Jump to content

Commensalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromCommensal)

Remoraare specially adapted to attach themselves to larger fish (or other animals, in this case a sea turtle) that provide locomotion and food.

Commensalismis a long-termbiological interaction(symbiosis) in which members of onespeciesgain benefits while those of the other species neither benefit nor are harmed.[1]This is in contrast withmutualism,in which both organisms benefit from each other;amensalism,where one is harmed while the other is unaffected; andparasitism,where one is harmed and the other benefits.

The commensal (the species that benefits from the association) may obtain nutrients, shelter, support, or locomotion from the host species, which is substantially unaffected. The commensal relation is often between a larger host and a smaller commensal; thehostorganism is unmodified, whereas the commensal species may show great structural adaptation consistent with its habits, as in theremorasthat ride attached tosharksand other fishes. Remoras feed on their hosts' fecal matter,[2]whilepilot fishfeed on the leftovers of their hosts' meals. Numerous birds perch on bodies of large mammalherbivoresor feed on the insects turned up by grazing mammals.[3]

Etymology

[edit]

The word "commensalism" is derived from the word "commensal", meaning "eating at the same table" in human social interaction, which in turn comes throughFrenchfrom theMedieval Latincommensalis,meaning "sharing a table", from the prefixcom-,meaning "together", andmensa,meaning "table" or "meal".[4]Commensality, at the Universities ofOxfordandCambridge,refers to professors eating at the same table as students (as they live in the same "college" ).[citation needed]

Pierre-Joseph van Benedenintroduced the term "commensalism" in 1876.[5]

Examples of commensal relationships

[edit]

The commensal pathway was traveled by animals that fed on refuse around human habitats or by animals that preyed on other animals drawn to human camps. Those animals established a commensal relationship with humans in which the animals benefited but the humans received little benefit or harm. Those animals that were most capable of taking advantage of the resources associated with human camps would have been the 'tamer' individuals: less aggressive, with shorterfight-or-flightdistances. Later, these animals developed closer social or economic bonds with humans and led to a domestic relationship.[6][7]

The leap from asynanthropicpopulation to a domestic one could only have taken place after the animals had progressed from anthropophily to habituation, to commensalism and partnership, at which point the establishment of a reciprocal relationship between animal and human would have laid the foundation for domestication, including captivity and then human-controlled breeding. From this perspective, animal domestication is acoevolutionaryprocess in which a population responds to selective pressure while adapting to a novelnichethat includes another species with evolving behaviors.[7]

Dogs

[edit]

Thedogwas the first domesticated animal, and was domesticated and widely established acrossEurasiabefore the end of thePleistocene,well before the cultivation of crops or the domestication of other animals.[8]The dog is often hypothesised to be a classic example of a domestic animal that likely traveled a commensal pathway into domestication. Archaeological evidence, such as the Bonn-Oberkassel dog dating to ~14,000BP,[9]supports the hypothesis that dog domestication preceded the emergence of agriculture[10][11]and began close to theLast Glacial Maximumwhen hunter-gatherers preyed onmegafauna.

The wolves more likely drawn to human camps were the less-aggressive, subdominant pack members with lowered flight response, higher stress thresholds, and less wary around humans, and therefore better candidates for domestication.[6] Proto-dogs might have taken advantage of carcasses left on site by early hunters, assisted in the capture of prey, or provided defense from large competing predators at kills.[11]However, the extent to which proto-domestic wolves could have become dependent on this way of life prior to domestication and without human provisioning is unclear and highly debated. In contrast,catsmay have become fully dependent on a commensal lifestyle before being domesticated by preying on other commensal animals, such as rats and mice, without any human provisioning. Debate over the extent to which some wolves were commensal with humans prior to domestication stems from debate over the level of human intentionality in the domestication process, which remains untested.[7][12]

The earliest sign of domestication in dogs was the neotenization of skull morphology[13][14][6]and the shortening of snout length that results in tooth crowding, reduction in tooth size, and a reduction in the number of teeth,[15][6]which has been attributed to the strong selection for reduced aggression.[14][6]This process may have begun during the initial commensal stage of dog domestication, even before humans began to be active partners in the process.[6][7]

A mitochondrial, microsatellite, and Y-chromosome assessment of two wolf populations in North America combined with satellite telemetry data revealed significant genetic and morphological differences between one population that migrated with and preyed upon caribou and another territorial ecotype population that remained in a boreal coniferous forest. Although these two populations spend a period of the year in the same place, and though there was evidence of gene flow between them, the difference in prey–habitat specialization has been sufficient to maintain genetic and even coloration divergence.[16][7]

A different study has identified the remains of a population of extinct PleistoceneBeringian wolveswith unique mitochondrial signatures. The skull shape, tooth wear, and isotopic signatures suggested these remains were derived from a population of specialist megafauna hunters and scavengers that became extinct while less specialized wolf ecotypes survived.[17][7]Analogous to the modern wolf ecotype that has evolved to track and prey upon caribou, a Pleistocene wolf population could have begun following mobile hunter-gatherers, thus slowly acquiring genetic and phenotypic differences that would have allowed them to more successfully adapt to the human habitat.[18][7]

AspergillusandStaphylococcus

[edit]
See also:AspergillusandStaphylococcus

Numerous genera ofbacteriaandfungilive on and in the human body as part of its natural flora. The fungal genusAspergillusis capable of living under considerable environmental stress, and thus is capable of colonising the upper gastrointestinal tract where relatively few examples of the body's gut flora can survive due to highly acidic or alkaline conditions produced by gastric acid and digestive juices. WhileAspergillusnormally produces no symptoms, in individuals who are immunocompromised or suffering from existing conditions such astuberculosis,a condition calledaspergillosiscan occur, in which populations ofAspergillusgrow out of control.[citation needed]

Staphylococcus aureus,a common bacterial species, is known best for its numerous pathogenic strains that can cause numerous illnesses and conditions. However, many strains ofS. aureusare metabiotic commensals, and are present on roughly 20 to 30% of the human population as part of theskin flora.[19]S. aureusalso benefits from the variable ambient conditions created by the body's mucous membranes, and as such can be found in theoralandnasal cavities,as well as inside theear canal.OtherStaphylococcusspecies includingS. warneri,S. lugdunensisandS. epidermidis,will also engage in commensalism for similar purposes.[citation needed]

Nitrosomonasspp andNitrobacterspp

[edit]

Commensalistic relationships between microorganisms include situations in which the waste product of one microorganism is a substrate for another species. One good example is nitrification-the oxidation of ammonium ion to nitrate. Nitrification occurs in two steps: first, bacteria such asNitrosomonasspp. and certaincrenarchaeotesoxidize ammonium to nitrite; and second, nitrite is oxidized to nitrate byNitrobacterspp. and similar bacteria.Nitrobacterspp. benefit from their association withNitrosomonasspp. because they use nitrite to obtain energy for growth.[citation needed]

Commensalistic associations also occur when one microbial group modifies the environment to make it better suited for another organism. The synthesis of acidic waste products duringfermentationstimulates the proliferation of more acid-tolerant microorganisms, which may be only a minor part of the microbial community at neutral pH. A good example is the succession of microorganisms during milk spoilage.[citation needed]

Biofilmformation provides another example. The colonization of a newly exposed surface by one type of microorganism (an initial colonizer) makes it possible for other microorganisms to attach to the microbially modified surface.[citation needed]

Octocorals and Brittle Stars

[edit]

In deep-sea, benthic environments there is an associative relationship betweenoctocoralsandbrittle stars.Due to the currents flowing upward along seamount ridges, atop these ridges there are colonies of suspension feeding corals and sponges, and brittle stars that grip tight to them and get up off the sea floor. A specific documented commensal relationship is between the ophiuranOphiocreas oedipusLyman and the octocoral primnoidMetallogorgia melanotrichos.[citation needed]

Historically, commensalism has been recognized as the usual type of association between brittle stars and octocorals.[20]In this association, the ophiurans benefit directly by being elevated through facilitating their feeding by suspension, while the octocorals do not seem to benefit or be harmed by this relationship.[21]

Recent studies in the Gulf of Mexico have suggested that there are actually some benefits to the octocorals, such as receiving a cleaning action by the brittle star as it slowly moves around the coral.[22]In some cases, a close relationship occurs between cohabiting species, with the interaction beginning from their juvenile stages.[23]

Arguments

[edit]

Whether the relationship between humans and some types ofgut florais commensal ormutualisticis still unanswered.

Some biologists argue that any close interaction between two organisms is unlikely to be completely neutral for either party, and that relationships identified as commensal are likelymutualisticorparasiticin a subtle way that has not been detected. For example,epiphytesare "nutritional pirates" that may intercept substantial amounts of nutrients that would otherwise go to the host plant.[24]Large numbers of epiphytes can also cause tree limbs to break or shade the host plant and reduce its rate of photosynthesis. Similarly, phoretic mites may hinder their host by making flight more difficult, which may affect its aerial hunting ability or cause it to expend extra energy while carrying these passengers.[citation needed]

Types

[edit]
Phoreticmiteson a fly (Pseudolynchia canariensis)

Like all ecological interactions, commensalisms vary in strength and duration from intimate, long-livedsymbiosesto brief, weak interactions through intermediaries.[citation needed]

Phoresy

[edit]

Phoresyis one animal attached to another exclusively for transport, mainlyarthropods,examples of which aremitesoninsects(such asbeetles,fliesorbees),pseudoscorpionsonmammals[25]or beetles, andmillipedesonbirds.[26]Phoresy can be either obligate or facultative (induced by environmental conditions).

Inquilinism

[edit]
Inquilinism:Tillandsia bourgaeigrowing on an oak tree in Mexico

Inquilinismis the use of a second organism for permanent housing. Examples areepiphyticplants(such as manyorchids) that grow on trees,[27]or birds that live in holes in trees.

Metabiosis

[edit]

Metabiosis is a more indirect dependency, in which one organism creates or prepares a suitable environment for a second. Examples includemaggots,which develop on and infest corpses, andhermit crabs,which usegastropodshells to protect their bodies.[citation needed]

Facilitation

[edit]

Facilitationorprobiosisdescribesspecies interactionsthat benefit at least one of the participants and cause harm to neither.[citation needed]

Necromeny

[edit]

Necromenyis one animal associating with another until the latter dies, then the former feeds on the corpse of the latter. Examples include somenematodes[28]and some mites.[29][30]

See also

[edit]
  • Mutualism– where both organisms experience mutual benefit in the relationship
  • Parasitism– where one organism benefits at the expense of another organism.
  • Parabiosis– where both organisms occupy the same dwelling, but do not interfere with each other
  • Symbiosis– long-term interactions between different biological species, which can be mutualistic, commensal or parasitic
  • Synanthrope– species commensal with humans

References

[edit]
  1. ^Wilson EO (1975)."Ch.17-Social Symbiosis".Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.Harvard University Press. p. 354.ISBN978-0-674-00089-6.
  2. ^Williams, E. H.; Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A.; Bunkley-Williams, L.; Bonde, R. K.; Self-Sullivan, C.; Preen, A.; Cockcroft, V. G. (2003). "Echeneid-sirenian associations, with information on sharksucker diet".Journal of Fish Biology.63(5): 1176–1183.Bibcode:2003JFBio..63.1176W.doi:10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00236.x.ISSN0022-1112.
  3. ^Mikula P, Hadrava J, Albrecht T, Tryjanowski P (2018)."Large-scale assessment of commensalistic-mutualistic associations between African birds and herbivorous mammals using internet photos".PeerJ.6:e4520.doi:10.7717/peerj.4520.PMC5863707.PMID29576981.
  4. ^Harper, Douglas."commensalism".Online Etymology Dictionary.
  5. ^van Beneden, Pierre-Joseph (1876).Animal parasites and messmates.International scientific series. Vol. 19. London: Henry S. King.doi:10.5962/bhl.title.132633.
  6. ^abcdefZeder MA (2012). "The Domestication of Animals".Journal of Anthropological Research.68(2): 161–190.doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201.S2CID85348232.
  7. ^abcdefgLarson G, Fuller DQ (2014). "The Evolution of Animal Domestication".Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics.45:115–136.doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.S2CID56381833.
  8. ^Larson G, Karlsson EK, Perri A, Webster MT, Ho SY, Peters J, et al. (June 2012)."Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.109(23): 8878–83.Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L.doi:10.1073/pnas.1203005109.PMC3384140.PMID22615366.
  9. ^Janssens L, Giemsch L, Schmitz R, Street M, Van Dongen S, Crombé P (2018)."A new look at an old dog: Bonn-Oberkassel reconsidered"(PDF).Journal of Archaeological Science.92:126–138.Bibcode:2018JArSc..92..126J.doi:10.1016/j.jas.2018.01.004.hdl:1854/LU-8550758.
  10. ^Vila C (1997). "Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog".Science.276(5319): 1687–1689.doi:10.1126/science.276.5319.1687.PMID9180076.
  11. ^abThalmann O, Shapiro B, Cui P, Schuenemann VJ, Sawyer SK, Greenfield DL, et al. (November 2013). "Complete mitochondrial genomes of ancient canids suggest a European origin of domestic dogs".Science.342(6160): 871–4.Bibcode:2013Sci...342..871T.doi:10.1126/science.1243650.hdl:10261/88173.PMID24233726.S2CID1526260.
  12. ^Hulme-Beaman A, Dobney K, Cucchi T, Searle JB (August 2016)."An Ecological and Evolutionary Framework for Commensalism in Anthropogenic Environments".Trends in Ecology & Evolution.31(8): 633–645.doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.001.hdl:2164/6176.PMID27297117.
  13. ^Morey DF (1992). "Size, shape and development in the evolution of the domestic dog".Journal of Archaeological Science.19(2): 181–204.Bibcode:1992JArSc..19..181M.doi:10.1016/0305-4403(92)90049-9.
  14. ^abTrut L (1999). "Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment".American Scientist.87(2): 160.Bibcode:1999AmSci..87.....T.doi:10.1511/1999.2.160.
  15. ^Turnbull PF, Reed CA (1974). "The fauna from the terminal Pleistocene of Palegawra Cave".Fieldiana: Anthropology.63(3): 81–146.JSTOR29782462.
  16. ^Musiani M, Leonard JA, Cluff HD, Gates CC, Mariani S, Paquet PC, Vilà C, Wayne RK (October 2007)."Differentiation of tundra/taiga and boreal coniferous forest wolves: genetics, coat colour and association with migratory caribou".Molecular Ecology.16(19): 4149–70.Bibcode:2007MolEc..16.4149M.doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03458.x.PMID17725575.S2CID14459019.
  17. ^Leonard JA, Vilà C, Fox-Dobbs K, Koch PL, Wayne RK, Van Valkenburgh B (July 2007). "Megafaunal extinctions and the disappearance of a specialized wolf ecomorph".Current Biology.17(13): 1146–50.Bibcode:2007CBio...17.1146L.doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.072.hdl:10261/61282.PMID17583509.S2CID14039133.
  18. ^Wolpert S (14 November 2013)."Dogs likely originated in Europe more than 18,000 years ago, UCLA biologists report".UCLA News Room.Retrieved10 December2014.Statement by Wayne, R.K.
  19. ^Kluytmans J, van Belkum A, Verbrugh H (July 1997)."Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks".Clinical Microbiology Reviews.10(3): 505–20.doi:10.1128/CMR.10.3.505.PMC172932.PMID9227864.
  20. ^Watling, Les; France, Scott C.; Pante, Eric; Simpson, Anne (2011)."Biology of deep-water octocorals".Advances in Marine Biology.60:41–122.doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385529-9.00002-0.ISBN9780123855299.PMID21962750.
  21. ^Fujita, Toshihiko; Ohta, Suguru (1990)."Size structure of dense populations of the brittle star Ophiura sarsii (Ophiuroidea: Echinodermata) in the bathyal zone around Japan".Marine Ecology Progress Series.64(1/2): 113–122.Bibcode:1990MEPS...64..113F.doi:10.3354/meps064113.JSTOR24844596.
  22. ^Girard, F.; Fu, B.; Fisher, CR (2016)."Mutualistic symbiosis with ophiuroids limited the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on deep-sea octocorals"(PDF).Marine Ecology Progress Series.549:89–98.Bibcode:2016MEPS..549...89G.doi:10.3354/meps11697.Retrieved24 May2023.
  23. ^Mejía-Quintero, Katherine; Borrero-Pérez, Giomar H.; Montoya-Cadavid, Erika (2021)."Callogorgia spp. and Their Brittle Stars: Recording Unknown Relationships in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea".Frontiers in Marine Science.8.doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.735039.ISSN2296-7745.Text was copied from this source, which is available under aCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  24. ^Benzing DH (1980).Biology of the Bromeliads.Eureka, California:Mad River Press.[page needed]
  25. ^Durden LA (June 1991). "Pseudoscorpions Associated With Mammals in Papua New Guinea".Biotropica.23(2): 204–6.Bibcode:1991Biotr..23..204D.doi:10.2307/2388309.JSTOR2388309.
  26. ^Tajovský K, Mock A, Krumpál M (2001). "Millipedes (Diplopoda) in birdsˈ nests ".European Journal of Soil Biology.37(4): 321–3.doi:10.1016/S1164-5563(01)01108-6.
  27. ^Hogan, C. Michael (2011)."Commensalism".In Mcginley, M.; Cleveland, C. J. (eds.).Encyclopedia of Earth.Washington DC:National Council for Science and the Environment.
  28. ^Sudhaus, W. (30 December 2010)."Preadaptive plateau in Rhabditida (Nematoda) allowed the repeated evolution of zooparasites, with an outlook on evolution of life cycles within Spiroascarida"(PDF).Palaeodiversity.3:117–130.
  29. ^Bhadran, Anjitha K.; Ramani, N. (3 October 2019)."Relationships between phoretic mites and their carrier, the banana pseudostem weevil Odoiporus longicollis Oliver (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)".International Journal of Acarology.45(6–7): 361–365.Bibcode:2019IJAca..45..361B.doi:10.1080/01647954.2019.1656286.ISSN0164-7954.S2CID202867426.
  30. ^Al-Deeb, Mohammad Ali; Muzaffar, Sabir Bin; Sharif, Eyas Mohammad (2012)."Interactions between Phoretic Mites and the Arabian Rhinoceros Beetle, Oryctes agamemnon arabicus".Journal of Insect Science.12(128): 128.doi:10.1673/031.012.12801.ISSN1536-2442.PMC3637038.PMID23448160.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commensalism&oldid=1231284475"