Literature DB >> 23256198

Disentangling taste and toxicity in aposematic prey.

Øistein Haugsten Holen1.   

Abstract

Many predators quickly learn to avoid attacking aposematic prey. If the prey vary in toxicity, the predators may alternatively learn to capture and taste-sample prey carefully before ingesting or rejecting them (go-slow behaviour). An increase in prey toxicity is generally thought to decrease predation on prey populations. However, while prey with a higher toxin load are more harmful to ingest, they may also be easier to recognize and reject owing to greater distastefulness, which can facilitate a taste-sampling foraging strategy. Here, the classic diet model is used to study the separate effects of taste and toxicity on predator preferences. The taste-sampling process is modelled using signal detection theory. The model is applicable to automimicry and batesian mimicry. It shows that when the defensive toxin is sufficiently distasteful, a mimicry complex may be less profitable to the predator and better protected against predation if the models are moderately toxic than if they are highly toxic. Moreover, taste mimicry can reduce the profitability of the mimicry complex and increase protection against predation. The results are discussed in relation to the selection pressures acting on prey defences and the evolution of mimicry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23256198      PMCID: PMC3574352          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2588

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


  26 in total

1.  The effect of alternative prey on the dynamics of imperfect Batesian and Müllerian mimicries.

Authors:  Leena Lindström; Rauno V Alatalo; Anne Lyytinen; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  The evolution of mimicry under constraints.

Authors:  Øistein Haugsten Holen; Rufus A Johnstone
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2004-09-29       Impact factor: 3.926

3.  Müllerian mimicry: an examination of Fisher's theory of gradual evolutionary change.

Authors:  Alexandra C V Balogh; Olof Leimar
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 4.  Peppers and poisons: the evolutionary ecology of bad taste.

Authors:  Graeme D Ruxton; Malcolm W Kennedy
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.091

5.  Aposematism and the handicap principle.

Authors:  Øistein Haugsten Holen; Thomas Owens Svennungsen
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.926

6.  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

7.  Sensory discrimination and its role in the evolution of Batesian mimicry.

Authors:  C J Duncan; P M Sheppard
Journal:  Behaviour       Date:  1965       Impact factor: 1.991

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

9.  Tasty on the outside, but toxic in the middle: grasshopper regurgitation and host plant-mediated toxicity to a vertebrate predator.

Authors:  Gregory A Sword
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2001-03-03       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 10.  The evolution of Müllerian mimicry.

Authors:  Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2008-06-10
View more
  7 in total

1.  Toxicity and taste: unequal chemical defences in a mimicry ring.

Authors:  Anne E Winters; Nerida G Wilson; Cedric P van den Berg; Martin J How; John A Endler; N Justin Marshall; Andrew M White; Mary J Garson; Karen L Cheney
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Reproduction in Risky Environments: The Role of Invasive Egg Predators in Ladybird Laying Strategies.

Authors:  Sarah C Paul; Judith K Pell; Jonathan D Blount
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Does spatial variation in predation pressure modulate selection for aposematism?

Authors:  S Tharanga Aluthwattha; Rhett D Harrison; Kithsiri B Ranawana; Cheng Xu; Ren Lai; Jin Chen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 2.912

4.  Defense against predators incurs high reproductive costs for the aposematic moth Arctia plantaginis.

Authors:  Carita Lindstedt; Kaisa Suisto; Emily Burdfield-Steel; Anne E Winters; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.671

5.  Avian predators taste reject mimetic prey in relation to their signal reliability.

Authors:  R He; E Pagani-Núñez; E Goodale; C R A Barnett
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Increased predation of nutrient-enriched aposematic prey.

Authors:  Christina G Halpin; John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  A matter of proportion? Associational effects in larval anuran communities under fish predation.

Authors:  Jan M Kaczmarek; Mikołaj Kaczmarski; Jan Mazurkiewicz; Janusz Kloskowski
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 3.225

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.