Avian predators reject mimetic prey in terms of their signal reliability

0
  • Dall, SRX & Johnstone, RA Coping with Uncertainty: Information and Insurance Under the Risk of Starvation. philos. Trans. R. Soc. Long. B 3571519-1526 (2002).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Balogh, ACV, Gamberale-Silence, G. & Leimar, O. Learning and the mimicry spectrum: from quasi-Bates to super-Muller. Animation. behavior 761591-1599 (2008).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Barnett CA, Bateson M & Rowe C Better the devil you know: Avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive. biol. Latvian. 1020140533 (2014).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Ruxton, GD, Allen, WL, Sherratt, TN & Speed, MP Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Aposematism, and Mimicry 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2018).

    Book Google Scholar

  • Sherratt, TN Predator state-dependent risk-taking in systems with defended prey. Oikos 10393-100 (2003).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Sherratt, TN, Speed, MS & Ruxton, GD Natural selection for unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behavior. J. Theor. biol. 228217-226 (2004).

    MathSciNet article ADS Google Scholar

  • Gamberale-Stille, G. & Guilford, T. Automimicry Destabilizes Aposematism: Predator Sample-and-Reject Behavior May Offer a Solution. Proc. R. Soc. Long. B 2712621-2625 (2004).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Bird predators reject aposematic prey based on chemical defenses. biol. Latvian. 2348-350 (2006).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Automimic frequency affects foraging of raptors on aposematic prey. Animation. behavior 741563-1572 (2007).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Brower, JVZ Experimental Studies in Mimicry. IV. The reactions of starlings to different proportions of models and facial expressions. Am. nat. 94271-282 (1960).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Huheey, JE Studies in Warning Coloration and Mimicry VIII. Further Evidence for a Frequency-Dependent Predation Model. J. Herpetol. 14, 223-230 (1980).

  • Avery, ML Application of mimicry theory to bird damage control. J. Wildl. administer 491116-1121 (1985).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Nonacs, P. Foraging in a dynamic mimicry complex. Am. nat. 126165-180 (1985).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Rowland HM, Ihalainen E, Lindstrom L, Mappes J & Speed ​​MP Co-mimics have a mutual relationship despite unequal defenses. nature 44864-67 (2007).

    CAS article ADS Google Scholar

  • Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. The toxin load of predators influences their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. act. biol. 171479-1483 (2007).

    CAS article Google Scholar

  • Jones, RS, Davis, SC & Speed, MP defense cheats can break the protection of chemically defended prey. ethology 11952-57 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Guilford, T. “Go-slow” signaling and the problem of automimicry. J. Theor. biol. 170311-316 (1994).

    Article ADS Google Scholar

  • Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Taste rejection by predators and the evolution of unpalatability in prey. behavior Ecol. social biology 60550-555 (2006).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Chatelain, M., Halpin, CG & Rowe, C. Ambient temperature influences birds’ decision to eat venomous prey. Animation. behavior 86733-740 (2013).

    CAS article Google Scholar

  • Peel, MC, Finlayson, BL & McMahon, TA Updated World Map of Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification. hydrol. earth system Science. 111633-1644 (2007).

    Article ADS Google Scholar

  • Yamazaki, Y., Pagani-Núñez, E., Sota, T. & Barnett CRA The truth is in the details: Predators attack aposematic prey less intensely than other prey types. biol. J Linn society. 131, 332-343 (2020).

  • Valkonnen, JK et al. Fluctuations in the abundance of predator species can lead to differential selection pressures on alert prey. Ecol. development 21971-1976 (2011).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Nokelainen, O., Valkonen, J., Lindstedt, C. & Mappes, J. Changes in predator community structure alter the effectiveness of two warning signals in arctiid moths. J. Anim. Ecol. 83598-605 (2014).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Bibby, CJ, Burgess, ND, Hill, DA &. Mustoe SH Bird Counting Techniques (2nd Edition). (Academic Press, London, 2000).

  • Tsujimoto, D., Lin, C.-H., Kurihara, N. & Barnett, CRA Citizen Science in the Classroom: The Consistency of Data Collected by Students and Its Value in Testing Ecological Hypotheses. Ornithological Science. 1839-47 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting mixed-effects linear models with lme4. J.Stat. software 671-48 (2015).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Rainey, C. Dealing with Separation in Logistic Regression Models. political Anal. 24339-355 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized mixed-effects linear models. Meth.Ecol. development 4133-142 (2012).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Hothorn, T. Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometric. J 50, 346-363 (2008).

  • Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. Ape 5.0: An Environment for Modern Phylogenetics and Evolutionary Analysis in R bioinformatics 35, 526-528 (2019).

  • Barnett, CRA, Ringhofer, M. & Suzuki, TN Differences in predatory behavior of three bird species when attacking chemically defended and undefended prey. J. Ethol. 3929-37 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Carroll, J. & Sherratt, TN A direct comparison of the effectiveness of two anti-predation strategies under field conditions. J Zool. 291279-285 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Cancer, CJ Ecological Methodology (2nd edition). (Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA, 1999).

  • Oksanen, J. Vegan: Community Ecology Pack. (2020).

  • Core R development team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL http://www.Rproject.org (2017).

  • Marples, NM, Speed, MP & Thomas, RJ An individual profitability spectrum for understanding the interactions between predators and their prey. biol. J Linn society 1251-13 (2018).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Boyden, T.C. Palatability and imitation of butterflies: experiments with anole lizards. evolution 3073-81 (1976).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Järvi, T., Sillén-Tullberg, B. & Wiklund, C. The cost of aposematics. An experimental study of the predation of the larvae of Papilio machaon by the great tit Parus major. Oikos 36, 267-272 (1981).

  • Wiklund, C. & Järvi, T. Survival of tasteless insects after attack by naive birds: a reappraisal of the aposematic coloration that evolves through individual selection. evolution 36998-1002 (1982).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Pinheiro, CEG & Campos, VC Red-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) play with aposematic butterflies. ornite neotropic. 241-3 (2013).

    Google Scholar

  • Halpin, CG & Rowe, C. The effect of distaste and conspicuous coloration on post-attack predator defensive behavior and prey survival. biol. J Linn society 120236-244 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  • Sillén-Tullberg, B. Higher survival of an aposematic than a cryptic form of an unpleasant bug. ecology 67411-415 (1985).

    Article ADS Google Scholar

  • Fischer, R.A The genetic theory of natural selection (Clarenden Press, 1930).

    Book Google Scholar

  • Chai, P. Field observations and feeding experiments on the responses of red-tailed jacamar butterflies in a tropical rainforest. biol. J Linn society 29161-189 (1986).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Wang, L.-Y., Huang, W.-S., Tang, H.-C., Huang, L.-C. & Lin, C.-P. Too Hard to Swallow: A secret secondary defense of an aposematic insect. J. Exp. biol. 221jeb172486 (2018).

    PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Summers, K., Speed, MP, Blount, JD & Stuckert, AMM Are aposematic signals honest? A review. J Evolution. biol. 281583-1599 (2015).

    CAS article Google Scholar

  • Fetch, O. H. Disentanglement of taste and toxicity in aposematic prey. Proc. R. Soc. B 28020122588 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Speed, MP & Franks, DW Antagonistic evolution in an aposematic predator-prey system. evolution 682996-3007 (2014).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Share.

    Comments are closed.