Literature DB >> 34102889

Conspicuous animal signals avoid the cost of predation by being intermittent or novel: confirmation in the wild using hundreds of robotic prey.

Terry J Ord1, Katrina Blazek2, Thomas E White3, Indraneil Das4.   

Abstract

Social animals are expected to face a trade-off between producing a signal that is detectible by mates and rivals, but not obvious to predators. This trade-off is fundamental for understanding the design of many animal signals, and is often the lens through which the evolution of alternative communication strategies is viewed. We have a reasonable working knowledge of how conspecifics detect signals under different conditions, but how predators exploit conspicuous communication of prey is complex and hard to predict. We quantified predation on 1566 robotic lizard prey that performed a conspicuous visual display, possessed a conspicuous ornament or remained cryptic. Attacks by free-ranging predators were consistent across two contrasting ecosystems and showed robotic prey that performed a conspicuous display were equally likely to be attacked as those that remained cryptic. Furthermore, predators avoided attacking robotic prey with a fixed, highly visible ornament that was novel at both locations. These data show that it is prey familiarity-not conspicuousness-that determine predation risk. These findings replicated across different predator-prey communities not only reveal how conspicuous signals might evolve in high predation environments, but could help resolve the paradox of aposematism and why some exotic species avoid predation when invading new areas.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colourful ornamentation; conspicuous movement; dietary conservatism; robotics; signal generalization; warning signal

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34102889      PMCID: PMC8187999          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0706

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.530


  24 in total

Review 1.  Perspective: the evolution of warning coloration is not paradoxical.

Authors:  Nicola M Marples; David J Kelly; Robert J Thomas
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  Evolution of frequency-dependent mate choice: keeping up with fashion trends.

Authors:  Hanna Kokko; Michael D Jennions; Anne Houde
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Bat predation and the evolution of frog vocalizations in the neotropics.

Authors:  M D Tuttle; M J Ryan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1981-11-06       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Signal perception in frogs and bats and the evolution of mating signals.

Authors:  Karin L Akre; Hamilton E Farris; Amanda M Lea; Rachel A Page; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  An update of Wallace's zoogeographic regions of the world.

Authors:  Ben G Holt; Jean-Philippe Lessard; Michael K Borregaard; Susanne A Fritz; Miguel B Araújo; Dimitar Dimitrov; Pierre-Henri Fabre; Catherine H Graham; Gary R Graves; Knud A Jønsson; David Nogués-Bravo; Zhiheng Wang; Robert J Whittaker; Jon Fjeldså; Carsten Rahbek
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Social transmission of avoidance among predators facilitates the spread of novel prey.

Authors:  Rose Thorogood; Hanna Kokko; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 15.460

7.  The elaborate plumage in peacocks is not such a drag.

Authors:  Graham N Askew
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 3.312

8.  Conspicuous Plumage Does Not Increase Predation Risk: A Continent-Wide Test Using Model Songbirds.

Authors:  Kristal E Cain; Michelle L Hall; Illiana Medina; Ana V Leitao; Kaspar Delhey; Lyanne Brouwer; Anne Peters; Stephen Pruett-Jones; Michael S Webster; Naomi E Langmore; Raoul A Mulder
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 3.926

9.  Sexual selection, natural selection and the evolution of dimorphic coloration and ornamentation in agamid lizards.

Authors:  Devi M Stuart-Fox; Terry J Ord
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Interactions between background matching and motion during visual detection can explain why cryptic animals keep still.

Authors:  Christos C Ioannou; Jens Krause
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 3.703

View more
  2 in total

1.  The exploitation of sexual signals by predators: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Thomas E White; Tanya Latty; Kate D L Umbers
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 5.530

2.  Motion: enhancing signals and concealing cues.

Authors:  Eunice J Tan; Mark A Elgar
Journal:  Biol Open       Date:  2021-08-20       Impact factor: 2.422

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.