Literature DB >> 30381376

Reciprocal mimicry: kin selection can drive defended prey to resemble their Batesian mimics.

Øistein Haugsten Holen1, Rufus A Johnstone2.   

Abstract

Established mimicry theory predicts that Batesian mimics are selected to resemble their defended models, while models are selected to become dissimilar from their mimics. However, this theory has mainly considered individual selection acting on solitary organisms such as adult butterflies. Although Batesian mimicry of social insects is common, the few existing applications of kin selection theory to mimicry have emphasized relatedness among mimics rather than among models. Here, we present a signal detection model of Batesian mimicry in which the population of defended model prey is kin structured. Our analysis shows for most of parameter space that increased average dissimilarity from mimics has a twofold group-level cost for the model prey: it attracts more predators and these adopt more aggressive attack strategies. When mimetic resemblance and local relatedness are sufficiently high, such costs acting in the local neighbourhood may outweigh the individual benefits of dissimilarity, causing kin selection to drive the models to resemble their mimics. This requires model prey to be more common than mimics and/or well-defended, the conditions under which Batesian mimicry is thought most successful. Local relatedness makes defended prey easier targets for Batesian mimicry and is likely to stabilize the mimetic relationship over time.
© 2018 The Author(s).

Keywords:  Batesian mimicry; imperfect mimicry; kin selection; predation; signal detection theory; social insects

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30381376      PMCID: PMC6235033          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.1149

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


  20 in total

1.  Some contributions of signal detection theory to the analysis of stimulus control in animals.

Authors:  D S. Blough
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2001-05-03       Impact factor: 1.777

2.  Inaccurate mimicry and predator ecology.

Authors:  K Reinhold; L Engqvist
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2004-08-21       Impact factor: 2.691

3.  The evolution of mimicry under constraints.

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

4.  Imperfect Batesian mimicry and the conspicuousness costs of mimetic resemblance.

Authors:  Michael P Speed; Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  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

6.  Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size.

Authors:  Sarah S Greenleaf; Neal M Williams; Rachael Winfree; Claire Kremen
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2007-05-05       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Territorial strategies in ants.

Authors:  B Hölldobler; C J Lumsden
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-11-14       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Coevolutionary chase in two-species systems with applications to mimicry.

Authors:  S Gavrilets; A Hastings
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1998-04-21       Impact factor: 2.691

9.  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

Review 10.  The evolution of Müllerian mimicry.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.