Literature DB >> 20335201

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

Christina G Halpin1, Candy Rowe.   

Abstract

The evolution and maintenance of toxicity in a prey population is a challenge to evolutionary biologists if the investment in toxin does not benefit the individual. Recent experiments suggest that taste-rejection behaviour enables predators to selectively ingest less toxic individuals, which could stabilize investment in defences. However, we currently do not know if taste rejection of defended prey is accurate across different contexts, and that prey always benefit according to their investment. Using avian predators, we show that the rejection probability does not solely depend on the investment in defence by an individual, but also on the investment by other individuals in the same population. Therefore, taste rejection by predators could lead to destabilization in the investment in defences, and allow variability in prey defences to exist.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20335201      PMCID: PMC2936148          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0153

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Lett        ISSN: 1744-9561            Impact factor:   3.703


  10 in total

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

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-02-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  A theory of associating food types with their postingestive consequences.

Authors:  Jonathan M Yearsley; Juan J Villalba; Iain J Gordon; Ilias Kyriazakis; John R Speakman; Bert J Tolkamp; Andrew W Illius; Alan J Duncan
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2006-03-20       Impact factor: 3.926

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

Authors:  Gabriella Gamberale-Stille; Tim Guilford
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 4.  How do predators cope with chemically defended foods?

Authors:  John I Glendinning
Journal:  Biol Bull       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.818

5.  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

6.  SURVIVAL OF DISTASTEFUL INSECTS AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY NAIVE BIRDS: A REAPPRAISAL OF THE THEORY OF APOSEMATIC COLORATION EVOLVING THROUGH INDIVIDUAL SELECTION.

Authors:  Christer Wiklund; Torbjörn Järvi
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug.

Authors:  Birgitta Sillén-Tullberg
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  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

9.  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

10.  FORAGING DYNAMICS OF BIRD PREDATORS ON OVERWINTERING MONARCH BUTTERFLIES IN MEXICO.

Authors:  Lincoln P Brower; William H Calvert
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 3.694

  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Disentangling taste and toxicity in aposematic prey.

Authors:  Øistein Haugsten Holen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Toxin constraint explains diet choice, survival and population dynamics in a molluscivore shorebird.

Authors:  Jan A van Gils; Matthijs van der Geest; Jutta Leyrer; Thomas Oudman; Tamar Lok; Jeroen Onrust; Jimmy de Fouw; Tjisse van der Heide; Piet J van den Hout; Bernard Spaans; Anne Dekinga; Maarten Brugge; Theunis Piersma
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Do predator energy demands or previous exposure influence protection by aposematic coloration of prey?

Authors:  Petr Veselý; Barbora Ernestová; Oldřich Nedvěd; Roman Fuchs
Journal:  Curr Zool       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 2.624

4.  Invertebrate and avian predators as drivers of chemical defensive strategies in tenthredinid sawflies.

Authors:  Jean-Luc Boevé; Stephan M Blank; Gert Meijer; Tommi Nyman
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 3.260

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.