The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution

By J. Thompson. 2005

1,218 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5f3cfa9d3a4c9118f752468c6439608796d67902

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Structure in plant–animal interaction assemblages (2006, background): “Such a continuum may reflect coevolutionary dynamics varying from sequential specialization, by way of coevolutionary vortexes within diverse assemblages (Thompson 2005), up to highly diversified mutualisms evolving around a core of species in a nested assemblage (Jordano et al. 2006).”
Ecological and evolutionary consequences of spatial and temporal variation in pre-dispersal seed predation (2007, background): “The theory of the geographic mosaic of coevolution (Thompson, 2005) advocates that evolutionary change is driven mainly by geographical variation in the interactions between species: Natural selection on interspecific interactions varies among populations, resulting in geographic selection mosaics t”
What makes a species central in a cleaning mutualism network (2010, background): “In contrast, low DC values indicate species with few interactions, such as extreme specialists (Thompson 2005) or rare species (Vázquez et al. 2005, Krishna et al. 2008).”
Biodiversity and Climate Change: Integrating Evolutionary and Ecological Responses of Species and Communities (2010, background): “Natural communities can thus be viewed as a mosaic of coevolutionary trajectories within and between trophic levels (Thompson 2005), which may render the dynamics of ecosystems quite unpredictable.”
The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. (2009, background): “…largely been adopted by ecologists (but see Callaway 1997), evolutionary studies have continued to demonstrate the importance of evolutionary dynamics between interacting species (Ehrlich & Raven 1964; Thompson 2005; Bascompte & Jordano 2007; Jablonski 2008; Ricklefs 2008; Roderick & Percy 2008).”
It's about time: the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. (2009, background): “…coevolving parasites and hosts (e.g. Red Queen dynamics), or predators and their prey, are systems in which selection pressures will change as one species undergoes evolutionary change (Thompson 2005) or as ecological outcomes of interactions differ between years (e.g. Thompson & Fernandez 2006).”
Finding Them Before They Find Us: Informatics, Parasites, and Environments in Accelerating Climate Change (2014, background): “More generally, and over time, novel combinations of interacting species emerge through processes defined within the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution (Thompson, 2005).”
Using species co-occurrence networks to assess the impacts of climate change (2011, background): “Firstly, processes of co-evolutionary convergence require time (Thomson 2005), and time implies long-term climatic stability which has been absent from high latitudes due to the cyclical glaciations (Frakes 1979).”
Testing the role of biological interactions in the evolution of mid-Mesozoic marine benthic ecosystems (2006, background): “If coevolutionary alternation (Thompson 2005) was a common phenomenon in the Jurassic, the tendency of attaining large adult size in a species while under continuous attack by a predator may have been reversed during times when a predator focused its attack on other less defended species, or when…”