Intercontinental-wide consequences of compromise-breaking adaptations: the case of desert rodents Burt P. Kotler a *, Joel S. Brown b , Sonny S. Bleicher a,b and Keren Embar a a Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreseht Ben- Gurion, Israel; b Department of Biological Sciences (M/C066), University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA (Received 29 October 2015; accepted 25 November 2015) Desert rodent assemblages from around the world provide convergent, but independent crucibles for testing theory and deducing general ecological principles. The heteromyid rodents of North America and the gerbils of the Middle East and their predators provide such an example. Both sets of rodents face predation from owls and vipers, but the North American species possess unique traits that may represent macroevolutionary breakthroughs: rattlesnakes have infra-red sensitive sensory pits, and heteromyids have cheek pouches. To test their significance, we brought together two gerbils (Middle East), two heteromyid rodents (a kangaroo rat and a pocket mouse; North America) in a common setting (a vivarium in the Negev Desert), and quantified the “opinions” of the rodents towards the North American sidewinder rattlesnake and the Middle Eastern Saharan horned viper and the foraging behavior of each in the face of these snake predators plus owl predators. Gerbils are fairly evenly matched in their anti-predator abilities, while the heteromyids differ widely, and these seem to match well with and may determine the types of mechanisms of species coexistence that operate in the communities of each continent. Evolutionary history, macroevolutionary traits, and risk management therefore combine to determine the characteristics of the organisms and the organization of their communities. Keywords: intercontinental community convergence; desert rodents; risk management and tradeoffs of food and safety; PredatorÀprey foraging games; compromise-breaking adaptations; macroevolution and microecology Introduction Nature offers patterns and opportunities for seeking the processes and general principles for developing a compre- hensive and predictive theory of ecology. This quest can take many forms. Some have posited the basic laws of ecology (e.g., Turchin 2001) based on first principles of population ecology. Others have quantified large-scale geographic or temporal patterns of species diversity (Brown 1995; Rosenzweig 1995) to discern consistent and repeatable trends. The adaptations and characteristics of the species themselves offer insights such as trait patterns seen in allometric relationships (Peters 1983; Calder 1984; Brown et al. 2004). Others have sought coadaptations between feeding behaviors, physiology, and consumerÀresource dynamics to find mechanistic understandings for patterns in body size relating to climate and diet (Brown et al. in press). Among the most striking patterns observed in nature concern organisms and communities that appear remarkably convergent eco- logically and/or evolutionarily (McGhee 2011). The 1960s and 1970s were decades of great growth, enthusiasm, and optimism for studying similar and con- vergent communities (e.g., Karr & James 1975; Pianka 1975). Ideas and theories from geographical ecology (MacArthur 1972) and biogeography (Brown & Gibson 1983; Lomolino et al. 2006) suggested that we could infer general processes by examining ecological communities in similar climatic conditions. Just as species can converge in appearances and functions, perhaps so too can ecological communities converge. So, by examining the community structure of similar guilds of organisms in climatically similar, but evolutionarily independent loca- tions (e.g., different continents), ecologists hoped to reveal similarities in community structure and organiza- tion, and in so doing, reveal general ecological principles. Thus, ecologists set out across the globe, often as part of the International Biological Program (Worthington 2009; Coleman 2010). Much outstanding ecological research took place in deserts, in grasslands, in Mediterranean cli- mates, in coniferous forests, and more (e.g., Cooper 1975; Gooley et al. 1975) on biomes, on the origin and structure of ecosystems, on organisms ranging from flowering plants to lizards to birds. Yet, few general principles emerged. Each case study seemed just that, a special case. While ample evidence supported observations for how species may converge (Grant 1972; Grant et al. 2004; McGhee 2011), communities showed little evidence for convergence (e.g., Barbour & Diaz 1973; Kelt et al. 1996; Brown et al. 2000). The grand theme of community con- vergences got placed on the back burner. Here, we return to this theme. So what’s changed? In the intervening years, the field’s understanding of ecology and evolution has advanced on important fronts. We have learned much about macroevolution and the role of con- straint-breaking adaptations in incumbent replacement (Rosenzweig & McCord 1991); we have learned much *Corresponding author. Email: Kotler@bgu.ac.il Ó 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15659801.2015.1125832