Frequency-dependent taste-rejection by avian predation may select for defence chemical polymorphisms in aposematic prey

Biology Letters

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 500-503

  Skelhorn, John ^a   Rowe, Candy ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Domestic chick; Insect; Receiver psychology; Toxin; Warning signal

Indexed keywords

APOSEMATISM; CHEMICAL DEFENSE; EVOLUTION; PALATABILITY; POLYMORPHISM; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BIRD; CHICK; COLOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOWL; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; INSECT; NONHUMAN; PREDATION; PREDATOR; PREY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURVIVAL; TASTE;

ANIMALIA; AVES; HEXAPODA; INSECTA;

EID: 29144441034     PISSN: 17449561     EISSN: 1744957X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0359     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Blum, M. S. 1981 Chemical defenses of arthropods. New York: Academic Press.
2. Brower, L. P., Seiber, J. N., Nelson, C. J., Lynch, S. P. & Holland, M. M. 1984 Plant-determined variation in the cardenolide content, thin layer chromatography profiles, and emetic potency of monarch butterflies, Danaus plexipus L. reared on milkweed plants in California. J. Chem. Ecol. 10, 601-639. (doi:10.1007/BF00994224.)
3. Cott, H. B. 1940 Adaptive coloration in animals. London: Methuen.
4. Edmunds, M. 1974 Defense in animals. Harlow: Longman.
5. Eggenberger, F. & Rowell-Rahier, M. 1992 Genetic component of variation in chemical defense of Oreina gloriosa (coleopteran, chrysomelidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 18, 1375-1404. (doi:10.1007/BF00994363.)
6. de Jong, P. W., Holloway, G. J., Brakefield, P. M. & Vos, H. 1991 Chemical defense in the ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae). II. Amount of reflex fluid, the alkaloid adaline and individual variation in defense in 2-spot ladybirds (Adalia bipunctata). Chemoecology 2, 15-19. (doi:10.1007/BF01240661.)
7. Gamberale-Stille, G. & Guilford, T. 2004 Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: predator sample-and-reject behaviour may provide a solution. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, 2621-2625. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2893.)
8. Guilford, T. & Dawkins, M. S. 1991 Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim. Behav. 42, 1-14.
9. Marples, N. M., van Veelen, W. & Brakefield, P. M. 1994 The relative importance of colour, taste and smell in the protection of an aposematic insect Coccinella septempunctata. Anim. Behav. 48, 967-974. (doi:10.1006/anbe. 1994.1322.)
10. Pasteels, J. M. & Gregoire, J. C. 1984 Selective predation on chemically defended Chrysomelid larvae-a conditioning process. J. Chem. Ecol. 10, 1693-1700. (doi:10.1007/BF00987355.)
11. Pasteels, J. M., Dobler, S., Rowell-Rahier, M., Ehmke, A. & Hartmann, T. 1995 Distribution of autogenous and host-derived chemical defences in Oreina leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 21, 1163-1179.
12. Sillén-Tullberg, B. 1985 Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of distasteful bug. Oecologia 67, 411-415. (doi:10.1007/ BF00384948.)
13. Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. 2005 Tasting the difference: do multiple defense chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry? Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 339-345. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2953.)
14. Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. In press. Prey palatability influences predator learning and memory. Anim. Behav.
15. Wiklund, C. & Järvi, T. 1982 Survival of distasteful insects after being attacked by naïve birds: a reappraisal of the theory of aposematic coloration evolving through individual selection. Evolution 36, 998-1002.