Skip to main content
Log in

Coevolution and the Red Queen effect shape virtual plants

  • Published:
Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to the Red Queen hypothesis a population of individuals may be improving some trait even though fitness remains constant. We have tested this hypothesis using a population of virtual plants. The plants have to compete with each other for virtual sunlight. Plants are modeled using Lindenmayer systems and rendered with OpenGL. Reproductive success of a plant depends on the amount of virtual light received as well as on the structural complexity of the plant. We experiment with two different modes of evaluation. In one experiment, plants are evaluated in isolation, while in other experiments plants are evaluated using coevolution. When using coevolution plants have to compete with each other for sunlight inside the same environment. Coevolution produces much thinner and taller plants in comparison to bush-like plants which are obtained when plants are evaluated in isolation. The presence of other individuals leads to an evolutionary arms race. Because plants are evaluated inside the same environment, the leaves of one plant may be shadowed by other plants. In an attempt to gain more sunlight, plants grow higher and higher. The Red Queen effect was observed when individuals of a single population were coevolving.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. B. Beneš, “An effcient estimation of light in simulation of plant development,” in Computer Animation and Simulation 96, R. Boulic and G. Hegron (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996, pp. 153–165.

  2. T. Broughton, A. Tan and P. S. Coates, “The use of genetic programming in exploring 3D design worlds,” in CAAD futures 1997. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Aides Architectural Design Futures, R. Junge (ed.), Munich, Germany, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 4–6, 1997, pp. 885–915.

  3. D. Cliff and G. F. Miller, “Tracking the red queen: Measurements of adaptive progress in co-evolutionary simulations,” in Third European Conference on Artificial Life, F. Morán, A. Moreno, J. J. Merelo, and P. Chacón (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995, pp. 200–218.

  4. D. Cliff and G. F. Miller, “Co-evolution of pursuit and evasion ii: Simulation methods and results,” in From Animals to Animats 4: Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, P. Maes, M. J. Mataric, J.-A. Meyer, J. Pollack, and S. W. Wilson (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996, pp. 506–515.

  5. P. Coates, T. Broughton and H. Jackson, “Exploring three-dimensional design worlds using Lindenmeyer systems and genetic programming,” in Evolutionary Design by Computers, P. J. Bentley (ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, 1999, pp. 323–341.

  6. M. D. Davis and E. J. Weyuker, Computability, Complexity, and Languages, Academic Press Limited, San Diego, California, 1983.

  7. R. Dawkins and J. R. Krebs, “Arms races between and within species,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, vol. 205; pp. 489–511, 1979.

  8. R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996.

  9. O. Deussen, P. Hanrahan, B. Lintermann, R. Měch, M. Pharr and P. Prusinkiewicz,“Realistic modeling and rendering of plant ecosystems,” in SIGGRAPH’98 Conference Proc. Computer Graphics, ACM Press, Orlando, Florida, 1998, pp. 275–286.

  10. M. Ebner. “A three-dimensional environment for self-reproducing programs,” in Proc. of the 6th European Conference on Artificial Life, ECAL 2001, J. Kelemen and P. Sosík (eds.), Prague, Czech Republic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001, pp. 306–315.

  11. M. Ebner, “Evolution and growth of virtual plants,” in Advances in Artificial Life — Proc. of the 7th European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL), Dortmund, W. Banzhaf, T. Christaller, P. Dittrich, J. T. Kim, and J. Ziegler (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2003, pp. 228–237.

  12. M. Ebner, A. Grigore, A. Heffner and J. Albert, “Coevolution produces an arms race among virtual plants,” in Genetic Programming: Proc. of the Fifth European Conference, EuroGP 2002, Kinsale, Ireland, 3–5, J. A. Foster, E. Lutton, J. Miller, C. Ryan and A. G. B. Tettamanzi (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002, pp. 316–325.

  13. M. Ebner, R. A. Watson and J. Alexander, “Co-evolutionary dynamics on a deformable landscape,” in Proc. of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Press, San Diego Marriott Hotel, La Jolla, CA, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 1284–1291.

  14. S. G. Ficici and J. B. Pollack, “A game-theoretic memory mechanism for coevolution,” in Proc. of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference GECCO-2003, E. Canté-Paz et al. (ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003, pp. 286–297.

  15. D. Floreano and S. Nolfi, “God save the Red Queen competition in co-evolutionary robotics”, in Genetic Programming 1997: Proc. of the Second International Conference on Genetic Programming, J. R. Koza, K. Deb, M. Dorigo, D. B. Fogel, M. Garzon, H. Iba, and R. L. Riolo, (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, California, 13–16, 1997, pp. 398–406.

  16. D. Floreano, S. Nolfi and F. Mondada, “Competitive co-evolutionary robotics: From theory to practice,” in From Animals to Animats 5: Proc. of the Fifth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, R. Pfeifer, B. Blumberg, J.-A. Meyer, and S. W. Wilson (eds.), The MIT Press, 1998, pp. 515–524.

  17. G. S. Hornby and J. B. Pollack, “The advantages of generative grammatical encodings for physical design,” in Proc. of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Press, COEX, Seoul, Korea, 2001, pp. 600–607.

  18. C. Jacob, “Genetic L-system programming,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN III. The Third International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Y. Davidor, H.-P. Schwefel, and R. Männer, (eds.), Jerusalem, Israel, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994, pp. 334–343.

  19. C. Jacob, “Evolution programs evolved,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN IV. The Fourth International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, H.-M. Voigt, W. Ebeling, I. Rechenberg and H.-P. Schwefel (eds.), September 22–26, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1996, pp. 42–51.

  20. C. Jacob, “Evolving evolution programs: Genetic programming and L-systems,” in Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Genetic Programming, J. R. Koza, D. E. Goldberg, D. B. Fogel, and R. L. Riolo (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996, pp. 107–115.

  21. C. Jacob, “Evolution and coevolution of developmental programs,” Computer Physics Communications, pp. 46–50, 1999.

  22. C. Jacob, Illustrating Evolutionary Computation with Mathematica, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, California, 2001.

  23. E. D. Jong, “The incremental pareto coevolution archive,” in Proc. of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference GECCO-2004, 2004, pp. 525–536.

  24. J. T. Kim, “Lindevol: Artificial models for natural plant evolution,” Künstliche Intelligenz, vol. 1, pp. 26–3, 2000.

  25. G. Kókai, Z. Tóth and R. Ványi. “Application of genetic algorithms with more populations for Lindenmayer systems,” in International ICSC Symposium on Engineering of Intelligent Systems EIS’98, E. Alpaydin and C. Fyfe (eds.), February 11–13, 1998, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain, Canada/Switzerland, ICSC Academic Press, 1998, pp. 324–331.

  26. G. Kókai, Z. Tóth and R. Ványi, “Evolving artificial trees described by parametric L-systems,” in Proc. of the 1999 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, Shaw Conference Center, IEEE Press, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1999, pp. 1722–1727.

  27. J. R. Koza, “Genetic programming,” On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992.

  28. J. R. Koza, “Discovery of rewrite rules in Lindenmayer systems and state transition rules in cellular automata via genetic programming,” in Symposium on Pattern Formation (SPF-93), Claremont, California, 1993.

  29. J. R. Koza, “Genetic programming II,” in Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994.

  30. S. Luke and R. P. Wiegand, “Guaranteeing coevolutionary objective measures,” in Foundations of Genetic Algoritms VII, Morgan Kaufman, 2002, pp. 237–251.

  31. J. McCormack. “Interactive evolution of L-system grammars for computer graphics modelling,” in Complex Systems: From Biology to Computation, D. G. Green and T. Bossomaier (eds.), ISO Press, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 118–130.

  32. G. F. Miller and D. Cliff, “Protean behavior in dynamic games: Arguments for the co-evolution of pursuit-evasion tactics,” in From Animals to Animats III: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, D. Cliff, P. Husbands, J. Meyer and S.W. Wilson, (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994, pp. 411–420.

  33. K. J. Mock, “Wildwood: The evolution of L-system plants for virtual environments,” in International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Anchorage, Alaska, 1998, pp. 476–480.

  34. K. J. Niklas, “Computer-simulated plant evolution.” Scientific American, vol. 254, pp. 68–75, 1986.

  35. S. Nolfi and D. Floreano, “Co-evolving predator and prey robots: Do ‘arms races’ arise in artificial evolution,” Artificial Life, vol. 4, pp. 311–335, 1998.

  36. G. Ochoa, “On genetic algorithms and Lindenmayer systems,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN V, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, pp. 335–344.

  37. OpenGL Architecture Review Board, M. Woo, J. Neider, T. Davis and D. Shreiner, OpenGL Programming Guide: The Offcial Guide to Learning OpenGL, Version 1.2. 3rd edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1999.

  38. K. Perlin, Noise,“Hypertexture, antialiasing and gesture,” in Texturing and Modeling: A Procedural Approach, 2nd Edition, AP Professional, D. S. Ebert, F. Kenton Musgrave, D. Peachey, K. Perlin, and S. Worley (eds.), Cambridge, 1998, pp. 209–274.

  39. P. Prusinkiewicz and A. Lindenmayer, The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants, Springer Verlag, New York, 1990.

  40. T. S. Ray, “An approach to the synthesis of life,” in Artificial Life II: SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, C. G. Langton, C. Taylor, J. Doyne Farmer and S. Rasmussen (eds.), Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA, vol. X, pp. 371–408, 1991.

  41. T. S. Ray, “Is it alive or is it GA,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, University of California, R. K. Belew and L. B. Booker (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Diego, San Mateo, California, 1991, pp. 527–534.

  42. T. S. Ray, “Synthetic life: Evolution and optimization of digital organisms,” in Scientific Excellence in Supercomputing: The 1990 IBM Contest Prize Papers, Athens, Georgia, K. R. Billingsley, H. U. Brown III and E. Derohanes (eds.), The Baldwin Press, 1992, pp. 489–531.

  43. T. S. Ray, “An evolutionary approach to synthetic biology: Zen and the art of creating life,” in Artificial Life: An Overview, C. G. Langton (ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 179–209.

  44. C. W. Reynolds, “Competition, coevolution and the game of tag,” in Artificial Life IV, R. Brooks and P. Maes (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994, pp. 59–69.

  45. M. Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, Penguin Books, New York, 1994.

  46. M. L. Rosenzweig, J. S. Brown and T. L. Vincent, “Red queens and ESS: The coevolution of evolutionary rates,” Evolutionary Ecology, vol. 1, pp. 59–94, 1987.

  47. J. Maynard Smith and G. R. Price, “The logic of animal conflict,” Nature, vol. 246, pp. 15–18, 1973.

  48. K. O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen, “The dominance tournament method of monitoring progress in coevolution,” in GECCO-2002: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Workshop Program, 2002, A. Barry (ed.), pp. 242–248.

  49. N. C. Stenseth and J. Maynard Smith, “Coevolution in ecosystems: Red queen evolution or stasis,” Evolution, vol. 38, pp. 870–880, 1984.

  50. L. Van Valen, “A new evolutionary law,” Evolutionary Theory, vol. 1, pp. 1–30, 1973.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Ebner.

Additional information

Communicated by: Una-May O'Reilly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ebner, M. Coevolution and the Red Queen effect shape virtual plants. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 7, 103–123 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-006-7013-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-006-7013-2

Keywords

Navigation