Literature DB >> 22540874

Why are defensive toxins so variable? An evolutionary perspective.

Michael P Speed1, Graeme D Ruxton, Johanna Mappes, Thomas N Sherratt.   

Abstract

Defensive toxins are widely used by animals, plants and micro-organisms to deter natural enemies. An important characteristic of such defences is diversity both in the quantity of toxins and the profile of specific defensive chemicals present. Here we evaluate evolutionary and ecological explanations for the persistence of toxin diversity within prey populations, drawing together a range of explanations from the literature, and adding new hypotheses. We consider toxin diversity in three ways: (1) the absence of toxicity in a proportion of individuals in an otherwise toxic prey population (automimicry); (2) broad variation in quantities of toxin within individuals in the same population; (3) variation in the chemical constituents of chemical defence. For each of these phenomena we identify alternative evolutionary explanations for the persistence of variation. One important general explanation is diversifying (frequency- or density-dependent) selection in which either costs of toxicity increase or their benefits decrease with increases in the absolute or relative abundance of toxicity in a prey population. A second major class of explanation is that variation in toxicity profiles is itself nonadaptive. One application of this explanation requires that predator behaviour is not affected by variation in levels or profiles of chemical defence within a prey population, and that there are no cost differences between different quantities or forms of toxins found within a population. Finally, the ecology and life history of the animal may enable some general predictions about toxin variation. For example, in animals which only gain their toxins in their immature forms (e.g. caterpillars on host plants) we may expect a decline in toxicity during adult life (or at least no change). By contrast, when toxins are also acquired during the adult form, we may for example expect the converse, in which young adults have less time to acquire toxicity than older adults. One major conclusion that we draw is that there are good reasons to consider within-species variation in defensive toxins as more than mere ecological noise. Rather there are a number of compelling evolutionary hypotheses which can explain and predict variation in prey toxicity.
© 2012 The Authors. Biological Reviews © 2012 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22540874     DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00228.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc        ISSN: 0006-3231


  20 in total

Review 1.  Antipredator strategies of pupae: how to avoid predation in an immobile life stage?

Authors:  Carita Lindstedt; Liam Murphy; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Ecological conditions alter cooperative behaviour and its costs in a chemically defended sawfly.

Authors:  Carita Lindstedt; Antti Miettinen; Dalial Freitak; Tarmo Ketola; Andres López-Sepulcre; Elina Mäntylä; Hannu Pakkanen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Disentangling taste and toxicity in aposematic prey.

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

4.  Costs and benefits of plant allelochemicals in herbivore diet in a multi enemy world.

Authors:  J H Reudler; C Lindstedt; H Pakkanen; I Lehtinen; J Mappes
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  How to fight multiple enemies: target-specific chemical defences in an aposematic moth.

Authors:  Bibiana Rojas; Emily Burdfield-Steel; Hannu Pakkanen; Kaisa Suisto; Michael Maczka; Stefan Schulz; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Variable Alkaloid Defenses in the Dendrobatid Poison Frog Oophaga pumilio are Perceived as Differences in Palatability to Arthropods.

Authors:  Sarah K Bolton; Kelsie Dickerson; Ralph A Saporito
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 2.626

7.  Inter- and Intrapopulation Variability in the Composition of Larval Defensive Secretions of Willow-Feeding Populations of the Leaf Beetle Chrysomela lapponica.

Authors:  Sven Geiselhardt; Monika Hilker; Frank Müller; Mikhail V Kozlov; Elena L Zvereva
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 2.626

8.  New Insights Into Dietary Toxin Metabolism: Diversity in the Ability of the Natricine Snake Rhabdophis tigrinus to Convert Toad-Derived Bufadienolides.

Authors:  Takato Inoue; Ryu Nakata; Alan H Savitzky; Naoko Yoshinaga; Akira Mori; Naoki Mori
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 2.626

9.  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

10.  Evolutionary and ecological processes influencing chemical defense variation in an aposematic and mimetic Heliconius butterfly.

Authors:  Anniina L K Mattila; Chris D Jiggins; Øystein H Opedal; Gabriela Montejo-Kovacevich; Érika C Pinheiro de Castro; W Owen McMillan; Caroline Bacquet; Marjo Saastamoinen
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.