Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 228, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 217-226

  Sherratt, Thomas N ^a   Speed, Michael P ^b   Ruxton, Graeme D ^c  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Batesian mimicry; Hunger; M llerian mimicry; Palatability spectrum; State dependence; Toxins

Indexed keywords

TOXIN;

EVOLUTION; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; MIMICRY; NATURAL SELECTION; PALATABILITY; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; TOXIN;

ARTICLE; FORAGING; NATURAL SELECTION; NONHUMAN; PALATABILITY; PREDATOR; PREY; PREY SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; SELECTION (GENETICS);

EID: 1942485428     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2003.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bates H.W. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 23:1862;495-566.
2. Bellman R. Dynamic Programming. 1957;Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Benson W.W. On the supposed spectrum between Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. Evolution. 31:1977;454-455.
4. Brower L.P., Calvert W.H. Foraging dynamics of bird predators of overwintering Monarch butterflies in Mexico. Evolution. 39:1985;852-868.
5. Brower L.P., Ryerson W.N., Coppinger L.L., Glazier S.C. Ecological chemistry and the palatability spectrum. Science. 161:1968;1349-1351.
6. Chai P. Field observations and feeding experiments on the responses of rufous-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) to free-flying butterflies in a tropical rainforest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 29:1986;161-189.
7. Clark C.W., Mangel M. Dynamic State Variable Models in Ecology; Methods and Applications. 2000;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
8. DeRuiter L. Some remarks on problems of the ecology and evolution of mimicry. Arch. Neerland. Zool. 13(Suppl.):1959;351-368.
9. Dill L.M. Calculated risk taking by predators as a factor in batesian mimicry. Can J. Zool. 53:1975;1614-1621.
10. Fisher R.A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. 1930;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
11. Gelperin A. Feeding behaviour of the praying mantis. a learned modification Nature. 219:1968;399-400.
12. Gillette R., Huang R.-C., Hatcher N., Moroz L. Cost-benefit analysis potential in feeding behavior of a predator snail by integration of hunger, taste, and pain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 97:2000;3585-3590.
13. Greenwood J.J.D., Cotton P.A., Wilson D.M. Frequency-dependent selection on aposematic prey - some experiments. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 36:1989;213-226.
14. Hileman K.S., Brodie E.D., Formanowicz D.R. Avoidance of unpalatable prey by predaceous diving beetle larvae - the role of hunger level and experience (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). J. Insect Behav. 8:1995;241-249.
15. Holling C.S. The functional responses of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 45:1965;1-60.
16. Houston A.I., Clark C.W., McNamara J.M., Mangel M. Dynamic models in behavioural and evolutionary ecology. Nature. 332:1988;29-34.
17. Joron M., Mallet J.L.B. Diversity in mimicry. paradox or paradigm? Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:1998;461-466.
18. Kapan D.D. Three-butterfly system provides a field test of Mullerian mimicry. Nature. 409:2001;338-340.
19. Lindstrom L., Alatalo R.V., Lyytinen A., Mappes J. Strong antiapostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 98:2001;9181-9184.
20. MacDougall A., Dawkins M.S. Predator discrimination error and the benefits of Müllerian mimicry. Anim. Behav. 55:1998;1281-1288.
21. Mallet, J., 2001 ("1999"). Causes and consequences of a lack of coevolution in Müllerian mimicry. Evol. Ecol. 13, 777-806.
22. Mallet J., Barton N.H. Strong natural selection in a warning color hybrid zone. Evolution. 43:1989;421-431.
23. Mangel M., Clark C.W. Dynamic Modeling in Behavioral Ecology. 1988;Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
24. Marshall, G.A.K., 1902. Trans. Entomol. Soc. 1902, 344.
25. Marshall G.A.K. On diaposematism, with reference to some limitations of the Müllerian hypothesis of mimicry. Trans. Entomol. Soc. 1908:1908;93-142.
26. Muller F. Ueber die vortheile der mimicry bei schmetterlingen. Zool. Anz. 1:1878;54-55.
27. Müller, F., 1879. Ituna and Thyridia; a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Trans. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 1879, xx-xxix.
28. Nicholson A.J. Presidential address. A new theory of mimicry in insects. Aust. Zool. 5:1927;10-24.
29. Nijhout H.F. The Development and Evolution of Butterfly Wing Patterns. 1991; Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
30. Poulton E.B. The Colours of Animals. Their Meaning and Use: 1890; Trubner & Co. London, Kegan Paul, Trench.
31. Sexton O.J., Hoger C., Ortleb E. Anolis carolinensis. effects of feeding on reactions to aposematic prey Science. 153:1966;1140.
32. Sheppard P.M. Natural Selection and Heredity. 1975; Longman, London.
33. Sherratt T.N. State dependent risk taking in systems with defended prey. Oikos. 103:2003;93-100.
34. Smith R.L., Smith T.M. Ecology and Field Biology. 6th Edition:2001;Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.
35. Speed M.P. Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Anim. Behav. 45:1993;571-580.
36. Speed M.P. When is mimicry good for predators? Anim. Behav. 46:1993;1246-1248.
37. Speed M.P., Alderson N.J., Hardman C., Ruxton G D. Testing Müllerian mimicry. an experiment with wild birds Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 267:2000;725-731.
38. Srygley R.B., Kingsolver J.G. Red-wing blackbird reproductive behaviour and the palatability, flight performance, and morphology of temperate pierid butterflies (Colias, Pieris, and Pontia). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 64:1998;41-55.
39. Swynnerton, C.F.M., 1915. A brief preliminary statement of a few of the results of five years' special testing of the theories of mimicry. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Lond. I, xxxii-xliv.
40. Symula R., Schulte R., Summers K. Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in peruvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian mimicry hypothesis. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 268:2001;2415-2421.
41. Turner J.R.G. Mimicry. the palatability spectrum and its consequences Vane-Wright R.I., Ackery P.R. The Biology of Butterflies. Symposia of the Royal Entomological Society of London. 1984;141-161 Academic Press, London.
42. Turner J.R.G. The evolutionary dynamics of batesian and Müllerian mimicry. similarities and differences Ecol. Entomol. 12:1987;81-95.
43. Turner, J.R.G., Speed, M.P., 2001. ("1999"). How weird can mimicry get? Evol. Ecol. 13, 807-827.
44. Turner J.R.G., Kearney E.P., Exton L.S. Mimicry and the Monte Carlo predator. the palatability spectrum and the origins of mimicry Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 23:1984;247-268.
45. Wallace A.R. Contributions to the theory of natural selection. 2nd Edition:1871;MacMillan & Co. London.
46. Williamson C.E. The predatory behaviour of mesocyclops edax. predator preferences, prey defences and starvation-induced changes Limnol. Oceanogr. 25:1980;903-909.