Notes and comments: Body plan of consumed organisms influences ecological range of consumers through neural processing bias

American Naturalist

Volumn 171, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 267-273

  Tosh, Colin R ^a,b   Ruxton, Graeme D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ecological range; Generalist; Neural network; Sensory processing; Specialist

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; COGNITION; COMMUNITY RESPONSE; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FOOD CONSUMPTION; GENERALIST; NERVOUS SYSTEM; SENSORY SYSTEM; SPECIALIST;

ANIMALIA;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FOOD CHAIN; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FOOD CHAIN; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 40049101585     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/524962     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Andren, H., A. Delin, and A. Seiler. 1997. Population response to landscape changes depends on specialization to different landscape elements. Oikos 80:193-196.
2. Barto, A. J. 1995. Reinforcement learning. Pages 804-809 in M. Arib, ed. The handbook of brain theory and neural networks. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
3. Berenbaum, M. R. 1996. Introduction to the symposium: on the evolution of specialization. American Naturalist 148(suppl.):S78-S83.
4. Bernays, E. A. 1999. When host choice is a problem for a generalist herbivore: experiments with the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Ecological Entomology 24:260-267.
5. _. 2001. Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annual Review of Entomology 46:703-727.
6. Bernays, E. A., and D. J. Funk. 1999. Specialists make faster decisions than generalists: experiments with aphids. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266:151-156.
7. Bernays, E. A., and M. Graham. 1988. On the evolution of host specificity in phytophagous arthropods. Ecology 69:886-892.
8. Brouat, C., H. Chevallier, S. Meusnier, T. Noblecourt, and J. Y. Rasplus. 2004. Specialization and habitat: spatial and environmental effects on abundance and genetic diversity of forest generalist and specialist Carabus species. Molecular Ecology 13:1815-1826.
9. Cleary, D. F. R. 2003. An examination of scale of assessment, logging and ENSO-induced fires on butterfly diversity in Borneo. Oecologia (Berlin) 135:313-321.
10. Dall, S. R. X., and I. C. Cuthill. 1997. The information costs of generalism. Oikos 80:197-202.
11. Egan, S. P., and D. J. Funk. 2006. Individual advantages to ecological specialization: insights on cognitive constraints from three conspecific taxa. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273:843-848.
12. Enquist, M., and A. Arak. 1993. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature 361:446-448.
13. _. 1994. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372:169-172.
14. Futuyma, D. J., and G. Moreno. 1988. The evolution of ecological specialization. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:207-233.
15. Harcourt, A. H., S. A. Coppeto, and S. A. Parks. 2002. Rarity, specialization and extinction in primates. Journal of Biogeography 29:445-456.
16. Holmgren, N. M. A., and W. M. Getz. 2000. Evolution of host plant selection in insects under perceptual constraints: a simulation study. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2:81-106.
17. Jaenike, J. 1990. Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21:243-273.
18. Janz, N., and S. Nylin. 1997. The role of female search behaviour in determining host plant range in plant feeding insects: a test of the information processing hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 264:701-707.
19. Jiang, L., and P. J. Morin. 2005. Predator diet breadth influences the relative importance of bottom-up and top-down control of prey biomass and diversity. American Naturalist 165:350-363.
20. Joshi, J., and K. Vrieling. 2005. The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecology Letters 8:704-714.
21. Julliard, R., J. Clavel, V. Devictor, F. Jiguet, and D. Couvet. 2006. Spatial segregation of specialists and generalists in bird communities. Ecology Letters 9:1237-1244.
22. Kassen, R. 2002. The experimental evolution of specialists, generalists, and the maintenance of diversity. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15:173-190.
23. Kenward, B., C. A. Wachtmeister, S. Ghirlanda, and M. Enquist. 2004. Spots and stripes: the evolution of repetition in visual signal form. Journal of Theoretical Biology 230:407-419.
24. Mazzoni, P., R. A. Andersen, and M. I. Jordan. 1991. A more biologically plausible learning rule for neural networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 88:4433-4437.
25. Mitchell, M. 1996. An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
26. Owens, I. P. F., and P. M. Bennett. 2000. Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 97:12144-12148.
27. Rolls, E. T., and G. Deco. 2002. Computational neuroscience of vision. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
28. Tosh, C. R., G. Powell, and J. Hardie. 2003. Decision making by generalist and specialist aphids with the same genotype. Journal of Insect Physiology 49:659-669.
29. Tripet, F., P. Christe, and A. P. Møller. 2002. The importance of host spatial distribution for parasite specialization and speciation: a comparative study of bird fleas (Siphonaptera: Ceratophyllidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 71:735-748.
30. vanderMeijden, E. 1996. Plant defence, an evolutionary dilemma: contrasting effects of (specialist and generalist) herbivores and natural enemies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 80:307-310.