosaic theory suggests that natural selection on interactions among species is driven by three sources of variation:

From these assumptions, geographic mosaic theory suggests that natural selection on interactions among species is driven by three sources of variation:

From these assumptions, geographic mosaic theory suggests that natural selection on interactions among species is driven by three sources of variation:

1. ''Geographic selection mosaics'' occur in interactions among species, because genes are expressed in different ways in different environments and because different genes are favored in different environments. For example, natural selection on an interaction between a parasite population and a host population may differ between very dry environments and very wet environments. Alternatively, an interaction between two or more species may be antagonistic in some environments but mutualistic (beneficial to both or all species) in other environments.

1. ''Geographic selection mosaics'' occur in interactions among species, because genes are expressed in different ways in different environments and because different genes are favored in different environments. For example, natural selection on an interaction between a parasite population and a host population may differ between very dry environments and very wet environments. Alternatively, an interaction between two or more species may be antagonistic in some environments but mutualistic (beneficial to both or all species) in other environments.

1. Geographic selection mosaics occur in interactions among species, because genes are expressed in different ways in different environments and because different genes are favored in different environments. For example, natural selection on an interaction between a parasite population and a host population may differ between very dry environments and very wet environments. Alternatively, an interaction between two or more species may be antagonistic in some environments but mutualistic (beneficial to both or all species) in other environments.

1. Geographic selection mosaics occur in interactions among species, because genes are expressed in different ways in different environments and because different genes are favored in different environments. For example, natural selection on an interaction between a parasite population and a host population may differ between very dry environments and very wet environments. Alternatively, an interaction between two or more species may be antagonistic in some environments but mutualistic (beneficial to both or all species) in other environments.

1.地理选择马赛克发生在物种之间的相互作用，因为基因在不同的环境中以不同的方式表达，因为不同的基因在不同的环境中受欢迎。例如，寄生虫种群和宿主种群相互作用的自然选择在非常干燥的环境和非常湿润的环境之间可能有所不同。或者，两个或两个以上物种之间的相互作用在某些环境中可能是对抗性的，但在其他环境中是互惠性的(对两个或所有物种都有益)。

# ''地理选择镶嵌''发生在物种的相互作用之间；因为基因在不同的环境中以不同的方式表达，而且不同的基因会在不同的环境中各受欢迎。例如，寄生虫种群和宿主种群之间相互作用的自然选择在非常干燥的环境和非常湿润的环境之间可能有所不同。或者，两个或两个以上物种之间的相互作用在某些环境中可能是对抗性的，但在其他环境中是互惠性的(对两个或所有物种都有益)。

2. ''Coevolutionary hotspots and coldspots'' occur because natural selection on interactions among species is reciprocal in some environments but not in others. For example, a symbiont population may decrease the survival or reproduction of its hosts in one environment, but it may have no effect on host survival or reproduction in another environment. When detrimental, natural selection will favor evolutionary responses in the host population, resulting in a coevolutionary hotspot of ongoing reciprocal evolutionary changes in the parasite and host populations. When the symbiont has no effect on the survival and reproduction of the host, natural selection on the symbiont population will not favor an evolutionary response by the host population (i.e, a coevolutionary coldspot).

2. ''Coevolutionary hotspots and coldspots'' occur because natural selection on interactions among species is reciprocal in some environments but not in others. For example, a symbiont population may decrease the survival or reproduction of its hosts in one environment, but it may have no effect on host survival or reproduction in another environment. When detrimental, natural selection will favor evolutionary responses in the host population, resulting in a coevolutionary hotspot of ongoing reciprocal evolutionary changes in the parasite and host populations. When the symbiont has no effect on the survival and reproduction of the host, natural selection on the symbiont population will not favor an evolutionary response by the host population (i.e, a coevolutionary coldspot).