Literature DB >> 15101700

The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning.

Candy Rowe1, Leena Lindström, Anne Lyytinen.   

Abstract

Müllerian mimicry, where unpalatable prey share common warning patterns, has long fascinated evolutionary biologists. It is commonly assumed that Müllerian mimics benefit by sharing the costs of predator education, thus reducing per capita mortality, although there has been no direct test of this assumption. Here, we specifically measure the selection pressure exerted by avian predators on unpalatable prey with different degrees of visual similarity in their warning patterns. Using wild-caught birds foraging on novel patterned prey in the laboratory, we unexpectedly found that pattern similarity did not increase the speed of avoidance learning, and even dissimilar mimics shared the education of naive predators. This was a consistent finding across two different densities of unpalatable prey, although mortalities were lower at the higher density as expected. Interestingly, the mortalities of Müllerian mimics were affected by pattern similarity in the predicted way by the end of our experiment, although the result was not quite significant. This suggests that the benefits to Müllerian mimics may emerge only later in the learning process, and that predator experience of the patterns may affect the degree to which pattern similarity is important. This highlights the need to measure the behaviour of real predators if we are to understand fully the evolution of mimicry systems.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15101700      PMCID: PMC1691604          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2615

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  9 in total

1.  Testing Müllerian mimicry: an experiment with wild birds.

Authors:  M P Speed; N J Alderson; C Hardman; G D Ruxton
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2000-04-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Accurate memory for colour but not pattern contrast in chicks.

Authors:  D Osorio; C D Jones; M Vorobyev
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  1999-02-25       Impact factor: 10.834

3.  Fruit or aposematic insect? Context-dependent colour preferences in domestic chicks.

Authors:  G Gamberale-Stille; B S Tullberg
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2001-12-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Predator discrimination error and the benefits of Müllerian mimicry.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.844

5.  Three-butterfly system provides a field test of müllerian mimicry.

Authors:  D D Kapan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-01-18       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Peruvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian mimicry hypothesis.

Authors:  R Symula; R Schulte; K Summers
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2001-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Strong antiapostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey.

Authors:  L Lindström; R V Alatalo; A Lyytinen; J Mappes
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-07-17       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Phylogenetic evidence for colour pattern convergence in toxic pitohuis: Müllerian mimicry in birds?

Authors:  J P Dumbacher; R C Fleischer
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2001-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations.

Authors:  M Riipi; R V Alatalo; L Lindström; J Mappes
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-10-04       Impact factor: 49.962

  9 in total
  20 in total

Review 1.  Avian psychology and communication.

Authors:  Candy Rowe; John Skelhorn
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-07-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  When more is less: the fitness consequences of predators attacking more unpalatable prey when more are presented.

Authors:  Hannah M Rowland; Elizabeth Wiley; Graeme D Ruxton; Johanna Mappes; Michael P Speed
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Flexibility in assessment of prey cues: frog-eating bats and frog calls.

Authors:  Rachel A Page; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-04-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  How do predators generalize warning signals in simple and complex prey communities? Insights from a videogame.

Authors:  Mónica Arias; John W Davey; Simon Martin; Chris Jiggins; Nicola Nadeau; Mathieu Joron; Violaine Llaurens
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Learning the ecological niche.

Authors:  Tore Slagsvold; Karen L Wiebe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-01-07       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Social learning in birds and its role in shaping a foraging niche.

Authors:  Tore Slagsvold; Karen L Wiebe
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Prey community structure affects how predators select for Mullerian mimicry.

Authors:  Eira Ihalainen; Hannah M Rowland; Michael P Speed; Graeme D Ruxton; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Birds learn to use distastefulness as a signal of toxicity.

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 9.  The evolution of Müllerian mimicry.

Authors:  Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2008-06-10

10.  The relationship between sympatric defended species depends upon predators' discriminatory behaviour.

Authors:  Christina G Halpin; John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.