Literature DB >> 15615689

Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: predator sample-and-reject behaviour may provide a solution.

Gabriella Gamberale-Stille1, Tim Guilford.   

Abstract

Aposematism, the use of conspicuous colours to advertise unpalatability to predators, is perhaps the most studied signalling system in nature. However, its evolutionary stability remains paradoxical. The paradox is illustrated by the problem of automimicry. Automimics are palatable individuals within a population of unpalatable aposematics. Automimics benefit from predators avoiding warning coloration without carrying the models' cost of unpalatability, and should increase in the population, destabilizing the signalling system, unless selected against in some way. Cautious sampling, instead of avoidance, by predators may offer a solution to this problem. Here, we investigate the effect of automimic frequency on predator sampling behaviour, and whether predator sampling behaviour may provide a selection pressure against mimics. Domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) were subjected to the task of discriminating between green (signalling) and untreated brown chick crumbs. Some of the green crumbs were quinine treated and thus unpalatable. The frequency of palatable signalling prey items varied in four treatments; all unpalatable, low automimic frequency, high automimic frequency and all palatable. The results show that predator sampling behaviour is sensitive to automimic frequency and that predators may discriminate between models and mimics through sampling, and thereby benefit unprofitable prey. The results suggest somewhat surprisingly that aposematic signalling is stable only because of the actions of those predators not actually deterred by warning signals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15615689      PMCID: PMC1691898          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2893

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


  9 in total

1.  Theoretical investigations of automimicry: multiple trial learning and the palatability spectrum.

Authors:  F H Pough; L P Brower; H R Meck; S R Kessell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1973-08       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Theoretical investigations of automimicry, I. Single trial learning.

Authors:  L P Brower; F H Pough; H R Meck
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1970-08       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Ecological chemistry.

Authors:  L P Brower
Journal:  Sci Am       Date:  1969-02       Impact factor: 2.142

4.  Plant poisons in a terrestrial food chain.

Authors:  L P Brower; J van Brower; J M Corvino
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1967-04       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Temporal modulation of pyrrolizidine alkaloid intake and genetic variation in performance of Utetheisa ornatrix caterpillars.

Authors:  Katherine C Kelley; Kelly S Johnson; Mitzi Murray
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.626

6.  Why are there so many threat displays?

Authors:  M Andersson
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1980-10-21       Impact factor: 2.691

7.  Localization of heart poisons in the monarch butterfly.

Authors:  L P Brower; S C Glazier
Journal:  Science       Date:  1975-04-04       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Variation in cardiac glycoside content of monarch butterflies from natural populations in eastern North America.

Authors:  L P Brower; P B McEvoy; K L Williamson; M A Flannery
Journal:  Science       Date:  1972-08-04       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Particles present in the haemolymph and defensive secretions of insects.

Authors:  D Kay; M Rothschild; R Aplin
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  1969-03       Impact factor: 5.285

  9 in total
  21 in total

1.  Taste-rejection behaviour by predators can promote variability in prey defences.

Authors:  Christina G Halpin; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  How can automimicry persist when predators can preferentially consume undefended mimics?

Authors:  Graeme D Ruxton; Michael P Speed
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  The evolutionary stability of automimicry.

Authors:  Thomas Owens Svennungsen; Oistein Haugsten Holen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  The role of predator selection on polymorphic aposematic poison frogs.

Authors:  Brice P Noonan; Aaron A Comeault
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 3.703

5.  Why has transparency evolved in aposematic butterflies? Insights from the largest radiation of aposematic butterflies, the Ithomiini.

Authors:  Melanie McClure; Corentin Clerc; Charlotte Desbois; Aimilia Meichanetzoglou; Marion Cau; Lucie Bastin-Héline; Javier Bacigalupo; Céline Houssin; Charline Pinna; Bastien Nay; Violaine Llaurens; Serge Berthier; Christine Andraud; Doris Gomez; Marianne Elias
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  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

7.  Meta-analytic evidence for quantitative honesty in aposematic signals.

Authors:  Thomas E White; Kate D L Umbers
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Frequency-dependent taste-rejection by avian predation may select for defence chemical polymorphisms in aposematic prey.

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 3.703

9.  Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence.

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2006-09-22       Impact factor: 3.703

10.  Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive.

Authors:  Craig A Barnett; Melissa Bateson; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.703

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.