Optimization processes and effects are found in all biological systems; however,
it is hard to prove that the adaptations of individuals, species and/or communities
reflect a trend toward optimality in complex systems. Even if every subsystem was
trending toward optimization of each process, the result would not be optimality, as
many of the processes are contradictory. E.g. optimizing the quality of food for an
animal means migration in most cases. Optimizing energy use would favor the
opposite—a reduction in movement. Thus, optimality in terms of foraging and
reducing the loss of energy can only be a compromise (Kratochwil and Krausch
2016; Reluga and Shaw 2015).
Survival of the fittest often predicts that fitness can be a determining factor in
competition, however, in ‘teams’ or interactions, this may not be the case. E.g., if a
strong and a weak person work together in a team the group can become more
productive over time through communication (education) and/or division of labour.
However, if there is no shared motivation, competition or cooperation there will also
be no reason for improvement (Grant et al. 2014; Inouye 2001; Heylighen 1992a, b;
Palmer and White 1994).
Mutualisms are often described as plus-plus-relationship. Other relationships,
where one gains and one loses (plus-minus-relationship), are known as dualisms.
The overall profit for the system should be higher in plus-plus than plus-minus
relationships. Thus, the question arises why dualism has not been outcompeted
during evolutionary times (cf. Clutton-Brock 2002; Hubbell 2001; Keddy 2001;
Bronstein 1994)?
Plus-plus and plus-minus are describing the interspecific relationships incompletely (Bronstein 1994). Peaceful cooperation and martial competition seem to be
contradictory. If cooperation would only be positive for both partners the principle
should be exceedingly successful. Insect pollination for example is characterized as
classical plus-plus relationship. The insect earns food, the plant profits from pollination. What could be negative for the insect and the plant at the same time? There is
an expense for both parties. The plant is investing in high energy material such as
nectar, the animal is spending energy by moving around. However, the overall effect
may be positive for both of them.
Could it be similar with competition and other plus-minus or minus-minus
relationships? We hypothesize that most if not all positive effects are combined
with expenditure (energy), and the survival/reproduction itself shows that the effect
is positive as long as the individual, species or ecosystem is alive and reproducing or
supporting the reproduction of the descendents (cf. Holmes and Schmitz 2010;
McMurtry 1991; Went 1973).
However, it is important to note how little we know about all the food webs and
ecological processes such as cooperation or facilitation in our landscapes. When we
look at an ecosystem we often cannot see the interdependence of the species in front
of us, nor can we easily evaluate mutualisms, and often even competition is masked
due to the timescales that are readily visible to us.
86
C. Hobohm and S. E. Vanderplank
it is hard to prove that the adaptations of individuals, species and/or communities
reflect a trend toward optimality in complex systems. Even if every subsystem was
trending toward optimization of each process, the result would not be optimality, as
many of the processes are contradictory. E.g. optimizing the quality of food for an
animal means migration in most cases. Optimizing energy use would favor the
opposite—a reduction in movement. Thus, optimality in terms of foraging and
reducing the loss of energy can only be a compromise (Kratochwil and Krausch
2016; Reluga and Shaw 2015).
Survival of the fittest often predicts that fitness can be a determining factor in
competition, however, in ‘teams’ or interactions, this may not be the case. E.g., if a
strong and a weak person work together in a team the group can become more
productive over time through communication (education) and/or division of labour.
However, if there is no shared motivation, competition or cooperation there will also
be no reason for improvement (Grant et al. 2014; Inouye 2001; Heylighen 1992a, b;
Palmer and White 1994).
Mutualisms are often described as plus-plus-relationship. Other relationships,
where one gains and one loses (plus-minus-relationship), are known as dualisms.
The overall profit for the system should be higher in plus-plus than plus-minus
relationships. Thus, the question arises why dualism has not been outcompeted
during evolutionary times (cf. Clutton-Brock 2002; Hubbell 2001; Keddy 2001;
Bronstein 1994)?
Plus-plus and plus-minus are describing the interspecific relationships incompletely (Bronstein 1994). Peaceful cooperation and martial competition seem to be
contradictory. If cooperation would only be positive for both partners the principle
should be exceedingly successful. Insect pollination for example is characterized as
classical plus-plus relationship. The insect earns food, the plant profits from pollination. What could be negative for the insect and the plant at the same time? There is
an expense for both parties. The plant is investing in high energy material such as
nectar, the animal is spending energy by moving around. However, the overall effect
may be positive for both of them.
Could it be similar with competition and other plus-minus or minus-minus
relationships? We hypothesize that most if not all positive effects are combined
with expenditure (energy), and the survival/reproduction itself shows that the effect
is positive as long as the individual, species or ecosystem is alive and reproducing or
supporting the reproduction of the descendents (cf. Holmes and Schmitz 2010;
McMurtry 1991; Went 1973).
However, it is important to note how little we know about all the food webs and
ecological processes such as cooperation or facilitation in our landscapes. When we
look at an ecosystem we often cannot see the interdependence of the species in front
of us, nor can we easily evaluate mutualisms, and often even competition is masked
due to the timescales that are readily visible to us.
86
C. Hobohm and S. E. Vanderplank