Literature DB >> 25392317

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

Craig A Barnett1, Melissa Bateson2, Candy Rowe2.   

Abstract

Toxic prey that signal their defences to predators using conspicuous warning signals are called 'aposematic'. Predators learn about the toxic content of aposematic prey and reduce their attacks on them. However, through regulating their toxin intake, predators will include aposematic prey in their diets when the benefits of gaining the nutrients they contain outweigh the costs of ingesting the prey's toxins. Predators face a problem when managing their toxin intake: prey sharing the same warning signal often vary in their toxicities. Given that predators should avoid uncertainty when managing their toxin intake, we tested whether European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) preferred to eat fixed-defence prey (where all prey contained a 2% quinine solution) to mixed-defence prey (where half the prey contained a 4% quinine solution and the other half contained only water). Our results support the idea that predators should be more 'risk-averse' when foraging on variably defended prey and suggest that variation in toxicity levels could be a form of defence.
© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  European starling; Sturnus vulgaris; aposematism; chemical defence; mimicry; variability

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25392317      PMCID: PMC4261854          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0533

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


  12 in total

1.  Growth and reproductive costs of larval defence in the aposematic lepidopteran Pieris brassicae.

Authors:  Andrew D Higginson; Jon Delf; Graeme D Ruxton; Michael P Speed
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 5.091

Review 2.  Plant secondary metabolites and vertebrate herbivores--from physiological regulation to ecosystem function.

Authors:  William J Foley; Ben D Moore
Journal:  Curr Opin Plant Biol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 7.834

3.  Investigating Müllerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences.

Authors:  E Ihalainen; L Lindström; J Mappes
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.411

4.  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

5.  Ecological chemistry and the palatability spectrum.

Authors:  L P Brower; W N Ryerson; L L Coppinger; S C Glazier
Journal:  Science       Date:  1968-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences.

Authors:  Hannah M Rowland; Eira Ihalainen; Leena Lindström; Johanna Mappes; Michael P Speed
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-07-05       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Economics of chemical defense in chrysomelinae.

Authors:  M Rowell-Rahier; J M Pasteels
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 2.626

8.  Predators' toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey.

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-08-23       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  The relationship between sympatric defended species depends upon predators' discriminatory behaviour.

Authors:  Christina G Halpin; John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  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

View more
  9 in total

1.  The signal detection problem of aposematic prey revisited: integrating prior social and personal experience.

Authors:  Liisa Hämäläinen; Rose Thorogood
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Condition dependence in biosynthesized chemical defenses of an aposematic and mimetic Heliconius butterfly.

Authors:  Anniina L K Mattila; Chris D Jiggins; Marjo Saastamoinen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 3.167

3.  The relationship between poison frog chemical defenses and age, body size, and sex.

Authors:  Adriana M Jeckel; Ralph A Saporito; Taran Grant
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 3.172

4.  The benefits of being toxic to deter predators depends on prey body size.

Authors:  Karen E Smith; Christina G Halpin; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 2.671

5.  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

6.  Defense sequestration associated with narrowing of diet and ontogenetic change to aposematic colours in the spotted lanternfly.

Authors:  Soorim Song; Shinae Kim; Sung Won Kwon; Sang-Im Lee; Piotr G Jablonski
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Temporal dynamics of the mimetic allele frequency at the doublesex locus, which controls polymorphic Batesian mimicry in Papilio memnon butterflies.

Authors:  Shinya Komata; Chung-Ping Lin; Teiji Sota
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.