Literature DB >> 15705561

Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry?

John Skelhorn1, Candy Rowe.   

Abstract

Müllerian mimicry, where two unpalatable species share a warning pattern, is classically believed to be a form of mutualism, where the species involved share the cost of predator education. The evolutionary dynamics of Müllerian mimicry have recently become a controversial subject, after mathematical models have shown that if minor alterations are made to assumptions about the way in which predators learn and forget about unpalatable prey, this textbook case of mutualism may not be mutualistic at all. An underlying assumption of these models is that Müllerian mimics possess the same defence chemical. However, some Müllerian mimics are known to possess different defence chemicals. Using domestic chicks as predators and coloured crumbs flavoured with either the same or different unpalatable chemicals as prey, we provide evidence that two defence chemicals can interact to enhance predator learning and memory. This indicates that Müllerian mimics that possess different defence chemicals are better protected than those that share a single defence chemical. These data provide insight into how multiple defence chemicals are perceived by birds,and how they influence the way birds learn and remember warningly coloured prey. They highlight the importance of considering how different toxins in mimicry rings can interact in the evolution and maintenance of Müllerian mimicry and could help to explain the remarkable variation in chemical defences found within and between species.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15705561      PMCID: PMC1634974          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2953

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

Review 2.  Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera.

Authors:  Ritsuo Nishida
Journal:  Annu Rev Entomol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 19.686

3.  Review of the Defensive Chemistry of Coccinellids.

Authors:  Angela Glisan King; Jerrold Meinwald
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  1996-05-09       Impact factor: 60.622

4.  Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour.

Authors:  Thomas N Sherratt; Michael P Speed; Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2004-05-21       Impact factor: 2.691

5.  Robot predators in virtual ecologies: the importance of memory in mimicry studies.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.844

6.  Defensive secretions of arthropods.

Authors:  T Eisner; J Meinwald
Journal:  Science       Date:  1966-09-16       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Taste and its importance to the domestic chicken.

Authors:  M J Gentle
Journal:  Br Poult Sci       Date:  1971-01       Impact factor: 2.095

8.  Thresholds for sweet, salt, and sour taste stimuli in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus).

Authors:  Kevin D. Matson; James R. Millam; Kirk C. Klasing
Journal:  Zoo Biol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.421

9.  Response of domestic chicks to methyl anthranilate odour

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.844

  9 in total
  13 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.  Evidence for a Müllerian mimetic radiation in Asian pitvipers.

Authors:  K L Sanders; A Malhotra; R S Thorpe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-05-07       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Artificial neural networks and the study of evolution of prey coloration.

Authors:  Sami Merilaita
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2007-03-29       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  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

5.  Genetic and environmental sources of variation in the autogenous chemical defense of a leaf beetle.

Authors:  Y Triponez; R E Naisbit; J B Jean-Denis; M Rahier; N Alvarez
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2007-09-21       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 6.  The evolution of Müllerian mimicry.

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

7.  Isolation, identification, and quantification of potential defensive compounds in the viceroy butterfly and its larval host-plant, Carolina willow.

Authors:  Kathleen L Prudic; Smriti Khera; Anikó Sólyom; Barbara N Timmermann
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2007-04-13       Impact factor: 2.793

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.  Antipredator phenotype in crucian carp altered by a psychoactive drug.

Authors:  Jerker Vinterstare; Christer Brönmark; P Anders Nilsson; R Brian Langerhans; Olof Berglund; Jennie Örjes; Tomas Brodin; Jerker Fick; Kaj Hulthén
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.