Supply Chain Council of European Union | Scceu.org
Supply Chain Risk

Avian predators taste reject mimetic prey in relation to their signal reliability

  • Dall, S. R. X. & Johnstone, R. A. Managing uncertainty: Information and insurance under the risk of starvation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357, 1519–1526 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Balogh, A. C. V., Gamberale-Stille, G. & Leimar, O. Learning and the mimicry spectrum: from quasi-Bates to super-Müller. Anim. Behav. 76, 1591–1599 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Barnett, C. A., Bateson, M. & Rowe, C. Better the devil you know: Avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive. Biol. Lett. 10, 20140533 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ruxton, G. D., Allen, W. L., Sherratt, T. N. & Speed, M. P. Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Aposematism, and Mimicry 2nd edn. (Oxford University Press, 2018).

    Book 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sherratt, T. N. State-dependent risk-taking by predators in systems with defended prey. Oikos 103, 93–100 (2003).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sherratt, T. N., Speed, M. S. & Ruxton, G. D. Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour. J. Theor. Biol. 228, 217–226 (2004).

    MathSciNet 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gamberale-Stille, G. & Guilford, T. Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: Predator sample-and-reject behaviour may provide a solution. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2621–2625 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence. Biol. Lett. 2, 348–350 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Automimic frequency influences the foraging decisions of avian predators on aposematic prey. Anim. Behav. 74, 1563–1572 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Brower, J. V. Z. Experimental studies of mimicry. IV. The reactions of starlings to different proportions of models and mimics. Am. Nat. 94, 271–282 (1960).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Huheey, J. E. Studies in warning coloration and mimicry VIII. Further evidence for a frequency-dependent model of predation. J. Herpetol. 14, 223–230 (1980).

  • Avery, M. L. Application of mimicry theory to bird damage control. J. Wildl. Manag. 49, 1116–1121 (1985).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nonacs, P. Foraging in a dynamic mimicry complex. Am. Nat. 126, 165–180 (1985).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rowland, H. M., Ihalainen, E., Lindström, L., Mappes, J. & Speed, M. P. Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences. Nature 448, 64–67 (2007).

    CAS 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Predators’ toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. Curr. Biol. 17, 1479–1483 (2007).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jones, R. S., Davis, S. C. & Speed, M. P. Defence cheats can degrade protection of chemically defended prey. Ethology 119, 52–57 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Guilford, T. “Go-slow” signalling and the problem of automimicry. J. Theor. Biol. 170, 311–316 (1994).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Taste-rejection by predators and the evolution of unpalatability in prey. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60, 550–555 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chatelain, M., Halpin, C. G. & Rowe, C. Ambient temperature influences birds’ decisions to eat toxic prey. Anim. Behav. 86, 733–740 (2013).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L. & McMahon, T. A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 1633–1644 (2007).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Yamazaki, Y., Pagani-Núñez, E., Sota, T. & Barnett C. R. A. The truth is in the detail: predators attack aposematic prey less intensely than other prey types. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 131, 332–343 (2020).

  • Valkonnen, J. K. et al. Variation in predator species abundance can cause variable selection pressure on warning signalling prey. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1971–1976 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nokelainen, O., Valkonen, J., Lindstedt, C. & Mappes, J. Changes in predator community structure shifts the efficacy of two warning signals in Arctiid moths. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 598–605 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D., Hill, D. A. &. Mustoe S. H. Bird Census Techniques (2nd Edition). (Academic Press, London, 2000).

  • Tsujimoto, D., Lin, C.-H., Kurihara, N. & Barnett, C. R. A. Citizen science in the class-room: the consistency of student collected data and its value in ecological hypothesis testing. Ornithological Sci. 18, 39–47 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Software 67, 1–48 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rainey, C. Dealing with separation in logistic regression models. Polit. Anal. 24, 339–355 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Meth. Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hothorn, T,. Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical. J. 50, 346–363 (2008).

  • Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. Ape 5.0: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35, 526–528 (2019).

  • Barnett, C. R. A., Ringhofer, M. & Suzuki, T. N. Differences in predatory behavior among three bird species when attacking chemically defended and undefended prey. J. Ethol. 39, 29–37 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Carroll, J. & Sherratt, T. N. A direct comparison of the effectiveness of two anti-predator strategies under field conditions. J. Zool. 291, 279–285 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Krebs, C. J. Ecological Methodology (2nd Edition). (Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA, 1999).

  • Oksanen, J. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2020).

  • R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL http://www.Rproject.org (2017).

  • Marples, N. M., Speed, M. P. & Thomas, R. J. An individual-based profitability spectrum for understanding interactions between predators and their prey. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 125, 1–13 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Boyden, T. C. Butterfly palatability and mimicry: experiments with anolis lizards. Evolution 30, 73–81 (1976).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Järvi, T., Sillén-Tullberg, B. & Wiklund, C. The cost of being aposematic. An experimental study of predation on larvae of Papilio machaon by the Great Tit Parus major. Oikos 36, 267–272 (1981).

  • Wiklund, C. & Järvi, T. Survival of distasteful insects after being attacked by naïve birds: a reappraisal of aposematic coloration evolving through individual selection. Evolution 36, 998–1002 (1982).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pinheiro, C. E. G. & Campos, V. C. Do rufous-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) play with aposematic butterflies. Ornitol. Neotrop. 24, 1–3 (2013).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Halpin, C. G. & Rowe, C. The effect of distastefulness and conspicuous coloration on post-attack rejection behaviour of predators and survival of prey. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 120, 236–244 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Sillén-Tullberg, B. Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia 67, 411–415 (1985).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Clarenden Press, 1930).

    Book 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chai, P. Field observations and feeding experiments on the responses of rufous-tailed jacamars butterflies in a tropical rainforest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 29, 161–189 (1986).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, L.-Y., Huang, W.-S., Tang, H.-C., Huang, L.-C. & Lin, C.-P. Too hard to swallow: A secret secondary defence of an aposematic insect. J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb172486 (2018).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Summers, K., Speed, M. P., Blount, J. D. & Stuckert, A. M. M. Are aposematic signals honest? A review. J. Evol. Biol. 28, 1583–1599 (2015).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Holen, Ø. H. Disentangling taste and toxicity in aposematic prey. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20122588 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Speed, M. P. & Franks, D. W. Antagonistic evolution in an aposematic predator-prey system. Evolution 68, 2996–3007 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Related posts

    Ravi Shankar Prasad takes on Kejriwal government on Ayushman Bharat scheme, sedition issue- The New Indian Express

    scceu

    Luxury Furniture Logistics Market 2020 Business Environment Analysis By Global Industry Share, Trends, Sales Revenue, Value and Growth Rate, Development Status, Future Plans and Opportunity Assessment till 2025 – The Pinstripe Empire

    scceu

    Quebec climate strategy shows the risks of net-zero tunnel vision

    scceu